Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

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

---

BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Slavery (edit | 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 [1]. 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,[2] 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: [3] 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 [4] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [5] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [6] 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: [7], [8],[9],[10],[11],[12]) 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 [13] 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 [14]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [15] 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 [[16]]. 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 [[17]], 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, [[18]], 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 [[19]]. Or this [[20]] 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 [21] 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)

• Comment: BH's POV WP:BLUDGEON continues at Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, ignoring responses, repeating the same arguments, this entire thread is a timesink.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 7 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 [22],[23] on the same page where they did it before: [24], [25],[26],[27],[28]. 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 ([29]), ([30]), 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 [31], 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 ([32] [33] [34] [35]).

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: [36] 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 [37], 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)
• Note to closer: Further !votes are in the following subsections and should be counted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Having reviewed this, appears to be a content dispute, not a behavioural issue requiring sanctions. Wouldn't mind a two-week cool-down IBAN between the two users, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• This became a mess, again. I agree with opposers above that this is a content dispute. I think a temporary IBAN between BunnyyHop and Des Vallee is the best way forward here. pandakekok9 (talk) 08:57, 2 March 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)
  • This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no such equivalency here from the 'sides'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 20 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)
  PS: I say this even partially agreeing [38] with BunnyHop that at some of the article(s) in question, we would do better to distinguish between chattel slavery and other forms of forced labor. Being correct about one thing doesn't make BH's general approach to WP productive/collaborative and neutrally encyclopedic. There's just way too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING and WP:CIVILPOV approach being brought by BH. I don't feel that it's improved in the interim; see, e.g., the entire Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour thread (permalink).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 28 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: [39], [40]. 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 [41]
• 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 [42]
• 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: [43]
• Using extermely biased primary sources to push POV [44]
• Misleading edit summaries to add maintenance tags for material that doesn't fit their POV [45]

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". [46] 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)

It shouldn't bother you, because this is not the place to discuss content -- that's article talk pages -- it's the place to discuss behavior, specifically your behavior in blatantly pushing a pro-Communist PoV. If Bunnyyhop is going to be a productive editor, I think it has to be outside of his PoV subject area, so I think a topic ban from Marxism, communism, and socialism, broadly construed, as proposed above is a good idea. It's also time to stop them from WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion with walls of text and constant replies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved discussion material to Talk:Slavery#Clarification, and we'll see how to it goes now. I don't see how trying to strip blatant (imo) WP:OR based on editors' opinions amounts to pro-Communist POV pushing. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• BH continues to edit war against consensus, claiming consensus for their changes which does not exist, removing content and moving content to inappropriate sections. Other editors @My very best wishes, Crossroads, Horse Eye's Back, and Des Vallee: and I believe Levivich have objected to this but they continue. See [47], [48], [49], [50]. There comment on the talk page [51] is another attempt at justifying their POV pushing (as well as completely dishonest) and an example of why a NOTHERE CIR block is needed.  // Timothy :: talk  22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Looking further, I think @SMcCandlish and Beyond My Ken: also object to this change by BH and another editor {u|Arccosecant}} has now rv'd the change, which by my count makes eight objecting editors.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• TimothyBlue's BRD misuse and reverting solely due to no consensus: 1 2

I used the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences by Elsevier, a prestiged encyclopedia 1 2 3 4 (2001 & 2015), to include «[...] and various states in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World during the [[Cold War]» in the lead, to which Timothy reverted with an (absurd) edit summary: «POV edit unsupported by secondary sources. discuss on talk page and gain consensus».

I removed a sentence that had a (fake) source, that is, not backed by the source included - as everyone can verify by clicking the Google Books link I included in the edit summary, and it was reverted due to «Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources. Discuss on talk with secondary sources per BRD».

In this word spaghetti and probable gaslighting (ironically, this is where WP:CIR applies), it's comic that the latter one mentions exactly the reason of the removal as a justification to revert: unsupported by its source. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Encyclopedias are not secondary sources and other editors have objected to your POV edit. There is no consensus and BRD is appropriate. You boldly added content, I reverted it based on no consensus and weight, and started a discussion on the talk page per BRD.  // Timothy :: talk  03:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue:, I find this an interesting example. In the diff shown, BunnyyHop added that the term "communist states" included countries in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World. You reverted him with an edit summary calling that a "POV edit unsupported by secondary sources". While I agree that Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources, it is also a fact that Yugoslavia and Cuba (both labelled as "communist states") were official members of the Non-Aligned Movement. (In fact, as the article on the Non-Aligned Movement states, it was founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.) So obviously there were communist states in the Non-Aligned Movement and in the Third World. So I don't think it made sense for you to revert, but also you labelled this a "POV edit" - what do you see as POV about it? The only explanation you're providing at the talk page is that BunnyyHop is "POV-pushing" [52]. Is that not a false accusation? How does that not look aggressive and completely uncalled-for? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that Cuba was non-aligned is laughable, (start with the Cuban Missle Crisis and go from there). Yugoslavia relations with the Soviet Union and other communist states varied, but they were clearly aligned with the communist bloc for most of their history. They joined the NAM to access western aid.

If a consensus emerges that I am incorrect, I wills self revert per BRD. // Timothy :: talk  04:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Right, but there is a difference between being "non-aligned" and being in the "Non-Aligned Movement"; a country may be non-aligned and in the Non-Aligned Movement (Yugoslavia) or aligned and in the Non-Aligned Movement (Cuba). Looks like a content dispute. IMHO, there was no reason to revert with that edit summary. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm unsure why you tried to close this thread. Everyone is being scrutinized here, both the reporters and the defenders.

I believe Timothy's reply above is a good example of the conflation of editors' opinion and action going on on these reverts. The fact that this encyclopedia is WP:SCHOLARSHIP and therefore WP:RELIABLE is completely ignored, and Timothy bases himself on a non-existent Wiki rule that encyclopedias should not be used. In fact, it's the opposite - in contentious topics it «may be helpful in evaluating due weight». These replies, both here and on the talk page, are WP:FORUM-styled responses. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To BunnyyHop Your POV editing has not stopped, you are only here for advocacy. I am retired from Wikipedia, however your actions most recently proves this. Most recently you have removed cited material on the article Slavery and stated having a criticisms section is "undue," and remove sections of Anti-authoritarian left. The section you are attempting to gaslight into being "neutral" is text copy pasted from the Encyclopedia of Social sciences the direct wording being "The success of the Bolshevik comrades and Russian independence from exploitative monetary systems," a cherry picked source from a pro-Stalinist, you also trying to gaslight in defense of your actions stating "The revolution requires Tthe liquidation of the hostile classes." BunnyyHop's complete bludgeoning of text into claiming this is neutral is beyond me, and just demonstrates he will do anything to defend his actions, no matter how wrong they be. Des Vallee (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Since "retiring" (after an article ban for edit warring) you've been reverting to hide ANI discussion that I have specifically asked to not hat [53]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb Great case, to make personal attacks to me, really helps you in defending BunnyyHop to his dying breaths. A couple things, it's not a topic ban it's a single page what you are saying is objectively wrong. You told in an edit summary an excellent method of delivery, and you are the one who is adamant about this, three other editors have reverted you. Des Vallee (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out that you were blocked from an article, just a few days ago, for edit warring, is not a "personal attack" on you. And no, "three other editors" have not reverted me. May I suggest that editors who are involved leave it to the uninvolved admins to determine what is or isn't relevant? What was the point of announcing "retirement" if you're going to continue to participate? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tally of discussion so far (not an admin)

This is note a vote, but because the discussions itself was becoming long, I decided to at least summarize where people stand so far. Feel free to correct below if I made any mistakes, or remove/add your name accordingly.

Support TBAN for BunnyHop

• Crossroads
• My very best wishes
• Des Vallee, the ANI reporter
• TimothyBlue
• JPxG per WP:NOTHERE
• KIENGIR supports any sanction majority supports
• SMcCandlish
• Beyond My Ken per WP:BLUDGEON behaviour amongst other
• Shushugah Support TBAN. I initially agreed this was a content dispute, however WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and some time to WP:COOL off would do good for this project.

Oppose TBAN for BunnyHop

• buidhe per standard content dispute
• Zloyvolsheb, supports TBAN for Des Vallee, TimothyBlue instead
• Nixinova
• The_Four_Deuces
• Vincentvikram
• Aquillion
• Dimadick

For full clarity, I am not an admin. Shushugah (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer: Shushugah does not appear to have !voted above; this here is their !vote and should be counted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue: WP:BOOMERANG?

Nothing to see here. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Relating to the above discussion. At Communist state: [54] BunnyyHop removes "The socio-economic nature of communist states, especially that of the Soviet Union as the first prominent example of a communist state, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production" which cited Sandle, Mark (1999). A Short History of Soviet Socialism. London: UCL Press. pp. 265–266. Edit summary "https://books.google.com/books?id=T_aNAgAAQBAJ pp. 265-266 do NOT mention any of this" [55] TimothyBlue restores the same text and citation to Mark Sandle. Edit summary: "Undid revision 1009137963 by BunnyyHop (talk) Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources. Discuss on talk with secondary sources per BRD" I was able to locate the book online at the Internet Archive. Link: [56]. There is indeed nothing on pages 265-266 that would support this content. We see an editor falsely accused of "POV-pushing" for removing falsely-sourced text and the accuser restores a misrepresented citation. I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC) You're not even discussing the right page numbers here. And proposing this for one edit is preposterous. Admins should weigh this obvious vendetta when evaluating your !vote above. Crossroads -talk- 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I am discussing the right pages, actually. (Page numbered 265 begins with "By the mid-1970s, the practice of popular participation and over-sight...") There's no vendetta; I don't think I've interacted with Timothy prior to February 2021. I wish him and Des Vallee all the best. I am just appalled by what's going on here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) When I wrote my reply your post said pages 255-256. Oh, and I obviously oppose this ridiculous proposal. Crossroads -talk- 05:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) It might be worth mentioning just for the record that although Timothy never edited this article before, my edits were reverted two hours later. --BunnyyHop (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Zloyvolsheb This is obviously an attempt for retaliation, see WP:BATTLEGROUND, attempting to retaliate against other editors is never a good idea. Moreover TimothyBlue is an excellent contributor who has contributed excellently to Wikipedia, especially to soviet articles. This is simply retaliatory nonsense. Des Vallee (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Diffs vs. insinuations. Please stop. I can't remember interacting with you or TimothyBlue prior to this ANI thread, so I have no need to "retaliate" over any supposed personal grudge. Please look at WP:CLEANHANDS: "Make sure your hands are clean: You're looking for an administrator who wants to do justice, but to receive justice you must have been just." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Could all three of you please WP:DROPTHESTICK. All three of you had a chance to present differing evidence and make your points. Adding more comments at this point doesn't aid the discussion, but instead makes it more difficult to read. Let uninvolved editors come to a community decision now. Shushugah (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC) It's on page 202, last paragraph. Levivich harass/hound 17:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @Levivich: Yes, that does refer to the "Stalinist system" as possibly "a variant of state capitalism, state socialism, bureaucratic collectivism" etc. If Timothy had reviewed this text, he should have explained and provided an updated citation. Instead he reverted, accused his opponent of "POV pushing" and restored the same citation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC) While I agree the content shouldn't have been restored without verifying the page number first, I also think the content should not have been removed in the first place solely because of an inaccurate page number in the citation. Nor should this have been brought to ANI. Three wrongs don't make a right, although three lefts do. (And three leftists make a communist state.) Levivich harass/hound 18:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC) No, three leftists make three leftist political parties and five splinter parties, one of which becomes fascist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Only Reply: This is petty retaliation posted after I mentioned I would be in the hospital with limited ability to respond for a week [57], which Z acknowledged [58] and then curiously removed [59] before posting this. I believe this was brought here by Z knowing I'd have a hard time replying, and removed their acknowledgement so they could deny knowing I'd have a hard time replying (I am) and this boomerang would distract from the real issue - BH's editing. I might be a cranky old man, but I am not a problem editor in anyway; BH has only ~1,400 edits (majority in talk/project): this ANI, the previous ANI, plus the talk page discussions show BH has been very problematic and a NOTHERE timesink. I should have updated the page number. In the edit summary, I cite BRD, then started a discussion on the talk page. What I did was proper. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, almost all related to communism, communist states, and human rights. A quick look at my contribs will show I edit in this area every day and I revert edits in this area all the time. I'm going to see BH's problematic edits; I ignore most of them.  // Timothy :: talk  04:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC) "This is petty retaliation posted after I mentioned I would be in the hospital with limited ability to respond for a week, which Z acknowledged and then curiously removed before posting this" You know what? This is personal, unnecessary, and completely illustrative of your bad faith. You even found that I "curiously removed" (!) a friendly remark I moved a paragraph up. That's what I find curious. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I hope Timothy gets better soon and he should ignore this until he's well recovered because this is not important. It looks like Timothy misread that diff as a removal of text instead of moving text, but that's understandable if he's editing while hospitalized. What I find curious is this: On Feb 28 Timothy posts just an fyi, I'll be in medical treatment next week with poor internet access, so I might not reply quickly after this morning. [60]. The next day, March 1, Zloyvolsheb replies Good luck with your treatment. [61]. Then five hours later, Zloyvolsheb posts this boomerang proposal at ANI (I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG) [62], based on a diff from two days prior (Feb 27) [63]. Levivich harass/hound 05:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Levivich: A few points: 1. I took "I might not reply quickly after this morning" as meaning I will reply, but not very quickly. (If I have no internet access, I'll say I will have no internet access and may not reply next week, not that my reply might be slow.) 2. Timothy did not say that he would be "hospitalized" - he said he would be "in medical treatment" after that morning. [64] Are these synonymous in the English language? If so, I wasn't aware. I posted the diff in this section as soon as I found it at the article, which was the same morning [65]. (Given the possibility of differences in time zones, my morning may have been his evening - that I really don't know for sure.) 3. I can't assume that ANI would wait indefinitely. If I believe that Editor A is trying to unfairly go after Editor B at ANI and has clearly been disruptive themselves, I want to make that clear at ANI as quickly as possible, as I don't want to wait until Editor B has been treated in an unfair way. And so, I wished Timothy well at 1:42, found the aforementioned diffs around 6:03 and, after thinking through the considerations above, reproduced those diffs here at 6:42. I did so assuming that uninvolved participants could look at those diffs objectively, even if for some reason Timothy couldn't participate. (Though, as I was expecting, he did participate.) And yet again, Timothy attempts to argue about other people's intentions. His evidence of my malevolence in this "retaliation" is that I wished him well. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Reply: Zloyvolsheb I striked my inaccurate comment above. You did not remove your well wishes as I thought. While some of my comment stands, the part about you removing your well wishes was completely incorrect. I apologize, and frankly am a bit ashamed I made the accusation about your kind comment without making absolutely sure I was correct. btw thank you and Levivich both for your kind words about my health, things are rough but I will get through WP is a helpful distraction, even if this is unpleasant.  // Timothy :: talk  17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I promised not to make more comments here, sorry for the extreme rare exception in exceptional times. First of all I wish you much health and earliest remedy, on the other hand, it was completely rude to open a boomerang section on you just after you announced you might be missing, and even thrilling after a goodwish (nota bene). I don't like what's going on here :( (Pulling out now for good, indeed accusing you with boomerang is completely ridiculous)(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)) @TimothyBlue: Thank you for apologizing. I sincerely wish you the best. This isn't a blood sport. The point of my "boomerang" was to draw attention to everyone's conduct to prevent a one-sided "justice", but my hope is that this ANI report is promptly closed and everyone returns to editing without penalties for anyone. In the end, this is a content dispute, and not more than that. If we stay focused on the good of the project and remain considerate of others' points of view, no one will "win" but all shall be well. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) That's a whole bunch of bullshit. The point of your boomerang proposal was not to draw attention to everyone's conduct, just Timothy's, and it was not your hope yesterday that this ANI report be closed promptly without sanctions; rather quite the opposite, as you delayed its closing by opening up another request for sanctions. You still haven't really addressed the part where you opened an ANI thread against someone at a time you knew they would be unavailable because they are receiving medical treatment. The only proper response for you here is: "Sorry, that was a bad move on my part", followed by striking the entirety of your report. Levivich harass/hound 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose boomerang - For the record, I see absolutely no justification for a boomerang block for TimothyBlue and would suggest that this section be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken:: I disagree with suggestion of closing off the section, but I also did not propose a block or tban here to be voted on. The point is to request an evaluation of the behavior of all participants by the closing admin. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Baloney. You were floating a trial balloon for a boomerang block, and it's been shot down. No one has supported you, so there's no need for this section to remain open. Stop Wikilawyering, it's not making you look good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC) We can return to what I said. Are you implying there is no need for that evaluation? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC) This section SHOULD stay open as it's analogous to the bad behavior I was initially accused of - and Timothy has become one of the most fervent pushers for my block, going as far as opening an ArbCom request while this ANI is opened. Furthermore, the type of response given in the edit summary, which does NOT match AT ALL with content removal - "Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources" - is also curious, as the content might've NOT even been looked at as it should, and bad faith was assumed right away. Timothy should acknowledge his mistake, apologize, and move on. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC) *Comment: This boomerang is nonsense and retaliation, created as a distraction from real issues with BH; admins should act accordingly. Anyone can look at my contributions, experienced editors know I'm a good editor. The real issue here is BH's editing and it needs to be seriously looked as by experienced editors (including this thread, the previous ANI and its closing comments, and talk pages mentioned). If this is closed without action, BH will be emboldened to continue (BH ignored @Drmies and Sandstein: comments in the last close), and we'll all be back for a third round. Also note BH has a new section on their userpage for "Expand - C/E - Translate" - this prospect alone is a very bad omen for what will come if this is not addressed; we'll be back discussing if their "translations" are accurate or are POV translations, which will make these two root canals look like a day at the beach. Consider this all has been done by BH with less than 1500 edits in a short period of time. BH needs a topic ban from articles related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed (including communist states, parties, etc).  // Timothy :: talk  07:45, 4 March 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 [66][67] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [68] 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: [69] 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: [70] 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 ([71], [72], & [73]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [74][75] and have been uncivil. [76]

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: [77] 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": [78]

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: [79]

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: [80]
• 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [81]
• 2 December 2018, American politics: [82]
• 5 August 2018, BLP: [83]
• 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [84]

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

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [85][86] This one was very nearly a violation: [87]

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 [88] is not a personal attack? This [89] much like this [90] 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. [91] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [92][93] —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)

• WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The attempts of you both to push a 'both sides' whataboutist narrative are quite transparent. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 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: [94] 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: [95] 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. [96][97][98][99][100]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [101][102][103][104] 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)

  Again: Observing your behavior and that it is anti-collaborative, uncivil, and disruptive requires no assumptions about your faith, only observation that is what it is. I in fact believe your are acting entirely in good faith, of the WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH sort. An apparent belief that you are fighting the good fight doesn't magically make your behavior civil, collaborative, and constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 28 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)

  To the contrary, it's a stressy ass-pain, in which we'll have one energy-sucking pile of drama only to have it do nothing useful, and then we'll get to do it all over again later at a more practical venue later. ANI has turned into pretty much a useless waste of time (and worse, just a noise factory), except for dealing with obvious nuts, socks, trolls, and spammers. It is no longer capable of handling issues relating to behavior of long-term editors. But be careful what you ask for. Since your recalcitrance and game-playing indicate a high probability you'll end up at AE or RfArb soon enough, I've already started this diff research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Everybody needs a hobby. Have fun. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  You can't have it both ways; either you want to be diffed in detail or you don't. More to the point, see first law of holes. The very fact that WP is our hobby but your behavior (and your own demands in regard to concerns about your behavior) necessitates putting that constructive hobby on hold to deal with your disruption, and you think this is funny, is in and of itself reason enough for remedies against you. WP thrives on collaborative and neutral-minded editing, and is harmed by "just try to stop me" gadfly behavior, which becomes more and more difficult to distinguish from everyday trolling the longer it continues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and you think this is funny... More not-mind reading, I see. In fact I welcome any opportunity to improve my behavior. But that requires actual evidence of poor behavior. My comment about it being "convenient" was in regard to your feeling that presenting diffs here is not worth your time, which conveniently frees you from having to back up your vague WP:ASPERSIONS. There comes a point where you have to put up or shut up, lest you become disruptive yourself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[105]] "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: [106] 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)
• The diffs raised in the initial complaint, while terse, do not quite rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't think anything useful is going to come out of the additional feuding between Sangdeboeuf and Crossroads here at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Preservedmoose

• Preservedmoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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? [107] 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.[108]
2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[109] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[110]

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[111][112] 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)

Topic ban/block proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to Armenia and Iran for Preservedmoose. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to support a block as well as the persistent violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA are simply unacceptable. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support block It's warranted by the behavior. ~ HAL333 18:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, evidence presented indicates proxy editing for banned editor Biainili.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 1 March 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)

• As I mentioned in my comment below, under topic ban, I do not believe that David's pledge not to edit the article or any article is sufficeint even if expanded as suggested. He is active on the talk page discussion and should not weigh in there to influence selection of sources or other substantive issues. Editors involved in off-wiki controversies should steer clear of articles on that controversy, full stop, and that should apply doubly for administrators, who are supposed to be role models for other editors and held to a higher standard. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is false to say that he is "active" in the talk page discussion. He hasn't edited the talk page in a week. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard edited the talk page on 21 February and ceased editing shortly after, although he did make a single edit on 22 February. I assume he is dealing with real life concerns. This discussion should stay open until David Gerard has the chance to reply here. Mo Billings (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• He is by far the most active editor on the talk page, one week absence notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• He is also by far the top editor of the article itself. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong) Reviewing David Gerard's edits on a closely related page, LessWrong, *I found another, more extreme instance of the same behavior*. In this diff, David takes a section he wrote and inserts a cite to this book review of the book Neoreaction: A Basilisk, marking the edit "add more RSes on neoreaction claim". David Gerard was a major contributor to that book. He then edit-warred over that section and defended specific language quoted from it in the Talk page, without ever disclosing that the "RS" is a review of a book he himself researched and edited. At no point did David Gerard ever disclose a conflict of interest of interest of any kind. A review of his other edits on that page shows lots of other tendentious editing as well. The proposed topic ban is too narrow, as written. Jimrandomh (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• The author of the piece in question, Phil Sandifer, was previously banned from Wikipedia. 135.180.133.204 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (Oops, this is me, didn't mean to sign as an IP - Jimrandomh (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

• A comment thread from 2017 on David Gerard’s editing of the LessWrong article is highly relevant to this discussion, as well as another more recent thread. — Mark Otaris (talk) 08:57, 5 March 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:[113] 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:[114] --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)
    • Update to that: the RSN discussion fizzled out and was archived without a formal close. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 2 March 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)
  • Change to Support. Everybody go read Wug's comment below. What particularly swayed me is that it's been almost two weeks without answers to the simplest questions, even when the answers were spoon-fed. No editor, admin or otherwise, is above addressing the community's concerns about their editing, especially about BLPs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 4 March 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:[115] 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)[116] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. - Scarpy (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose He recused himself, and this ends the matter. Pursuing this further serves no purpose other than sating the blood thirst of adamant fans, which I think on principle we shouldn't do. Mvolz (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban applicable to mainspace and talk pages in the subject area, and a review of the article by uninvolved editors for POV one way or the other. The user is an administrator and should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard, and subject to more stringent steps, than otherwise might occur. It's amazing that this ANI thread is necessary in the first place. This kind of COI editing brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I just wanted to add that I made this comment on the basis of the comments above, and was not aware that page logs indicate that, by number of edits, David Gerard is far and away the top editor of both the article itself and the talk page. He made 26% of article edits[117] and 39% of talk page edits [118], by far the most active of any editor. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Merely having a COI has never been grounds for preventing someone from engaging in talk page discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note: David Gerard has not edited at all since the 22nd of February. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm alive and well! I've just been trying a week off. It's been nice - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative support I'm afraid that once an editor has connected their off-wiki views publicly in such a prominent fashion in this conversation no less, it becomes very difficult to control the trust and confidence of the community that they will be acting fully within the provisions of the COI policy, a la wp:NONAZIS (though I do acknowledge that it's an essay without consensus support). I do note however that the editor in question has recused themselves, and hence I've moderated my support to being tentative only, and would not oppose no tban at all, as tbans are meant to be protective of the project, as opposed to sanctions against an editor. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: due to voluntary commitment. Sanctions need to be preventative, not punitive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong, so skip this bullet if you'd rather not be influenced by my opinion here.) David Gerard's commitment not to edit the [Slate_Star_Codex] article is substantially narrower than the proposed topic-ban would be, which is in turn narrower than the topic-ban I (in my COI'ed opinion) think would be appropriate. If you follow links from the Slate_Star_Codex article under discussion to the causes and organizations listed as associated - futurism, LessWrong, Effective_Altruism, and AI_safety - you will find that David Gerard has edited all of them. While those edits have been within the rules as far as I know, they've all been in the direction of making those pages more negative, and off-wiki evidence shows he has a broad grudge. (Specifically, his comments in Reddit's SneerClub, his tweets, and his edits on the corresponding pages on RationalWiki. You don't need to dig; just find his account on one of these platforms, and about half of his total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these.) Jimrandomh (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Jimrandomh: I think you're raising a valid point. The topic ban proposal is indeed too narrow, and should be expanded. David should not edit on those subjects and of course neither should you, if you do. Topic bans should be applied to all editors with any real life connection to the subject matter of those articles, with the exception of the exemptions allowed by BLP for subjects of articles. For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with the subject , can you please suggest how such a topic ban should be defined? Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple: I agree that my COI applies to all of the pages named as well as others, and will not edit them (and have not edited them since before the COI existed). I would suggest defining the scope of a topic-ban by reference to David Gerard's comment on this reddit.com/r/SneerClub post, which defines the scope of his grudge in his own words: "the many tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com, the site for the wisdom of Eliezer Yudkowsky ... This includes SSC and themotte, and increasingly the IDW as they take up LW/SSC nonsense. Being on-topic basically means tracing back to LessWrong via some path." I would interpret this as meaning he should not edit the pages for LessWrong, Slate_Star_Codex, Center_for_Applied_Rationality (the parent organization of LessWrong), Machine_Intelligence_Research_Institute (split from the same parent organization as CFAR), employees of any of these, and topics/organizations that an RS defines to be strongly associated with these, such as Effective_Altruism and AI_safety. (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimrandomh: OK. I just thought there might be a more succinct way of describing the topic ban. I see that David is with us and chooses not to respond further on this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: How about "Pages linked from the templates at the bottom of the LessWrong article as of 2021/03/02"? That's pretty succinct, and I think matches his "tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com" description pretty well (and does include Slate_Star_Codex). (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• While David's behavior has been unprofessional, this is at least as much of a COI as he had; it is a little disconcerting for an employee of an organization to opine on proposals (however justified) for people to be banned from editing articles about the organization, and I would recommend @Jimrandomh: strike his comment. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @JPxG: I agree that I have a major COI here. My read of WP:PSCOI seems to imply that participating in noticeboard discussions with a COI is okay, provided it's disclosed up front, whereas editing articles directly would not be. In particular WP:PSCOI links to the admin noticeboard in the "steps for engagement" section. That said, I'm not a Wikipedia-rules expert, and I wouldn't want undue weight placed on my phrasing, so I've struck both of the comments I wrote which had specific proposals (while leaving the top-level comment with observations and the original COI disclosure, but no proposals, as-is.) Jimrandomh (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimrandomh: You have an admitted COI, which you state upfront, and were providing information which of course people are free to contest. I can understand why you struck out your comment, but it was useful and I don't think obscuring its visibility was necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• From the looks of it, the /r/SneerClub subreddit is devoted to mocking/joshing LessWrong, the "Intellectual Dark Web" and topics in between. If you look up someone's comments there, of course most of their total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these. That's what the subreddit is for. If you look up what a person posts to /r/philately, you'll find them talking about stamps. This seems a weirdly self-affirming way to conclude that a person has a "grudge" — and, in turn, a grudge would not be the same thing as a COI. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Participation in the subreddit was presumably a choice. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. But it's only one of several subreddits which a quick perusal shows he actively participates in, just like his Twitter feed is full of various topics and he's edited a variety of topics over at RationalWiki. I'm hardly seeing the kind of unhealthy obsession that was being implied above, where his description of a subreddit's general and vaguely-delimited area of interest was somehow transmuted into the scope of his grudge. For me, this is all coming uncomfortably close to banning an editor from a half-dozen articles because that editor was knowledgable enough that the New York Times sought them out for comment. There's a leap being made from "having expressed opinions" to "being involved in a controversy" and thus to "having a COI" which I'm finding increasingly difficult to follow, and even if I go that far, the sanction proposed seems way out of proportion. XOR'easter (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. On Twitter, he said: i sent Metz SO MUCH material for that NYT SlateStarCodex article, i can see the ghosts of what i sent". This is the very article that he was arguing that criticism of should be removed. Disliking a guy is one thing (I have certainly said off-wiki that I think Smedley Butler was cool and Adolf Hitler was cringe); he was not simply calling Scott a bozo for years on some forum. He was doing that, and then editing tendentiously about a news story he was a source for (and, if David is to be believed, ghostwrote part of). Simply pinky-swearing to not edit one specific article about the guy's blog does not seem like an adequate solution to the problem. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How is being one of many sources for a story the same as ghostwriting it? Ghostwriting means writing for hire and having your words appear under the client's name, not sending background material to a newspaper and watching it die. The New York Times story didn't mention David Gerard. Nor did the Reason item. Reason was complaining about the work of Cade Metz (and the NYT editorial system), not the writing of David Gerard, which they had not seen. (From the rest of the tweet linked above, we can plausibly conclude that a David Gerard story would have come out differently.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on what "see the ghosts" means. On one hand, the complaint about the article was that David's material was "run through the NYT mealymouthed centrist filter", which I took to mean that he had significant input (i.e. the stuff he wrote is still there, but "run through a filter"). On the other hand, in a post in an anti-SSC group(?), he says "it isn't the article we wanted, and I suspect Cade wanted it stronger too. But it's good enough" – so I think it might be the case that the New York Times edited the story to be substantially less negative than they had intended when submitting material for it. This introduces enough ambiguity that I'll strike that part of my comment rather than get bogged down in discussion of it. jp×g 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the meaning of that tweet is plain. David Gerard, wearing his "source" hat, worked with the writer of the Times article. His collaboration was amply reflected in the article. Then he puts on his "Wikipedia editor" hat and has a major voice in determining how that Times article will be treated here. Whew. Here we are arguing how severe a COI that is. I think it's off the charts. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Being a source for an article isn't a collaboration. Collaborators get bylines, or at least a note about "so-and-so contributed reporting". XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • He worked with the writer and his efforts bore fruit. He admitted it. He bragged about it. Are we really going to split hairs about whether it was or wasn't a collaboration because he didn't get a byline? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

            his efforts bore fruit – I mean, that's really boring. It's kind of like "ugly enough to stop a clock". EEng 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

            • It's not splitting hairs; it's recognizing how journalism works. When you're a source, you're not a coauthor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
              • If anything, it's a deeper involvement than a collaborator because the source shapes the article, and that same source is shaping Wikipedia. So maybe it isn't hair splitting. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I've been interviewed, on background and by name, and to say that I "shaped" the articles that eventually happened would be to misrepresent the process completely. Reporters and their editors do the shaping. We sources don't control what they choose to emphasize or to downplay. In this case, we already have quotes from David Gerard in this thread that indicate the New York Times story is not the story he would have written. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • David Gerard said on Twitter "it isn't the article we wanted, and I suspect Cade wanted it stronger too. But it's good enough." "We wanted." Yes, a collaboration. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                    • "We" sounds like it's referring to the /r/SneerClub community, who had been expecting the article to come out eventually. 20:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                      • Let's see if I can sum up what happened. 1. David is part of a community of people who wanted a more negative article. 2. David worked closely (I'll avoid the word "collaborated") with the reporter to make it more negative, and 3) he was dissatisfied with the outcome, felt it should have been more negative, and "suspects" that the reporter feels the same way. While making these statements he was editing Wikipedia in the subject area, including but not limited to the aspects of the article pertaining to the Times piece for which he provided material intended to make the Times article negative. I think that sums things up. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                        • I don't know whether "worked closely" is accurate (it sounds synonymous with "collaborate" anyway); would an interview and/or providing information over a few email exchanges be "working closely"? And what exactly is the problem with having sufficient interest in a topic area that one is both willing to edit Wikipedia and approached by a newspaper as a source? It's true that David said that a source (Reason) that was critical of the NYT story shouldn't be included, but at the end of the day, the work Reason complained about was that of Metz and the NYT, and a whole RSN discussion petered out without a consensus to include the Reason item after all, with WP:UNDUE and WP:RSOPINION concerns having been raised. I've been growing more puzzled about the reactions to this every time I revisit it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                          • • "....would an interview and/or providing information over a few email exchanges be 'working closely'?" Call it what you will, call it "working far away," but when you then put on a "Wikipedia editor" hat you have a COI that is a big as the rising sun,. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Every admin gets one free defamation scandal Support Seriously? Seriously, everyone, what the fuck is wrong with us? We have secured what appears to be a single concession: no direct edits to the article. Reading through this discussion it seems that David has called the subject a neo-nazi, has significantly contributed to a NYT article described by other sources as a "hit piece", disingenuously used Wikipedia to push his POV despite a COI obvious to anyone with eyes, and we as a community are incapable of doing anything other than a warning? What the fuck is wrong with us? We engage in a massive work stoppage when the WMF steps in because we want to self govern, but when faced with the simplest case of harassment we balk. We are proving that the community is weak willed. We play self governance when it is fun, but when it is time to put on our grown-up pants and make the obviously correct decision we look for a way to pass the responsibility to someone else (then we kvetch about power being taken from the community, lol).
  If anyone, literally any editor who is not an administrator had done this they would have been indeffed on sight. If an editor clearly in the wrong disappeared for a week, would we call that evidence of change or would we call it laying low hoping that it blows over and impose a sanction regardless? When was the last time any of you put this much effort into hand-holding a new editor through WP:BLP? Not only is that a fundamental policy we expect admins to have glanced at once in their life, it is a policy with legal implications. We made a whole fucking speedy deletion criterion once in order to respond to an admin making bad redirects. Redirects! We are shaping up to be more strict with fucking REDIRECTS than with plain-as-day harassment.
  To everyone citing WP:PREVENTATIVE, you know what prevents BLP violations? Placing strict and explicit limits on the person and empowering admins to act quickly should the behavior occur again. You know what doesn't prevent BLP violations? Letting them continue their crusade on the talk page and giving them a voluntary TBAN that they can revoke whenever they feel like it. I personally have closed discussions on this very noticeboard where the community imposed a TBAN after the editor said they would stop voluntarily; if memory serves me right, some names here were fine with it then, but of course, it was someone without a get-out-of-jail-free card the sysop bit. How things change when the old boys club a long term sysop is facing consequences. Sorry our hands are tied ;)
  Are we really satisfied that behavioral problems have been resolved? He hasn't answered the simplest question despite editors spoon-feeding him the answer: "do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?". We require the lowly rabble non-sysops to recite an entire act of contrition and grovel at our feet before we consider lifting sanctions for something like this, and David can't (or won't) answer a simple question about a basic policy that everyone and their brother has told him the answer to? Instead, he said he won't edit a single page and then ditched us. I'm supposed to see that and think "yeah, this definitely won't be a problem again in a month".
  On top of that, David seems to have spent the last year (curiously, the NYT controversy also started a year ago...weird coincidence I guess) editing tendentiously in order to push their POV. For personal context, last year I was learning edit filters to help with the workload caused by people trying to use the wiki to doxx the subject, and I'm supposed to calmly learn that another admin was not only a key figure in that saga, but has been using the Wiki to further that agenda, and that we plan to do nothing? When someone using the wiki to harrass a subject gets an oversight block, where are the editors coming out of the woodwork to say "ah but they promised not to harass the subject directly in the article so you should unblock". Absolute bullshit. How many editors has David scared away? How many edit filters will we need to make the next time David has a personal grudge against an article subject? This is embarrassing. Look at yourselves. If this closes as anything other than imposing a topic ban, I will throw a fit. And nothing will happen to me, because I'm an admin. Am I getting this thread right? I can't deal with this flaming pile of crap right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 10:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also to be completely above board here, I was made aware of David Gerard's conduct at Talk:Slate Star Codex a couple of months ago when my partner, a new Wikipedia editor (they have not commented in this thread, and I am not tagging them out of respect for their privacy) and reader of the blog, raised concerns with me over dinner about how an (then unnamed) admin was acting on the talk page. Knowing Wikipedia drama (anti-)patterns, I asked "when did they become an admin", and when my partner told me I said "yeah, a lot of old school admins are problematic but get away with a lot of stuff, if it gets really bad report it to AN, but unless they start misusing admin tools, nothing is going to happen" before sighing and taking a bite of my spaghetti. That was the end of it for me. Despite my partner's concerns, I didn't look into it because I wanted to avoid any potential COI or fruit from a poisonous tree. Most of all, the idea of starting an on-wiki dispute based on my personal life felt gross. I just wanted to enjoy my dinner. I don't really care about the subject and if it was bad, it would get brought up by someone else. Imagine my surprise that we're here now (I am not surprised). — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I have to admit I do find the logical disconnect between this case and something like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Geo_Swan somewhat baffling. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reading through this discussion it seems that David has called the subject a neo-nazi [according to the most hyperbolic reading possible of one or two comments] has significantly contributed to a NYT article [where "contributed" means "was interviewed on background for"] described by other sources as a "hit piece" [those other sources being polemical themselves and not found reliable when debated at RSN] disingenuously used Wikipedia to push his POV despite a COI obvious to anyone with eyes [multiple editors in this thread have not found it obvious]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah okay, sorry, let me rephrase strongly implied a couple times that the subject---who he knows personally and dislikes (David's own characterization!)---is advocating neo-nazi views based on a twitter post and then went to the NYT to get them to publish that perspective so that he can insert it into the article without disclosing that COI to us, all while ignoring the concerns of editors who raised a different COI concern with him in August Thanks, that puts all my BLP concerns to bed. You did it, you convinced me this is benign and unlikely to be a problem in the future /s — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The edit where David Gerard said that Scott Siskind advocated scientific racism and encourag[ed] reactionaries [119] came after the NYT story, not before. The discussion from last August seems to have been motivated by the same concerns as this one; it's part 1, to which this is the sequel, rather than a different COI concern per se. Like many Talk page spats, it seems to have been more heat than light and fizzled with no formal action taken. (This line from Grayfell there seems apt: Having first-hand knowledge of a person or topic is not a conflict of interest by most reasonable definitions, and neither is having a strong opinion.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • discussion from last August seems to have been motivated by the same concerns as this one So you admit this is a long running problem that has not resolved and in fact gotten worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Brush with (potential) impropriety

-EEng

• No, I'm saying that the same tenuous assertions were made then that are being made now. Something that was at worst a brush with impropriety — perhaps a reason to make suggestions on a Talk page rather than editing directly, but not a reason to be expelled from Talk pages — continues to be at worst a brush with impropriety. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's a brush with impropriety the first time that it's brought to your attention. When you continue to "brush" against impropriety after that we just call it impropriety; and on Wikipedia we tend to call it Wikipedia:Tendentious editing​ and we block people for it. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)​

• • What do you mean, "will throw a fit"? :-D Anyway, you're 100% right, and I've changed my !vote above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd be a lot more convinced of this if we had diffs which showed exactly how the POV was being pushed. The Geo Swan matter seems entirely different to me. There was a clear "bad action" in that case. I've reviewed some of the diffs from the topic and while I easily could have missed something (I didn't look at every diff, and I have no familiarity with the topic), I don't see any edits that stand out as what I would consider to be "bad actions," unless it's "being quoted in a secondary source about a controversial topic." SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Having now looked over the Geo Swan business, this does seem different. An off-wiki conflict is not the same as an off-wiki expression of dislike. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • (ec) Editors at the article brought up COI and POV concerns regarding David on the talk page 6 months ago. Multiple editors in the above discussion bring up Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. You know when this was first brought up to David? October Am I supposed to understand this is a good faith misunderstanding or a momentary lapse of judgement and not a blatant violation of norms editors told him about months ago? Aside from the big smoking gun that brought us all here, what evidence do we have that the gun was manufactured, acquired, and brought to the scene by the person we caught red handed? — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • My reading of that discussion is that most editors generally thought continued editing wasn't a problem. You're going to sanction someone based on that conclusion? Please. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, because the problem only escalated. He became more deceptive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
            • How, exactly? SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up. You'll see such wonderful gems as:

  • • • • • • • • 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)
                • 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)
                • 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 ... [sic] 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)
                • 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)
                • I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • 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)

  Usually, when things improve, we don't get commentary like that at ANI. Usually, when things improve, we don't have people pointing out the same issues raised 6 months ago. Let's say I agree with you; 6 months ago editors were concerned about a COI but concluded that (at the moment) editing the article was not a serious problem, given the above discussion (that you seem to have somehow immediately forgotten exists) how is this not worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  You said that he became "more" deceptive, but your diffs are of the opinions of other community members. I agree that we're at the right result, which is that they shouldn't be editing that page anymore, but I still don't see any sanctionable conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not completely convinced of the distinction between interest and conflict of interest here, especially without clear diffs apart from being the "most active editor on the talk page." The user has said they won't touch the page anymore, which should be the end of the issue. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Wugapodes' comment. If this exact same situation happened with an account with a good hundred edits, everyone would support a TBAN (but only if an admin didn’t indef them first). I’m surprised that a lot of the !votes are Opposes and the justification is "he promised to stop so we should listen". I’m sorry, but David has the rights to literally blow up the website. The fact that anyone thought to make an ANI thread about an admin and everyone is saying "oh but he prrrromisssed" is a giant red flag. David can "promise" to not delete the main page and then delete it the next day anyways. I can "promise" to follow a 1RR and revert twice the next day anyways. To me, promises don’t mean anything unless I know I can trust you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As a fellow member of "the old boys club" I think there's a good deal of truth in Wugapodes' tirade. We do cut long-term users a lot of slack, perhaps more than we should. There's so obviously a COI problem here it shouldn't have required this much discussion. Black Kite's point on the disconnect between the handling of this situation, and that of Geo Swan, is apposite. Regarding voluntary restrictions, I don't like them in these cases. It concedes the issue to the user's judgment, even while acknowledging that said user's judgment is flawed. If we agree with the latter, then we shouldn't endorse the former. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Wugapodes writes quite emotionally but also quite persuasively. David Gerard does excellent work in many areas and that should continue. But no editor, especially not an administrator, should edit about a living person that they have a prolonged, active public grudge against. And if that behavior continues for months, a topic ban is the logical and fair result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Wugapodes' argument is spot on. If anyone but a long-term sysop had edited with such a clear COI they would have been blocked by now. We need to meet the moment and send a clear signal that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes incredibly potent and poignant rant. The stuff of legends, truly. Much respect. El_C 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I want to expand a bit by adding that, for myself, I try to avoid editing BLPs whom I dislike in any way that would negatively impact them, at least as much as is humanly possible — just for my own personal COI-like peace of mind and conscience. Excepting perhaps BLPs who are, say, heads of state, but even then I try to keep it in check; though, in fairness, there aren't that many heads of state that I do like, but I digress. The point is that contemptible BLP or not, is totally irrelevant to standing firmly against having them become potential victims. El_C 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. DG appears to have a personal conflict with the subject of the article. For example, the subject has called DG an "unofficial president of my enemies' club" [120]. Being the most active editor of the article, removing sources critical of NYT publication to which he claims to have contributed so much that he can see the "ghosts" of his writing indicates lack of judgement on DG's part. I support extending the ban to all topics related to Less Wrong as per discussion above. Eliokim (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So, now the subject of an article gets to declare in a self-published source who their "enemies" are, and those enemies are forbidden from having any involvement whatsoever in that article or any article that happens to be listed in its sidebar or footer? I've been thinking for weeks that I should take a break from this place, but if that's the kind of precedent we are willing to set, my wiki-break is going to be a long one. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @LokiTheLiar: In your oppose rationale above (which XOReaster cited in their original rationale) you said 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") Does the subject's statement from 17 days ago (from before your !vote but only just mentioned by Eliokim above) calling David Gerard the sort of unofficial president of my enemies' club and saying it seems more like the kind of thing that might happen if someone had it out for you make this seem like a two-sided "dispute"/"rival"? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It does make it seem more like a dispute in the conventional sense, but it doesn't really make it seem more like the sort of significant controversy or dispute that WP:BLPCOI is talking about, in context. I was thinking out loud there, and outlined some obvious minimum qualities based on WP:BLPCOI, but I think any reasonable definition of a conflict of interest needs to go further than just "you can't have a COI that nobody else knows about".

  A conflict of interest is what it sounds like: it's when your personal best interest is in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. So, stuff like a politician editing the article of a rival politician, parties to a court case editing each others' articles, editing the article of a close relative, directors editing the articles of movie critics, and so on; the stuff that is covered by WP:COI but applied specifically to BLP. I don't think that what's going on here qualifies because I can't see any way that Gerard's strong negative opinion of Siskind is actually furthering any personal interest of his. Having a strong personal opinion about a notable person is a very good reason to step back from their article, and obviously it's a violation of WP:NPOV to insert negative information into any article because you have a negative personal opinion of the subject, but it's not a conflict of interest.

  I also share XOReaster's concern that omitting the "significant" from significant controversy or dispute opens the door to notable people being able to effectively topic ban their critics from editing their Wikipedia article simply by publicly noting that they are critics. That's not, I think, what's intended by being involved in a significant controversy or dispute. WP:BLPCOI mentions as establishing context that articles concerning living persons may include material [...] about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. This seems to me like it's only these sorts of controversies or disputes that WP:BLPCOI is about. Loki (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  How do you get that from the text of the policy? Your interpretation of the spirit of WP:BLPCOI seems disconnected from the actual text of the policy: Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. So no, the policy doesn't seem as limited as you construe it. In my eyes (and the eyes of multiple administrators above) the text seems written to avoid this exact kind of situation where an editor---who is mutually antagonistic with the subject off-wiki---threatens the neutrality of an article to smear the subject (which has potential legal consequences for us). In fact, if you look beyond the shortcut, the section title at WP:BLPCOI is "Using BLPs to continue disputes" which you admit this likely was and which David did; even the previous title (used at the redirect WP:BLPCOI is "Importation of off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia". Even if we want to limit the scope to "significant" disputes, I think contributing to a national news story about the subject (described as a "hit piece") which early on drew attention for its plans to out the subject is "significant". Speaking personally, none of my personal disputes have involved the New York Times, have yours? I'm not particularly worried about a slippery slope here, especially since we already have a policy on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It's a common-sense, long-overdue solution. →StaniStani 06:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban. This discussion makes me uncomfortable. I believe strongly that productive editors, especially admins, should be encouraged. But I also care about Wikipedia's reputation. Sometimes our community must act to preserve editors and their ability to contribute. Better to act now than further down the road. David Gerard's judgement in this case, over a period of months, calls for a firm corrective. Words from his own keyboard show that his interaction with the subject of an article in Wikipedia space, in a NYT article, and other fora preclude involvement with any connected Wikipedia articles. This T-ban is for the protection of Wikipedia and Gerard. This corrective can help restore confidence in Gerard's judgement. We should place a guardrail to save an editor from spreading a public grudge across the internet. — Neonorange (Phil) 10:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes. The lack of self awareness by David Gerard to see a potential issue with this behavior is also troubling. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a tban based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles linked by SlimVirgin. An admin has to be held at high standards. Vikram Vincent 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban per Mo Billings, Wugapodes (especially), and Levivich. If this had been the behavior of a regular user, they would be topic-banned (if not outright indeffed) in ten seconds. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wug. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Captain El Classico

• Captain El Classico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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. [121] Some of the edits were copyright violations, [122],[123] some were poorly sourced, [124] some were undiscussed major changes, over which they edit warred [125] and were blocked, [126] 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. [127])

They do not respond to warnings left on their talk page,[128] 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)

• Any ideas about an alternate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, am I Sea Captain now? El_C 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Like— Diannaa (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)

• So, you're thinking indef block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 24 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)

They seem to have stopped editing, from about the time I filed this report. My feeling is that we won't see any more edits from this account, but, unfortunately, I don't think that necessarily means that the editor is finished editing here. It seems quite possible to me that they have, or will, simply move to another account and continue editing. If they do so, and their edits are in the same subject area (Nazis and Nazism), they'll undoubtedly be recognized fairly quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If they remerge and follow the same disruptive pattern of editing under this account, definitely, action will need to be taken with an indef block, being the only option. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, CEC has indeed re-emerged with the addition of unsourced information to Braunau am Inn. [129]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Their failure to communicate may be due to them using a mobile platform - as you see in their edit tags, and it is a known problem for mobile users that communication is basically impossible [130] - and for whatever reason, the foundation does not see fit to patch this rather severe UI oversight IMO. I see they have already been blocked once - does the block notice for mobile devices show up prominently with messages to check out their talk page? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have e-mailed CEC, giving the URL for this discussion, and the one for my notice on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• So, no reaction from Captain El Classico to my e-mails, and they're editing again -- and the quality of the edits is as poor as before. Therefore, I will make a proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:Captain El Classico

• Since WP:Competence is required, and WP:Communication is required as well, and since Captain El Classico has shown that they don't understand how information needs to be added and sourced to Wikipedia, and since they have not responded to numerous comments on their talk page, via e-mail, and on this page, I propose that they be indefinitely blocked until such time as they begin to communicate with other editors, and show that they understand Wikipedia's policies and requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Looking at their history for two seconds shows everything about this account screams NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  11:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion

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

---

There was an earlier attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen to delete over 150 articles concerning Naval Cross recipients. This bundled AfD was closed as "procedural keep" because "too many articles here to evaluate in a single discussion". User:Mztourist has since been redirect-merging these articles "boldy", in effect deleting the standalone article without discussion or notification of involved parties. Examples (search on "Bold Move").

A WP:BOLD edit should not be "reckless". A WP:MERGE should be discussed first if controversial. Mztourist knows these articles might be saved with proper research, he knows the Naval Cross set are controversial. For example he participated in the John C. England AfD which was was saved with new sources and expansion (then promoted to DYK). There are editors who are actively working to save these articles, Mztourist knows this first-hand from many other AfDs. Rather than using AfD or Merge proposals, he rapidly and recklessly merged without notification, research or discussion.

It has caused disruption as we now may need to revert every BOLD edit which is over 300, 1 each for source and target article. Although WP:BOLD allows for reversion, given the scope and acrimonious nature of dealing with Mztourist, seeking admin attention to this case which is starting to spiral into a larger problem touching a lot of articles. -- GreenC 19:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole course of conduct – the AFDs and Mergers,that is – is out of process and disruptive. It needs to be stopped. It needs to be reversed. And sanctions are in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have closed a few of the AfDs recently so I looked at this. Could you point to some examples that are problematic? I looked through the first eight on the bundled AfD list and saw that the title of this section appears to be misleading as I found

• Two that Mztourist hasn't touched (probably because they've got a number of sources) - so they haven't been merged
• Three that were merged after their own individual AfDs were closed as such ("so they're not "without discussion")
• Three redirected by Mztourist that were almost completely unsourced except to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (i.e they'd almost certainly be redirected or merged at AfD - but I presume these are the ones you're talking about)

Are there any that don't fall into these categories, i.e. where the merger could be described as disruptive? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Examples (search on "Bold Move"). There were about 150 merged in the past few days. Articles often show up at AfD in bad shape and exit in better condition, you can't prejudge the outcome of an AfD (see the John C. England example above). -- GreenC 23:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

GreenC - OK, I looked at the first six.

• Samuel Stockton Miles - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and a weblink which is a 404.
• Riley Franklin McConnell - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
• Richard S. Bull - no inline sources, a book given as a reference but no page numbers etc.
• Harold John Mack - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
• Lance Edward Massey - three inline sources 1) A description of a battle at Midway in which he is mentioned (and a photo of him) 2) A listing for the Veteran's Hal of Fame 3) A listing for his Navy Cross. This one is more debatable, though I would have suggested to Mztourist that if they believe it was not notable to send it to AfD rather than BOLDly merging it. It wuld not be a problem to restore this one with an edit summary saying such.
• Alfred Wolf (sailor) - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I would say that unless I've chosen an unrepresentative sample, there's probably not a major issue here. The ones that have reasonable inline citations and thus may be notable can be reverted (we have bold/revert/discuss for a reason). I appreciate what you say about AfD, but it is logical that the others almost certainly should be improved before they're restored as they'd certainly fail an AfD in their current state purely for sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We have been able improve articles.
They are doing by indirection (literally) that which they could not do through AFD.
This is a purge,
Disguised as a merge.
You may not see that as disruptive. I do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, let's look at it. WP:BIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Now, if we've got a biography where the only source is a dictionary which has an entry about the ship that is named after then, that bar clearly isn't being reached. So, yes, I certainly don't see merging the ones which are not sufficiently sourced as disruptive, because in their current state they don't pass GNG so that is technically the correct thing to do, and if they were to go through their own AfD at the moment they would almost certainly end up merged or redirected anyway. So when you say that "They are doing by indirection that which they could not do through AFD" Well, they could do it by AfD, simply by nominating the individual articles for AfD. Logically, the correct approach here is to look at fixing the articles that aren't sufficiently sourced, and if that is possible then restoring them to stand-alone articles when they're done. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That presumes the fact that they cannot be fixed. AFD shows that this half-assed AFDs do not stand up. WP:Before should apply. Process should apply. WP:Consensus should apply. The end does not justify the means. This is disenfranchising the editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't presume that at all - it's merely saying they aren't compliant with WP:BIO at the moment. So merging the ones with insufficient sources to support a biography in their current state is correct process. Also, surely on the ones that have been through their own individual AfDs and been kept, merged or deleted then consensus has applied, has it not? As I said to GreenC above, there would be absolutely no problem in reverting Mztourist's merges where the sourcing is debatable (i.e. Lance Edward Massey), but the ones that are simply copied from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (or have been through an AfD that ended in Merge) should clearly not be until they are made compliant. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the rush? And why hundreds of articles all in a mass? This is to stifle content improvement and studied comment and debate. In fact, a lot of these went through the massed rushed AFD and were kept. This is a change of name and tactics deliberately intended to get to a particular result. Sleight of hand. If you don't believe me, take a look at User:Mztourist's talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I know some of them were kept. But a lot were merged as well, notably the ones that were only sourced to the Dictionary. I don't see how it stifles content improvement, though; the history of the article is still there for anyone that wants to improve the article to a compliant state. Whilst I appreciate that the volume of articles being merged here is large, one could argue - as Mztourist clearly does - that there are lot of articles in a similar state and it would be illogical to only deal with some of them. Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We have demonstrated repeatedly many of these articles are fit for inclusion if you do the research. They should be going through AfD and given a fair hearing. Your saying if additional sources can be found they might be restored. Fair enough but Indy Beetle raises the bar (below) saying they also need to be notable for something besides having a ship named for them. That is crazy. There is no consensus to make certain articles immune from the AfD process if other editors believe the articles are sourced sufficiently. -- GreenC 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have said, neither you nor Mztourist have advocated the article be deleted as opposed to merged. Why would AFD be in order? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: In case you were not aware, a recent RfC established that AfD is an appropriate venue to propose blank-and-redirects, and a 2015 discussion established that it is acceptable to propose mergers redirects at AfD (without advocating deletion). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (corrected KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

My understanding is there's consensus these articles should be redirects when the only source is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. It would be disruptive to AFD them, but boldly redirecting is encouraged; if other sources are found feel free to revert the redirect. You can't complain that AFD is unreasonable because only a merge is requested, and then turn around and complain that a merge happened without an AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Per this discussion, if Mztourist is only conducting redirects/merges for ship namesakes as we only know about these people in relation to the ships, they have the consensus to do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, Power~enwiki and Indy beetle thank you for your reasoned input. I believe that I have been following the correct procedure here, specifically the consensus that has been established across a number of recent AFDs of U.S. Navy ship namesakes. Rather than clogging up AFD with 150+ near identical thinly-sourced articles I BOLDLY merged the namesake content (often only 3 to 10 sentences) to the ship and created a Redirect, which is easily reversible if a User finds that the person does have SIGCOV in multiple RS. There were a few cases like Lance Edward Massey where there was a lot more detail, but because it was so thinly sourced I proceeded with the Merge, but I see that User:Kges1901 reversed this with the edit summary: "Rv redirect, midway squadron commander played an important role in a major battle and covered in all histories of it", a very WP:SOLDIER justification, but they are free to do so if they add SIGCOV in multiple RS of him, otherwise I will AFD it. There were also a few where the person met a presumption of SOLDIER and I didn't touch those despite SOLDIER's imminent deprecation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc​. This complaint is just a continuation in another forum of this original AFD: [[131]] and the stance taken by User:7&6=thirteen and GreenC, including personal attacks and abuse against me and Lettler, a couple of examples here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#John C. England and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rees (airman). It seems that they are still unwilling to accept that many of the ship namesakes were being deleted or redirected at AFD despite claims of an abuse of procedure: [132] and want to prevent any progress being made in line with consensus. In fact I would argue that 7&6=thirteen and GreenC are abusing process by using this complaint to overturn consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

While we’re talking, let me offer you some free advice; Talk less, smile more, don't let them know what you're against or what you're for 1776 power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I participated in a number of these AfDs [133] and they were overwhelmingly merge/redirect. They have a clear consensus to merge or redirect without creating endless AfDs. I agree with Black Kite assessment, so I won't repeat it. There is also a clear consensus that having a ship named after you is not enough to establish notability in the absense of SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Merging or redirecting an article does not delete it, the article history is still there and it can be improved without any problems if someone can find sources. Mztourist is doing good work.  // Timothy :: talk  04:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't know what to make of this. The sheer numbers, window of time, the previous issues about this. Why do these editors have such a need to remove this content? Sure you could say whatever reason, but that would apply to all kinds of garbage floating around WP. Thousands of pages of literal garbage. So why the constan drive to remove military BLPs ? Are all these pages being carefully vetted beforehand? Have you considered just picking one, and trying to build it up instead? (like User:7&6=thirteen & John C. England?) I know other's editors besides Mztourist are involved, but this big push here is his doing, so maybe he can enlighten us? And then there's the mass-AfD train wreck mentioned above, it said 150 pages, but it's actually 224, you can see them all here;

AfD list

(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen) Herbert R. Amey, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William B. Ault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)' John Drayton Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Remi A. Balduck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Woodrow Wilson Barr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Horace A. Bass Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harry F. Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gus George Bebas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert A. Belet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stanley G. Benner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) J. Douglas Blackwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John S. Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rogers Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John R. Borum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Boyd Brazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert E. Brister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ronald A. Burdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John A. Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Herbert A. Calcaterra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George M. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kendall Carl Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Louis J. Carpellotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paul H. Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Finnic Cates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hubert Paul Chatelain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold Jensen Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Howard Franklin Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alvin C. Cockrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Emerson Conklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Edward Connolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andrew F. Cook Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dallas H. Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bunyan Randolph Cooner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harry L. Corl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Russell M. Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John R. Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William W. Creamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frederick Cushing Cross Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mark Hanna Crouter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Damon M. Cummings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward C. Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hugh Spencer Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frederick Curtice Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hector de Zayas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alex M. Diachenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Joseph Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Trose Emmett Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marion William Dufilho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kenneth W. Durant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James E. Earheart Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hilan Ebert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bert C. Edmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ray K. Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold John Ellison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arthur V. Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John C. England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Clarence Lee Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milo Evarts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John T. Eversole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George I. Falgout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph W. Finch Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rodney Shelton Foss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Douglas Harold Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Myles C. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neldon Theo French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andrew Jackson Gandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oswald J. Gaynier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene F. George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Joseph Gilligan Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Walter S. Gorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Francis Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John P. Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene A. Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Don T. Griswold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stephen W. Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward E. Gyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John William Haas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Roy Orestus Hale Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earle B. Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Delbert W. Halsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Henry R. Hamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William T. Hanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Albert T. Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Patrick H. Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Raymon W. Herndon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Heyliger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ernest Lenard Hilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William M. Hobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Randolph M. Holder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ralph Hollis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Mack Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Curtis W. Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edwin Alfred Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Martin Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert K. Huntington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edwin William Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arnold J. Isbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard Alonzo Jaccard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene Morland Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward B. Kinzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John J. Kirwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Charles Kleinsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stanley F. Kline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milton L. Knudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James E. Kyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert M. La Prade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Henry Lansing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Everett F. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marcel LeHardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Lawrence Leopold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milton Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William R. Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arthur E. Loeser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harry James Lowe Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George K. MacKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Maurice Joseph Manuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Roy Joseph Marchand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hunter Marshall III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alvin Lee Marts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lance Edward Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Claude Maze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald Roy McAnn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Herbert Hugo Menges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward Micka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samuel Stockton Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jack Miller (USMC officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lloyd Jones Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oliver Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fred Kenneth Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samuel N. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ulvert M. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Walter Harold Mosley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kenneth Hart Muir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chester Thomas O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph R. Odum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earl Kenneth Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carl A. Osberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harvey Emerson Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Albert O'Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James C. Owens Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thaddeus Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Floyd B. Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William J. Pattison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milton F. Pavlic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Ellison Pennewill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Lee Pettit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Philip Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sherwood Picking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Reeves Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Minor Butler Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oswald A. Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malcolm Lewis Pratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marvin Lee Ramsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Julius A. Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Martin H. Ray Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paul J. Register (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Beverly W. Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ralph M. Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Riddle Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Clark Franklin Rinehart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Q. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jack C. Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) David John Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Walter Rolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Severin Louis Rombach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard M. Rowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Seymour D. Ruchamkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jesse Rutherford Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thomas Wright Rudderow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald S. Runels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neal Anderson Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James M. Scribner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Frank Seiverling Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward Robert Sellstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold D. Shannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Francis Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Max Silverstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frank O. Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald H. Spangler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald B. Steinaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Max Clifford Stormes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard Wayne Suesens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Shelton B. Sutton Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gust J. Swenning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lyman Knute Swenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Charles Arthur Tabberer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lawrence Coburn Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold Chester Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Leland Evan Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lloyd Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Garfield Thomas Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Woodrow R. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Leonard W. Thornhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ryland Dillard Tisdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Maynard W. Tollberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) London Lewis Traw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Henry W. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Uhlmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samuel Underhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John J. Van Buren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Williams Vance Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Norman Francis Vandivier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bertram S. Varian Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Patrick Joseph Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Merrit Cecil Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Walter Carl Wann Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Charles R. Ware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andrew Kenneth Waterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frederick T. Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carl W. Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Wolfe Wileman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thomas Mack Wilhoite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kenneth Martin Willett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Leon Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) LeRay Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Irving Wiltsie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John David Wingfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jack William Wintle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alfred Wolf (sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald W. Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jeff Davis Woodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eldon P. Wyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William J. Yokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So, yeah... I'd just like to know why? (And I'm also curious about the community response) - wolf 05:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The first link I clicked (at random) was Harry F. Bauer, which was merged per consensus at AFD. Improving the encyclopedia doesn't become a bad thing when it is done at scale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it's better for the reader if these titles are redirected to the articles about the ships and the reader reads about the namesake there, rather than on a stand-alone page. (In the cases where the sourcing isn't there, as per BK's explanations above.) That's why I'd redirect them, I don't want to speak for Mz. The notion that redirecting a page is somehow taking something away from the encyclopedia, removing information, disenfranchising editors, etc., ... all of that is just silly. It's nothing of the sort. It's just curation of a collection. It's a normal process. Merging is a normal editorial process, including bold merging. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild I have explained my reasoning above. As I assume with many other Users once I find something that catches my attention I pursue it until it is finished and it wouldn't make sense to merge just some and not others. Milhist is my main area of interest so the "Thousands of pages of literal garbage" on other areas on WP aren't my concern. The "mass-AfD train wreck" as you refer to it, was the starting point and after a consensus was established at a number of AFDs on which pages would be retained and which merged and redirected, I went through all those pages and applied Merge and Redirect to all similar pages. As usual there's a lot of complaining that articles can be improved, but that's highly unlikely for most of them and Page History exists for each of them so nothing has been lost or erased if someone finds sources. Nothing has been removed, just moved. Meanwhile far from being the destructive vandal/troll that several Users wish to paint me as, I have improved every ship page with namesake details and often provided additional links. Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(break)

For those not already involved, it may be illustrative to read the discussions about these mergers that occurred on the ARS anti-deletion noticeboard : Harry Bauer, George Campbell, etc.

As a point of interest, this discussion has been mentioned on the talk page for that noticeboard : Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Massive_attack ApLundell (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• These stubs are being merged/redirected, not deleted. The content is still there in the history (and on the merge page) and it can easily be improved by any editor at any time.  // Timothy :: talk  05:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the examples Black Kite has checked are representative, and I see no particular reason why they are not, the action here is in line with the consensus of discussions at WT:MILHIST, especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they are representative, I looked thrugh a few more last night as well. One thing I'd say, regardless of the fact that we should shoudn't have poorly sourced biographies, is what serves our readers the best? I would say that presenting them with a good article about the ship, which includes some information about the person who it was named after, is better than having the information split across two articles, one of which is just some text copied from a dictionary. Of course if there are good sources about the person enabling us to write a good biography, then that's great. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why does the ARS and its members feel the need to to use such emotive language? The only effect it will have is heighten, rather than lessen, the Dramaz. (Evidence: on WT:ARS it's referred to as a massive attack, and here a member describes it as a purge). This is pretty poor. ——Serial 11:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been my experience with ARS since its founding. The entire point of ARS is extreme inclusionism, and a rather vitriolic response towards any deletion proposal. Its members seem to have a mindset that all articles deserve to remain on Wikipedia, regardless of status, because they "could" be improved at some nebulous time in the future. Therefore, any deletion is akin to heresy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the merger seems to fit well with the Reasons at WP:Merge - 2: Overlap: the naming of the ship is explained by reference to the article on the sailor but by the time a suitable summary of the sailor is in the ship article, the only further (notable? discuss) content to read on the sailor page is bare biographical detail (3 :"Short text"). The general consensus among a set of editors following the original large scale AfD discussion was that many of the names lacked suitable sourcing to meet GNG and were unlikely to do so. For some it seems the only reason there is anything written on them is because a ship was named after them; the USN had many ships it was presumaby going to name after other heroes but never built eg the cancelled 206 further John C. Butler-class destroyer escorts. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @GreenC: Please see WP:PAGEDECIDE. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mztourist you said; "As usual there's a lot of complaining..." and; "Meanwhile far from being the destructive vandal/troll that several Users wish to paint me as...". That, along with this ANI, would seem to indicate that some at least find these "merges" to be controversial, that you knew that beforehand and carried on anyway. WP:MERGE states that such merges should first be proposed and discussed and discussed. Some might characterize your actions as an 'end run' around the process, and that might explain some of the backlash and vitriol you're experiencing. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 15:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thewolfchild I was simply pointing to the overdramatic and often uncivil language being used by User:7&6=thirteen and User:GreenC in starting this ANI, in the previous AFDs and at ARS, something that other Users have also commented on. I really don't appreciate your characterisation of my behaviour here as an "end run" nor that I am somehow to blame for their incivility. As I have said above, it is very clear that this ANI is just the latest attempt by them to undo a result they don't like. I certainly don't regard you as impartial either. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. So, that's zero answers and lotsa rudeness... I think we're done here. - wolf 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes we are done here, as is evident by the comments above the complaint has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merging in this situation seems entirely reasonable to me. If anyone wants to source a proper biography, then a redirect can be converted into a stand-alone article. Unclear why this at ANI in the first place. But the "Massive Attack" reference was good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merging seems perfectly reasonable in most of these cases. Looking at the Bauer AFD in particular, I am thoroughly underwhelmed by both the keep !votes in the AFD - a WP:VAGUEWAVE to GNG without identifying additional sources, questionable interpretations of WP:SIGCOV (of the sources present in the article at the end of the AFD, only the citation and the single paragraph in DANFS are really about the subject, with only sparse mentions in the others), and claims that having a ship named after you meets WP:ANYBIO which appears to run against the consensus of that point. The ARS notice also includes the statement As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. which is flat-out misleading, as the previous one was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK nomination, with very little discussion of the other ones. Given that the close of the previous group nomination was with no prejudice against individual renomination, the insinuations that renominating one that was not discussed at the TRAINWRECK nomination is wrong because of the group nomination being closed as a keep on procedural grounds are ridiculous. I also find the repeated accusations of trolling being thrown around at WP:ARS to be problematic, and all those using that term should remember that calling a good faith editor a troll can be construed as a personal attack. I don't think this content should be deleted, but merging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when most of these are of rather dubious notability. Let's focus on the content, and stop the accusations of trolling. It's not a sin to merge content when the content is of dubious stand-alone notability. I see no reason why this ANI thread should be kept open. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with K.e.coffman that the merging was reasonable. I don't see the issue with being bold and merging, especially after the vast majority of the previous AfDs in this area supported merging ship's namesakes to the ship article when the referencing is poor and shows no signs of improved sourcing over the course of 10+ years (and frankly WP:BEFORE would rarely turn up any new references or WP:SIGCOV). I also agree with Hog Farm that this ANI should be closed and, quite frankly, the bad faith and trolling accusations (including going as far to equate the nominations to the Attack on Pearl Harbor) have probably been the largest breach of any sort of policy and that's not even that big of a transgression. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's fair of filers to want to save some of the articles. If they can scrounge up the sources to establish their independent notability, they can simply undo the redirect and fill out the article. Nothing is preventing them from doing that. From a behavioral standpoint, Mztourist's actions were in keeping with consensus, and were not made in an effort to subvert the community. Mztourist was not doing this to "troll" anyone. I don't think a boomerang is warranted (though the troll accusations should stop), but I do think this should be closed without action taken against Mztourist. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with many others that this is a good example of why deleting and redirecting an article are very different outcomes at least for editors. If members of the ARS or whatever feel some of these articles can be saved, they're welcome to do so by finding the sources and improving the articles. It's very easy from a technical standpoint and they don't anyone else's permission or involvement. Either way the net result is an improvement for readers. For articles where this doesn't happen they get redirected to an article with info which helps them see these people in context. For articles where it does, they actually see useful articles. Further a persistent claim is that the ARS often only does source dumps where plenty of sources are posted on an AFD but then no one ever improves the article. This would be a great case where they can prove the opposite, by improving these articles with the sources they find. The fact these are happening so fast also seems to be largely a positive. Rather than ARS having to hunt through months of an editors contribs to find these, or the editor needing to make a list of each one, the ARS can just look through that small portion of contrib history to find the articles they feel they can save. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

In light of the overwhelming support for my BOLD Merge and Redirects and given that the two complainants seem to have withdrawn from this discussion I request that this ANI should be closed with an endorsement of my actions per consensus and ideally a warning to User:7&6=thirteen for personal attacks. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I deny the accusation. Nothing to see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, not since the last time anyway (August last year, for the interested). So, there's plenty to see where you were roundly criticised by your peers, including admins, for personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavoir ([134], [135]). Here we are again: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. ——Serial 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, certainly looks like an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered if someone would raise that previous ANI. During it, there was a call for sanctions against 7&6=thirteen for persistent BATTLEGROUND issues - I opposed it at the time and what I said then is still relevant I think

"If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions which they generally lost"") If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't. Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation."

And this is the point - we are all trying to improve Wikipedia here, but we have different ways of going about it. Where there are disagreements, they need to discussed calmly, not by throwing insults about. I note this issue is happening at the ARS page as well. As I say, I opposed sanctions last time, but I would probably not do so in the future if this casting of aspersions continues; indeed, I would expect that any admin could deal with it through the normal warning and blocking procedure. You do not get to call people who are editing within our policies "disruptive" or "trolls", and call for sanctions against them for no reason, so that needs to stop - now. And yes, this should be closed now with a note that consensus is that the merges were the correct thing to do; having commented a few times I will not do it myself. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: close of complaint against Mztourist as unfounded with a note that consensus is that the merges were properly done.

Support a warning about civility at AfD for 7&6=thirteen with a mention of the previous ANI. We all have bad moments we wish we could take back, but this is a pattern.

Strongly Support starting a discussion about reforming AfD discussions, and addressing problems and concerns, as well as how to improve all aspects of article curation. (this is not the proper place for that conversation; Ritchie333 sorry I haven't followed up on the previous discussion about this with you).

 // Timothy :: talk  21:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support As I was pinged, I'll lob my 2c into the discussion. A couple of weeks ago, I was feeling somewhat badgered by Mztourist over an AfD I closed, without being aware of the wider context that's displayed in this thread, and in retrospect the lack of communication and talking past each other led to a deterioration. Ultimately things sorted themselves out at the subsequent DRV and AFIAK the matter is resolved.

The wider problem I have with the ARS, and have done for some time, is they don't seem to do as much "article rescue" as I would like. I'm all for people improving articles and picking out hard to find sources in order to prove to the community at large we shouldn't delete something (prime example). However, if I think an article is unsuitable and unsalvagable, I will nominate it for deletion or otherwise argue that we shouldn't have it. From my observations, the ARS seems to be more geared towards voting "keep" without actually doing the legwork to improve the article (which I feel is a pyrrhic victory if the article is kept) and badgering those with different views. This needs to stop. It's why I don't associate myself with the ARS, despite sharing many of the views that the group was originally based on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Indeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Seen a few now that were rescued and abandoned. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support — The "massive attack" reference [136] is nothing new [137]. In October (months after the last ANI linked above), I posted to ARS's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Attacking AFD nominators on the ARS page) about previous comments (there was no response), including yet another "massive attack" reference [138] and this comment about a closer. It's got to stop. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support closure - There's nothing really actionable here, IMO. Although I do support warning ARS to stop hounding good-faith AFD nominations. It's not a "massive attack" to merge or AFD questionably-notable articles in a responsible way. I'm still in somewhat a state of shock to see ARS compare an AFD to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. And I've seen several spots there lately where users who nominate articles for deletion get accused of trolling, which is borderline personal attack. Let's all move on, stop the name calling, and keep it in the top three segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. And let's close this AFD soon, as I don't think anything productive is going to come from much more discussion of this matter in this setting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning for the OP, User:7&6=thirteen. The Aug 2020 discussion did not result in sanctions (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Proposal:_Topic_ban), which was appropriate at the time, but the lessons do not appear to have been learned. A formal warning in this situation is needed to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding: I've not noticed this comment before: Troll. Go do likewise, and sin no more., with edit summary "troll". It may be time for a Tban from ARS and AfD, as the editor in question does not seem to be able to participate in related discussions w/o resorting to personal attacks. And that was after the 2020 ANI thread that discussed similar behavioural concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

power~enwiki User:K.e.coffman Nobody has "refuse[d] to abide by consensus". And apparently the consensus is that they can redirect (and hopefully merge) all the Navy Cross/Ship named sailors to the ships, depending on the level of referencing. But the merger is without prejudice to recreating the deleted articles. If that's the rule, we all will live by it.

Disclosure of prior AFDs ought to be done, not suppressed. In the prior context of the deletions, this was an understandable concern.

I did not initiate this discussion at ANI.

And the deliberate 'participation' of some editors at WP:ARS discussions, when they do not ever actually propose rescue of articles, is trolling behavior. My references were to the behavior, and it is what it is.

Defending the many articles at AFD's (see Tom Rees (RFC officer) for example) is not a "personal attack". Indeed, that article was taken through DYK, and MZTourist considers that to be an insult to him. It was a consequence of the article's improvement. Period. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I misspoke. It pertained to other articles, I thought. But I can't find the diff. So I retract what I said. I apologize for my confusion. 13:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I get annoyed on the (very rare) occasions an article I wrote is put up for AfD (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall), but crucially I will always look back and think and think "yes, I shouldn't have said that". However, no good can come of insulting people who file the AfD; either they did in good faith, in which case responding in kind is never acceptable, or they did it in bad faith, in which case you shouldn't feed the troll. Either way, it's not on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've stricken "the OP" part, but I'm still supportive of a TBan for User:7&6=thirteen. Alternatively, a reviewing admin could perhaps issue a short block, for the continued defense of the "troll" insult in re: Mztourist, as in: And the deliberate 'participation' of some editors at WP:ARS discussions (...) is trolling behavior. Editors do not get to decide who participates in discussions and ARS is not (or at least should not be) a walled garden, for like-minded contributors only. Editors outside of this in-group are not "trolls". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I improve articles, and I provide a rationale. When we discover sources (whether they are cited in the article or not), and folks question notability, the fair response is "No compliance with WP:Before. That is not a personal anything -- it relates to whether the article should be deleted. And it is not an "insult." Indeed, the AFD at Tom Rees (RFC officer) proves the point. Why was there an AFD proposed? You tell me? Speaking of disregarding the state of the article, its sources, and possible additional sourcing. Or disregard of consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been on the other side of the fence, though. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Arden (actress), which I filed in good faith and quickly closed when sources were pointed out. There was no name calling, and nobody got dragged off to the WP:Dramaboard. I don't know why the Tom Rees AfD was proposed, but I have to assume whoever did it was doing so for a legitimate reason. The ideal opportunity is to try and explain how various notability criteria work politely and get them round to your way of thinking. If you whack them over the head as being trolls (whether directly or implied) they'll probably just want to defend themselves. Which is kind of how we've ended up here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

While its true that User:7&6=thirteen didn't start this ANI, presumably the previous case against them made them reluctant, they jumped right in when someone else started it, demanding sanctions against me. They apparently withdrew from the discussion (as did the nom) when it became clear the consensus was overwhelmingly against them and now have reentered the discussion once their own behaviour was called into question. Despite grudgingly accepting the consensus, its clear from the comments above that 7&6=thirteen continues with his/her battleground mentality, particularly this: Tom Rees was DYK in 2014, it came to AFD on 16 February 2021. Its 2014 DYK obviously wasn't a result of improvements after the 2021 AFD. How could I be insulted by a 7 year old DYK? Mztourist (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"No compliance with BEFORE" is not a fair response. It's literally assuming bad faith, and it's not on. Just because one editor found a source doesn't mean other editors didn't look. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

They did not look well. If the sources were there, a poorly executed search is no search at all. There are levels of searches; and we all have different competence and perhaps places to look. Some have access through the Wikipedia library. And indeed, when the article already had the sources and they were ignored, this says a lot. Every article potentially can be justified by WP:GNG. Sorry that you are offended, but not sorry that I raise the question. That you take it personally is regrettable; and when one nominates more than a hundred articles for deletion at a stroke, there is a reason to raise it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources are not ignored. What happens is AFD noms don't think those sources qualify as GNG sources. But if there is a source, any source, you accuse the nom of failing to perform a before search. You don't even account for the possibility that they just disagree with you about quality of sources. Obviously this warning is not going to change anything because you are outright saying sorry-not-sorry. So I support tban since you're refusing to change how you communicate. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You can disagree. I do not impugn their motives. And neither should you presume on mine. When the AFD is decided, it is decided. There is room for disagreement, and you certainly are entitled to state your position at the AFD. And yes, there can be questions about quality of sources – and disagreement. So what? But stifling the speech of those who disagree is wrong. And that is true whichever way it cuts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're running around calling people "troll" for disagreeing with you. "Stifling the speech of those who disagree" is what you're doing, by attacking them. Calling them a troll. Accusing them of not doing a before search. Saying another editor's hard work is a "massive attack" or a "purge", etc. etc. The problem is that you are uncivil towards those you disagree with, and you appear to think it's OK. I don't see you striking any past comments anywhere. Including in this thread. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not impugn their motives. Yes, you do. You did right in this thread: "They are doing by indirection (literally) that which they could not do through AFD. This is a purge, Disguised as a merge." and "This is to stifle content improvement and studied comment and debate. In fact, a lot of these went through the massed rushed AFD and were kept. This is a change of name and tactics deliberately intended to get to a particular result. Sleight of hand. If you don't believe me, take a look at User:Mztourist's talk page." Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the above responses show 7&6=thirteen refusal to WP:LISTEN; maybe a simple warning is not going to help. The statement "Every article potentially can be justified by WP:GNG" is telling about a lot of the comments from ARS members, they will come up with any mention at all of a subject and spam refs to attempt to justify keeping an article and completely ignore whether it meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and pretend like WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not exist. This is illustrated well in the AfD discussions about the merged articles. Any excuse will due to attempt to derail an AfD, such as claiming a proceedural close of a group nom is a keep is a reason to oppose a follow up individual nom ([139], [140], [141] + many others).

A few indivduals have also made PROD almost useless with baseless dePRODing, which is negatively impacting AfD.

Taken as a whole, it is disruptive.  // Timothy :: talk  20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was not saying that every article should result in a Keep. Only that WP:GNG is implicated. And WP:Before is too; it is not just a statement that you should see if there are sources, but also look at alternatives to deletion. I am not here to cast aspersions or engage in "combat". I have no vested interest in outcomes. I here what you are saying, and will try to avoid conflicts. I improve the articles (see for example Tadeusz Arentowicz] which was not deleted and went on to be on the main page as a DYK), and the additions stand or fall on their merit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said above User:7&6=thirteen continues with their battleground mentality. They have made incorrect statements and cast aspersions on my motivations in relation to Tom Rees. As demonstrated above they will not change their behaviour without sanctions. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have apologized, clarified and disengages. The move from mass deletions to mass redirects was unprecedented, so far as I know. It frustrated in a very effective manner the idea of improving and rescuing the articles. You folks say that was alright. I understand your concerns. See here. I am not an unresolved problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment: 7&6=thirteen reiterates his non-apology 'apology' with: Give it a rest; disengage. I have. [142]. Likewise, not the best comment from GreenC, the OP: Suggest you both go your separate ways and not escalate further. [143], given that GreenC "escalated" the matter by starting an ANI against the editor whom this comment is directed at. Something is really rotten with ARS where such comments, while this ANI is in progress, fly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with User:K.e.coffman. 7&6=thirteen has not apologized for the numerous personal attacks on me, only for the mistaken accusations regarding Tom Rees above and mistakenly editing my comments at ARS: [144] and even that apology was tempered by 7&6=thirteen later revising it to add: [145] "So much for WP:AGF" as if I was somehow to blame. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Sanction

Its obvious we need to so something about 7&6=thirteen's approach to engaging with otber editors and I'd like to try something addressing that before we have to consider the more draconian prospect of a tban from deletion discussions.

How about User 7&6=thirteen is subject to a restriction prohibing personal attacks. Commenting negatively about other editors or speculating on their motivations is expressly prohibited by this restriction. They are also expressly warned that using inappropriately emotive language to describle actions or consequences of other editors' actions may also be a violation of this prohibition at the discretion of a reviewing admin or consensus at an admin noticeboard. Failure to comply with the terms of this restriction will be met with incrementally increasing blocks.

Thoughts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - "using inappropriately emotive language to describe actions or consequences of other editors' actions" is somewhat subjective to applied in a sanction. The personal attacks is the problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Spartaz: a Tban from ARS & AfD may be a more effective sanction, being direct and specific. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that framing. Intothatdarkness 15:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Anything less than a Tban from ARS & AFD is likely to be ineffective. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You want to TBAN someone from a project they have helped with for years now? Even though you are the one going down there arguing with everyone nonstop, posting your ridiculous insulting accusations of canvassing all over the place. [146] Dream Focus 07:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and if you read above you will see that I'm not the only User with these concerns. Meanwhile your description of me "arguing with everyone nonstop, posting your ridiculous insulting accusations of canvassing all over the place" is itself a personal attack. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose If you have a list of diffs showing specific problems, by all means post them. Rather vague here. Dream Focus 07:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not very "obvious" to me. I see no personal attacks in the above thread, and I see no diffs here; what I see is see someone who had an AN/I thread made about them proposing the OP is tbanned from the dispute they were both a part of. That's the opposite of convincing. jp×g 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The user being discussed regarding sanctions isn't the OP who started the AN/I. And the person who proposed the sanctions isn't the subject of the AN/I to begin with. Intothatdarkness 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Bruh moment. I think I was looking at the wrong section (read Mztourist's endorsement of the TBAN as a proposal). Struck that part, but the rest of the comment stands; I don't see 7&6=thirteen making personal attacks and there are no diffs provided here. jp×g 00:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

      You're kidding? This thread starts at #User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion and contains many diffs, and surely calling someone a troll, comparing their editing to Pearl Harbor, and accusing them of sleight of hand and bad faith motives, are all personal attacks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

      I concur, they are personal attacks. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose User:7&6=thirteen's inclusionism is occasionally annoying, but there isn't a case for any sanctions here. Personal attacks are generally forbidden to any editor; no case is presented for a separate prohibition on this specific editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• 7&6Thirteen's pattern of behavior is pretty consistent. It's just a question of whether or not the behavior is inappropriate.

Besides the accusations of trolling, Pearl Harbor joke[147], etc, discussed repeatedly in the thread above, the behavior that people are finding irritating is a set of some stock techniques 7&6Thirteen uses over and over again in deletion debates, so difs are easy to find.

• Accuse the proposer of incompetence. [148][149][150][151]
• Insist that the nomination is "No compliance with WP:BEFORE", which is also an accusation of incompetence, or at the very least, a discussion of the proposer's behavior, and not the article itself. [152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160]

• Imply that individuals or a nebulous "usual crew" of deletionists is out to delete stuff maliciously [161][162][163][164][165]

• And just generally accuse editors of not acting in good faith. [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] A zillion copies of this 'matter of housekeeping'

They seem to not really believe that it's possible for two people to both look at the same sources and genuinely come to different conclusions about notability.

(I dunno if there are more egregious examples, I think the ones I linked are pretty typical. They're the examples I could spot quickly, anyway.) ApLundell (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum

• I do admit to enjoying this (particularly with the added irony of people complaining about Boris Johnson's suitability as a politician even 12 years ago). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

False accusations of copivio

At Gyeogam Yurok, User: Elinruby repeatedly adds a tag asserting This article is a rough translation from another language. It may have been generated by a computer or by a translator without dual competence. I tried to discuss this claim on the talk page, but User: Elingyry has repeatedly implied bad faith and copyvio, even saying I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate. Translation of what has never been specified, despite several requests. Such charges of intellectual dishonesty should either be substantiated by serious and detailed evidence or be quashed. The first part of the choice is only rhetoric, since this article was written from scratch. Pldx1 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any questions. This is a boomerang IMHO. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

At Talk: Gyeogam Yurok, User: Elinruby is trying to muddy the waters. But by saying I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate cannot be taken as a statement about how to split infinitives. It is a clear assertion of intellectual dishonesty. Since User: Elinruby is unable to substantiate such an assertion, this assertion must be rescinded.Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Since I've got nothing to do for a few minutes, I gave this a look. I don't see any evidence that the version first flagged as "rough translation" is indeed a machine translation of the Korean WP article; it does seem to be a newly formulated, condensed version. Nor is/was the English bad enough to merit a characterization as a "rough translation without dual competence" . So I don't think that tag is merited, and I'd take it off. On the other hand, the article did start out functionally unsourced, is still using several dodgy sources, and clearly was in need of the improvements Elinruby has already added. So I'd suggest that Pldx1 stop fighting tooth and claw against justified maintenance tags (in particular, "just go do it yourself" is never an argument against such) and avoid talk page hostility. That isn't getting the article improved. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

At no time did I specifically say it was machine translation, but if it is not, (I am saying now) it was written by someone at a low-intermediate level of English proficiency, for which we also use the {{rough translation}} template, a term of art described at WP:Pages_needing_translation_into_English. It may not be quite bad enough to justify the template any more, but I have been steadily chipping away at its problems, and this is not a scarlet letter of shame, you know. It merely puts the article on a translation maintenance list.

I am not certain why this editor insists that standard wikipedia procedure is an affront against his or her good name. I have tried more than once to explain that that translation from one wiki to another is not a copyright violation, but does require the use of the {{translated page}} template to provide attribution and preserve the licensing on this material. Please see the edit window at Talk: Liberation of France for Mathglot (talk · contribs)'s correct use of the template to document the article creation. Note that *that* article is a translation even though a significant fraction of the article is written in English by monolingual English speakers, because it is interwoven with translated snippets from French wiki articles and English wiki articles previously translated from French. Four editors are collaborating on it.

If any part of any article is translated, the translated template is required. If the translation improves on the original, so much the better, as this is what Help: Translation suggests, but this does not make it *not* a translation.

The original editor has misunderstood several policies and views maintenance tagging as a personal insult. They then remove it because they disagree, for example, with John B123 (talk · contribs)'s tags about references, which he or she called "a succession of weasel words".

At the most pragmatic level, the simplest way to resolve this dispute is for Pldx1 (talk · contribs) to deign to answer questions about the text of the article. I will do my best to address the issues that it definitely does have. I am a native English speaker with a large vocabulary in multiple languages who has been doing exactly this on Wikipedia for more than a decade. I fix bad translations, among other things. I have no secret agenda to humiliate the editor as they seem to think, and if it is fresh and original writing, fine, then would the editor please explain as I have asked what the word "styled" is doing in the article. Since the editor is complaining about tagging rather that addressing it, I described what I was guessing it to mean, and asked for confirmation, only to be told that I was very imaginative and hopefully I had a reference for that. I replied, ok, if that is wrong, please explain, and was met with stony silence.

This type of page ownership is not uncommon in bad translation and is best dealt with by asking specific questions about what is meant by specific phrases that do not make sense in English. This is how Operation Car Wash was translated: one word at a time. I believe *that* translation came here also, because I was disturbing the stable version, supposedly, even though a politician named Cuñha was several times referred to as "wedge". As in cheese.

We can do a deep dive into the structural parallels between the Korean (Google Translate version) and the English article as it stands. If we must get forensic. The fact is, it is translatedn. This is an expert opinion not an accusation and if the editor were not so angry and defensive we need not have been here on the drama boards or even have had the templates so frantically being disputed. I am happy to take the remaining {{what} off the article if the editor will only explain to me who that person is. I have already removed one what, and two reliable source templates, after determining that the sources were books and therefore giving them the benefit of the doubt on reliability. The templates are there in the hope of attracting another Korean-speaking editor to help with these issues, since this one apparently cannot or will not see them.

I would like to point out that this editor's behaviour is not constructive, nor is accusing me of racism when in fact I spend a big chunk of my wikitime promoting and improving a diversity of narratives, most of which, including this one, I find at the Community portal's Task Center. The article is still largely uncategorized because I did not get an answer when I asked on the article talk page if "Joseon poet" was an accurate description, because there is no category for "Joseon scholar".

If we seriously are going to litigate this, I would ask Elmidae (talk · contribs) to look over not only the article's recent talk page, but also this editor's message on my talk page and my message on theirs. I believe the examples above may somewhat clarify them situation. I am not hell-bent on calling this rough translation, but if the goal is to avoid that appellation then the article needs to be something that the target demographic of en.wikipedia can read. Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Even if this article was a translation of the Korean, it wouldn't be a copyvio so this complaint starts off poorly. I would suggest the complainant looks at his own behaviour before making accusations about others. --John B123 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This "complaint" started by quoting I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate 2021-02-26. Since User:Elinruby wants to discuss about constructive behavior, there is also while I do not read Korean and Google translate has issues with it, it does well enough for me to see that the lede section and the section about the author, at least are word for word. or very close 2021-02-24. And there is a triple down here We can do a deep dive into the structural parallels between the Korean (Google Translate version) and the English article as it stands. If we must get forensic. The fact is, it is translatedn. This is an expert opinion. Here are the forensics. May I add that I don't believe that the keyboard of a person in a constructive mood would have spontaneously produced such a series of aspersions. To be rescinded. Pldx1 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want a side by side comparison of the two articles to demonstrate why it is a translation I would be happy to accommodate you but I am involved with a big messy article that is a lot more interesting than reasoning with --- I don't know what to call it -- a fundamental insistence on taking offence? This article was also manually listed at PNT so your entire temper tantrum is mind-bogglingly irrelevant. If you want your world to be one in which you aren't edited, I don't know what to tell you. There are clear English problems. There are reference questions. What is the relationship between the Korean Academy and the Royal Library, please? What are prophetic intents? Who is this person who published the book recently? It *needs* an edit. Oh and tell me more about the reliable source about Nine Prophesies, seems a trifle fringe. I guess it could be a Newsweek or Atlantic, but you just refuse to discuss reliability of the source because the sentence it supports seems self-evident to you. I guess. Call it a copyedit if you want, geez. But it's listed at PNT. And if it was written from your deep knowledge of the subject or something, please please please tell me what that word "styled" is doing there, since you said it wasn't what I thought. Elinruby (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh man. Shorter version of my inestimable 2 cents: article possibly over-tagged, Pldx1 taking excessive offense about it. The former isn't ideal but will eventually lead to a better article. The latter does no good whatsoever. Translating does not imply copyvio, and ANI is not here to force people to apologize about trivialities. This section is now three times as long as the article. Stop litigating. How about closing this discussion? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually feel like I should get an apology. But I am sure that will not happen and there is a lot of integration happening at Liberation of France on which I would prefer to spend my time. I said something early on about a boomerang, which would actually be warranted, IMHO, but afaik there aren't any other editors working in Korean so this editor is valuable, pricky and huffy as they are. Elinruby (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• How to close this thread? Very simple. This thread is not about how to split infinitives, nor about how to type [S-T-Y-L-E enter] in the search box, nor about tag-driving or whatever else. This thread is about the repetitive assertion (see the diffs) that this article has been stolen somewhere. Pretending to be too busy to answer the simple question: where is this "somewhere" is not an escape route. If you have found the time to cast these aspersions, take the time and try to prove them... or rescind them (explicitly, not in some obscure corner of the Prime Number Theorem page). Pldx1 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruptive editing by Ddum5347

Since their account creation in August last year, Ddum5347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has extensively edited animal (mostly bird and mammal) related articles. While some of their edits are constructive, a large proportion of them are controversial, and are not considered improvements by other editors. Examples of this include mass renaming animal articles from species names to supposed common names, as well as mass additions/removals of taxa from "list of [animals] of [country]" articles without any kind of discussion. Most edits lack edit summaries. When their edits are opposed by other editors they do not attempt to engage in dialogue to try to reach concensus, but instead engage in edit warring to impose their preferred view, for which they have been blocked several times. Ddum has made no attempt to engage with the issues other editors have had with their behaviour and warnings on their talkpage are ignored and periodically blanked (see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). Ignoring the blankings, Ddum has received over two dozen notices for problematic edits and edit warring over the less than the year the account has existed. I and many other editors of animal related articles find their editing disruptive and their behavior not compatible with the collaborative nature of encyclopedic editing. Ddum was blocked for 1 week for edit warring, which was then extended to two weeks for block evasion for editing while logged out. Since they have come back they have resumed their disruptive behaviour, including reverting edits they were previously edit warring over before they were blocked, ([171] [172]). See these threads at WikiProject Animals (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#Ddum5347's_disruptive_edits) and Wikiproject Birds (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_72#Questions_about_"list_of_birds"_articles) for previous discussions surrounding Ddum's conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging relevant users @Pvmoutside: @Craigthebirder: @William Harris: @FunkMonk: @JurassicClassic767: @SilverTiger12: @MeegsC: @Faendalimas:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm, DDum has caused several recurring issues. I only really pay attention to felid taxa and breed articles, so I am not as involved as the other editors, but I have had to deal with them added OR or removed cited information. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

These are the WP:ORs in Lynx: on 1 Feb and on 21 Feb; then they added 2 refs, neither of which supports the argument. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ORs in Asiatic lion: on 4 Dec, on 5 Dec with a noteworthy edit summary, on 6 Dec; see also Talk:Asiatic_lion#No_lion_in_Afghanistan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Ddum's edit warring, another thing that bugs me is his lack of edit summaries, for example, in a recent edit of his at Guadeloupe Amazon, he removed a category without explaining why, so then I assumed it was one of his "bad edits", so to speak, and reverted it, but then afterwards he had to revert my edit just to explain why he removed the category, so yeah, that's annoying. And we could continue with other of his edits and mostly see disruptive ones, as mentioned above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The editor has ascribed to a scientific reliable source something it did not state in order to have their own way here. The edit summary was correct but the edit's impact was not. Such behaviour is unacceptable. William Harris (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

While edit warring is unacceptable, I do recall a discussion or two about using common names for articles - it's what WP prescribes, after all, and I would actually support doing so because I have searched for common names of plants, trees, birds, etc. and cannot find them. I'm of the mind that not finding articles is a significant problem. Most readers are simply not going to search using the scientific name. Beyond that, I have nothing more to add. Atsme 💬 📧 21:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In any case, it would need discussion to change it wholesale. But yeah, I've also ended up in problematic situations with the editor, and they don't seem to change their behaviour at all, so I'm not sure what else, if anything, can be done... FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was mostly making observations with this as I mostly edit on another wiki, hoewever, once he was blocked and it appears from a local CU that he attempted to avoid the block by socking I determined the line had been crossed and supported the ANI. That is essentialy the limit of my involvement, however I am grateful for the ping. Considering a willingness to sock has been demonstrated to avoid a one week bock, among his other issues as pointed out by others from my perspective this is not a simple case. Short of an indefinite ban a very clear message is going to be needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some form of WP:TBAN on all animal-related articles may be appropriate. William Harris (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

May as well just siteban him, then, since his only interest seems to be animal related articles. I'd much rather get him talking; he's clearly editing in good faith. That being said, a block for disruption (in the form of being unresponsive to talk page requests) might be the only way to get him talking at this point. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Please repeat all of the things you wish for me to change behaviour-wise. I need to know what to do if I am to continue editing. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Just go to the edit history of your talk page and look at all of the notices you have blanked rather than responding to. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the next step, then? I'm ready to discuss this. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: The easiest one is WP:BRD. If an edit you have made is reverted, don't simply revert the reversion, but either move on or discuss the edit on the talk page of the article to attempt to gain concensus for the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I will cooperate from now on. I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

it is good to see you wiling to cooperate. One piece of advice I wil give you. A report was made on your talk page in refererence to you creating a second account to avoid your block, wether CUs or Sysops here wish to act on this I cannot say, I do not hold these positions on this wiki, I do on others. This is not the way to deal with being blocked, you can appeal the block and communicate, deal with the issue. It may lead to you being unblocked if the admins are saticfied. However, never avoid a block by making another account this is known as socking and can lead to an indefinite block. Just do not do this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the subject editor might like to explain (a) the lack of an edit summary, and (b) the lack of a supporting reference, for this edit here after making the comments above. William Harris (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, “I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored.” Question for @Ddum5347: what will you do if you open a talk page discussion and someone posts an objection to what you want to do and you don’t agree with that objection? (Back in October/November they were edit-warring a change into United Kingdom - this is happening not just on animal articles - despite being reverted by multiple editors. Eventually they did open a talk page thread but carried on with the edit warring after doing so. In fact, they didn’t even wait for a reply.) DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

For the edit on African golden wolf, I added felid competitors it shares its range with. I will add sources soon. And for the UK edits, that was when I edit warred without thinking. I'm not going to be doing that anymore. Consensus is needed. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Ddum. I hope you follow through. I see that an editor disputes the references you added to African golden wolf and reverted you. I’ll be interested to see how your follow through plays out there. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Great to read Ddum will be cooperating....proof is in the pudding now...i left a note on his/her talk page. I mentioned there he/she will also be on a short leash from many of us.... Pvmoutside (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has experienced Ddum's edit-warring first-hand, I have been watching this situation unfold for some time, and I am not confident that he fully understands the BRD process, even now. Several months ago, at List of mammals of South Australia, Ddum replaced "extinct in South Australia" with the contentious term "extirpated". Along with a couple of other editors, I raised the issue on his talk page - he briefly responded, but then blanked the page. The same issue occurred later on the Thylacine article, and this time he did take limited part in the talk page discussion (see Talk:Thylacine#Extirpated). He had been provided with three definitions from reputable dictionaries (as well as another from Wiktionary), but his response was, in my view, very underwhelming.

Due to Ddum being blocked for a period, I had until now refrained from reverting his changes to List of mammals of South Australia - back in December, he had reverted my restoration of the pre-edit-war status quo, with his edit summary including, "...Take this to the talk page". At the time, he didn't, which was a misuse of the BRD process because, as the editor making the contentious edits, the onus was on him to demonstrate that this was an improvement to the article.

As a test of Ddum's willingness to adhere to his commitment to cooperate, earlier today I restored the pre-edit-war status quo to List of mammals of South Australia, and opened the discussion on the article's talk page. Five hours later, Ddum reverted my edit, after adding this comment to the article's talk page, including the same, in my view, inadequate reference he had provided to the Thylacine discussion.

Although Ddum now appears to be more willing to engage in discussions with other editors, I fear that his propensity to engage in edit wars is undiminished. Bahudhara (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have states numerous times, this term is often used in biological articles, and is synonymous with local extinction. I don't know why you are so against using it, but it does not imply human causation of a population's extinction. The ref I provided is merely one instance of it being used [173], [174]. Also, you mindlessly reverted my edits, even though I added species that were not even on the list beforehand, and improved the article overall. My intent is to not edit-war, but to improve articles, and your aversion to the term has made you revert the article to its previous state several times. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"My intent is not to edit war" -- you must prove that by not edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, but this user's insistence has made it very difficult. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And at least one of the species that Ddum added to the list - feral water buffalo - doesn't even exist in South Australia! (If he'd bothered to read the ref he supplied, he would have seen that they exist only in the Top End of the Northern Territory.) I'll need to check the others he added. Bahudhara (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The bat species I added are native to the state. You didn't even address the rest of the things I said but alright then. Ddum5347 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ddum, I think it would be a good idea if you slowed your editing down. Your edits over the last few hours are giving the appearance of only partially getting it on edit warring. Our exchange at the talk page of African golden wolf tells me you don’t really get WP:SYNTH. It would be to your advantage to read over and really get familiar with policies like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW before going any further. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, “partially” getting it may be overstating it in your favour, looking at your 170+ edits (and what’s being posted to your talk page) over the 36 hours since you said this. You’re going too fast to take on board what’s being said to you. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Concur that you need to slow down. Also, stop changing phrasing just because you prefer a different version, especially in the lede of an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My current concerns: they are still editing at about 100 mph and continue to make needless changes to grammar and phrasing. When I asked them to stop doing this on their talk page, they accused me of berating them. Seriously, DDum, please slow down and stop the grammar and phrasing changes- if it isn't broken, don't fix it, because oftimes, your changes aren't an improvement on what was already there. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of Wikipedia's grammar and phrasing could do with adjustments, but I am not looking at any particular editors or edits. There exists the hazard that in re-jigging grammar it then becomes exactly how the original source wrote it, and then the section is blanked by one of our diligent copyright-patrollers, never to be restored. One needs to proceed with caution. William Harris (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Osomite violations of WP:NPA

In this edit, during an editoria dispute of Talk:Operation Sea Lion Osomite called me an "apologist". From the context, I infer that he meant a "Nazi apologist", since he also referred to my "prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland."

At first I waved this off, but it then began to bother me, so I requested that he retract both defamatory statements. [175]

Osomite's response was to first tag me with an unwarranted edit-warring warning related to the dispute, and then to post a non-apology apology, in which he apologized for my feelings, and not for his statements. [176] In any case, I did not ask for, and do not want an apology, I asked for him to retract his statements. When I told him that [177], he blew me off and told me to report him, which I am doing.

I put prodigious effort into protecting Wikipedia from neo-Nazis et al. who try to alter facts or whitewash articles, and I do not appreciate being called an "apologist" for the Nazi invasion of Poland, simply because I stand by the historical record that the invasion was successful. "Successful" is not a measure of approval, it's simply a matter of which side won the battle in question. About this there can be no doubt: the Nazi invasion of Poland was successful.

I would like an admin to take a look at the situation and issue a warning -- at least -- to Osomite not to violate WP:NPA and to ask them to retract their defamatory statements about me by striking them through, as I requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken! To be fair, I took Osomite's statement, "I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize." as a sufficient apology, but I understand if you wish for the user to strike those personal attacks. Osomite, can you please do that so that the discussion can move on and be constructive and on-topic regarding the article? :-) Also, please don't make personal attacks at other users like that. A founding principle of Wikipedia is that we treat others with respect, and making personal attacks directly conflicts with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Except that I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize is NOT an apology at all, since it's all about what the target is alleged to feel and not what the supposed apologizer has done. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I was also involved and the entire incident was a bizarre attempt to claim Poland was not defeated, which is odd, to say the least. The attack on Ken are unacceptable and (at the very least) Osomite should strike them and apologize. I tried to accommodate them. I get the feeling this may not be over. Their (belated, they replied after I had assumed it was over as Ken had added sources to the claim they were contesting) talk page comments smack of wp:nothere and wp:Ididnothearthat. I now feel like I did Ken a disservice by trying to get a civil discourse and trying to address Osomite's concerns. It seems to me this was all just A POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've found several of User:Osomite's comments as attempting to personalise the dispute and / or downright insulting, such as:

1. I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland.
2. better late than not to put my thoughts about your activity on record.
3. You are disingenuous.
4. Your argument is largely that of an apologist. Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that.
5. In re: sources that BMK added: Conveniently they are in books that will be difficult to view and verify that you have been honest in these assertions., implying that BMK is a potential lier to boot.

Permalink: [178]. The implication of 1 & 4 combined is clearly pointing towards Nazi apologist, so BMK was right to take offense. A non-apology 'apology' generally does not resolve anything. Here's what was offered by User:Osomite: I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize.. It's odd that this comment was given an edit summary of "apology to Beyond My Ken".

I would recommend a strong word of caution, if not a warning against personalising disputes and attacking other editors on article Talk pages. Given that no actual apology has been offered so far, a short block may be in order as an alternate outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, they are not apologizing for saying ken is an apologist, just that he is sorry for saying he is a Nazi one. Moreover I note "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial", so he still thinks he is in the right and Ken is on the wrong over the "controversy" (he is yet to show there is one, outside of his opinions) over whether or not Germans was successful. With an added "It seemed to me that Germany's successful invasion of Poland was a Nazi victory." I agree this is not a genuine apology by an ANI complaint one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Its pretty clear from the context that Osomite isn't remotely sorry about his blatant personal attacks. Despite Osomites denial, its very difficult to consider than he called BMK anything but a Nazi apologist. Its pretty clear by any reasonable standard that the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland was a victory in the early stages of the war, and describing people as "apologists" for supporting that is massively uncalled for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• My thanks to those who have posted here to support my position: I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
  I want to point out that in the 12 hours since Oshwah made the comment above, urging Osomite to retract their statements, Osomite has yet to do so. They have, however, made six trivial edits to one of their user pages, deleting old sections, which I take as being a rather ostentatious display of ignoring this complaint and the advice from an admin. I would like to suggest that such studied disregard of the call for a simple retraction of what are -- the consensus here agrees -- personal attacks is not the sign of someone who is prepared to behave in a civil manner -- in fact, quite the opposite. I ask that further administrative action be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• My ping above didn't work, so... Oshwah, please see my previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Osomite - Why won't you strike the comments as requested so that we can move on? I really don't want to be the "admin bad guy" here, but a block is going to be considered if you don't do this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah: Thanks, but I don't believe that Osomite is going to do anything. They continue to edit their sub-page User:Osomite/Stuff while ignoring this discussion and my requests. Slatersteven posted a comment on their talk page saying they really should come to this discussion, [179] and Osomite's responses was to add links to that sub-page so that they could "check out" Slatersteven. [180]

Because of the lack of response or action from Osomite, I have myself redacted their personal attacks from their comments on Talk:Operation Sealion [181], and have e-mailed Oversight asking that they be rev-del'd or oversighted, whichever is appropriate. Assuming that this request is accepted, I guess that the incident is over, except, of course, that Osomite will have escaped without being sanctioned for their continuing uncollegial behavior. Thanks for your assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow that's... weird. And almost stalkerish. — Czello 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I read it as an indication that Osomite is rather unwilling to work and play well with others. I would note that there was some more explicitly "opposition research" information on that sub-page about me, which I deleted per WP:POLEMIC. [182]. The stuff about Slatersteven was more innocuous, so I didn't think it qualified for deletion, but I suspect they had the same purpose in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Response from Osomite

@Slatersteven: I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I find this issue very distressing. Sadly it was the last thing I thought about while trying to fall asleep last night (actually at 3 AM) as this dilemma has been weighing on my mind. I do not call people Nazi apologists. I have not called people Nazi apologists. Beyond My Ken through inference (BMK's word) says I did.

Slatersteven, after you made your proposal to me to remove my comments, I thought it was appropriate and was figuring out how to do what you suggested and best seek resolution. Yes, I was silent, the reason was that I wanted to give time to let things cool down. I was upset by the proceedings and want to be able to respond calmly. I was silent, but I was listening. I am distressed that my silence was construed as nefarious. Sometimes a silence is just a silence. I was just listening and thinking. What was the apparent need for urgency? You mentioned that I was "a POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article". Where did that come from? I have no alternate version of history to force. It is very interesting what some people consider the meaning of silence is.

This issue initiated around my "edit" (I apologize for the "scare quotes", but I can't get the dif rename done without them) of the following sentence in the Operation_Sea_Lion article in the section "Invasion of Poland":

In September 1939, the German invasion of Poland was a success, but this infringed on both a French and a British alliance with Poland and both countries declared war on Germany.

My purpose was to edit a poorly constructed sentence and clarify. With the result of:

In September 1939, German invaded Poland. This aggression infringed on a French alliance with Poland and a British alliance with Poland. Subsequently, France and Britain declared war on Germany.

(Oops, I see that I created a typo "German" instead of "Germany".) So I reconstructed a sentence that had a comma splice and unusual conjunction "but". I edited it to make it three sentences. Making the entry more informative and clear was my object. And then I was left with the first sentence where using the word "successful" felt awkward. I have never considered the invasion of Poland "unsuccessful" (as some here have somehow construed). An invasion is either an invasion or a "failed invasion". And I have never seen the use of "successful" relative to "invasion" anywhere. Seeing that accolade in an encyclopedia article did not seem to have a neutral point of view NPOV. So I did not think that using the "successful" necessary. Removing the word "success" or "successful" does not change the meaning of the sentence. I had no hidden agenda with doing this. I had no agenda. I was trying to write the best encyclopedia article I could by removing a word that was unnecessary. After all, was an invasion and the invasion did what an invasion does. And in the edit summary, I indicated, "There is no support for the claim that the invasion of Poland was "successful". And from there BMK disagreed and reverted the entire edit. BMK ignored my edit of the second sentence which was a marked improvement over the original.

Here is an observation. In the Invasion of Poland Wikipedia article, the word "success", relative to the overall invasion, was used once, stating "The success of the invasion marked the end of the Second Polish Republic, though Poland never formally surrendered." Here as with the Operation Sea Lion article, the word "success" is an unnecessary adjective. If the word "success" is removed, the meaning of the sentence is not altered.

The encyclopedia Britannica, when discussing what caused WWII, it simply states, "World War II began in Europe on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland." Here is a creditable encyclopedia that does not feel the need for touting the invasion as "successful".

Through all of this, I have pondered about "what was Hitler's goal in invading Poland?" What would have been Hitler's criteria to consider the invasion successful? Clearly, Hitler desired to expand eastward to gain “lebensraum” (living space) for Germans. Did the invasion accomplish this goal? Another thought was that Hitler needed to possess Poland in order to launch his offensive against Russia. Yes, the invasion was successful in Germany "possessing" Poland for this purpose. If it is this apparent, why couldn't BMK simply qualify the condition of success? Maybe BMK could have added another sentence or two?

Recently, I read somewhere that with Germany's invasion of Poland and when the Allied Forces entered into WWII against Germany, at that point Germany had already realized that they had lost the war. With that view, it seems a stretch to say the invasion spawned a "success". I guess I need to find that again because there will undoubtedly be contention about this assertion. In any case, this line of inquiry is interesting and needs to be examined.

For some reason, Beyond My Ken has called me "the editor" throughout this entire episode. This is a personal slight, I consider BMK to be rude. There is some psychology involved with not acknowledging a person with their name. To not acknowledge someone is a snub. It can mean to ignore or not take notice of.

For some reason, from BMK's first revert of my initial edit, BMK made no effort to collaborate with me. He has only been brusk, offensive, and threatening. I made a single revert and BMK put the edit war Ambox warning on my talk page accusing "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Sea Lion;" And then in an additional entry on my talk page threatened, "Your next revert to this article triggers a report to the edit warring notice board". OMG! I made a single revert at 10:35 and a second edit (retaining the word "successful" and BMK's response was to threaten me. Although in the edit war notice it counseled "Users are expected to collaborate with others", BMK never sought to collaborate with me. I highly doubt that BMK's behavior reflected an appropriate protocol.

Throughout many edit exchanges with editors, BMK has been determined to retain the exact original badly constructed sentence with simply the addition of four references supporting specifically for the single word "successful" in the context of "In September 1939, the successful German invasion of Poland". The placement of the references is unusual; they are placed immediately after the word " ". BMK's "edit" (Again, apologies for the "scare quotes") establishes that the references are specifically for just the word "successful", remarking in the edit summary "This is the way it must be done."

I appreciate that BMK has provided references specifically for the word "successful". I plan to track down the books to see whether there is actually a clear statement or analysis stating that the invasion was "successful". After I have been able to do find the books (they are at my libraries) and do the research, I was will report my results. If I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong with appropriate apologies to BMK. I value truth and I value an honest presentation of history.

I see from the discussions, things have not cooled off. Beyond My Ken has been quite busy prosecuting his case. Is that appropriate? Today, BMK has "redacted what he considers to be personal attacks" in my post on the Operation Sea Lion Talk page. Was that appropriate? It seems that BMK is doing his best to add heat and stir the pot. From this situation, am I going to received fair consideration?

My posts concerned were in reply to "BLM post" (apologies for the "scare quotes") which was initiated immediately after I made "my first and only revert" (apologies for the "scare quotes").

BMK considers the following phrases to be personal attacks. Just to provide a perspective they were not grouped but spread in my post to BMK

• "to maintain Nazi victory in Poland"

• 4 lines of text follows

• "You are disingenuous."

• 10 lines of text follows

• "Your argument is largely that of an apologist."

I am truly sorry that BMK inferred (BMK's word) that a word in the first phrase and a word in the third phrase was a personal attack of being called a "Nazi apologist". I am sorry he saw it that way. It was in no way intended to be a personal attack that I had "cleverly hidden". I did make an apology which was heartfelt ("I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize."). However, somehow I did not say whatever magical words BMK thought appropriate and called it a "nonapology apology". Some here have the view that I did not make a "not a genuine apology". Is there some guidance on how to make a genuine apology?

About "apologist". Some who are judging here, consider that because I rebuffed BMK's "success" argument by saying it was "largely that of an apologist" is a personal attack. An apologist is "one who speaks or writes in defense of something". What is wrong with that? That is what BMK did. I did not find BMK's argument convincing.

And about personal attacks. "BMK's reply to me" (apologies for the "scare quotes") contains some significant personal attacks on me:

"I won't take it seriously, because you're so far off the mark that you're entirely around the bend. Ignoring your ignorant personal jibes, the issue here is simple: reliable sources, and every historian worth their salt, says that the German invasion of Poland was a successful one."

BMK tells me, "I am entirely around the bend", calls me "ignorant", and then just claims the authority of historians "worth their salt". That wasn't much of an argument, it was, to me, what you would expect from an apologist who has few facts at hand. It was an insult to me. BMK claims I made a personal attack, which is ironic when BMK freely makes personal attacks; they were personal attacks that were so clear there was no inference needed to understand what they were. I would appreciate BMK's apology for his personal attack on me.

BMK's posts contain quite a bit of disparagement directed towards me; a lot of anger. The tone was arrogant and overbearing. BMK was presenting what BMK considered to be superior knowledge and was quite annoyed at being challenged. BMK took some particularly umbrage with my challenge requesting a reference for the adjective "successful". It seemed to me that BMK was looking for reasons to have controversy and conflict.

About "disingenuous". Here is "my post" and here is the comment in context which was concerned his aspersion that I was edit warring although I only made a single revert:

"You are disingenuous. You were in an edit war earlier this month from which you received a edit block of one month. You contested the block and received mercy. You ended the episode by claiming, "I'll try my best to improve". You need to work on that claim, walk the talk."

It is apparent, and BMK's editing history involving his past edit wars demonstrates it, that BMK is not candid or sincere and is in fact quite disingenuous. He claimed an edit war after I made a single revert, which is disingenuous. BMK would prefer to distract and misdirect and call it a personal attack; however, it is not, it is simply an observation of fact. This is not BMK's first rodeo.

Many words have been written here with many analyses of my words. In a lot of ways, I see this as much in the way of John Godfrey Saxe's poem [The Blind Men and the Elephant] which ends:

"So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean, and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!"

I hope for an honest opinion of the elephant.

Clearly the judges are self-selecting themselves. Can the judges act without bias and fairness?

I feel that the judges have been looking at this episode cherry-picking words, touching only the parts of the elephant that are easily at hand, and making assumptions based upon, probably, a predetermined result. You assume you know all about me and have already passed judgment. You layer assumption upon assumption. You suppose. You guess. You infer.

I feel that I will not find fair judgment here. I wonder that when making your judgments, has all of the record in the posts been reviewed and given equal weight? With BMK making on-going "comments" (again apologies for the "scare quotes") and whipping up the prosecution I feel an unfair finger on the scale.

I have a suspicion that what I have written here is just going to provide more "grist for the mill" with more criticism of what you think I really said and more condemnation.

As you judge me, do you consider Beyond My Ken blameless? Shouldn't his involvement be considered?

I have not challenged anyone's specific already stated determinations. Doing that would probably not change any opinion. I have not addressed every detail. If anyone has a specific question they would like me to address, please let me know.

Osomite ^hablemos 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have not thoroughly read the wall-of-text above, but I have skimmed it, and on the surface it appears to be a venture in WP:Wikilawyering. However, Osomite is correct that my posting "around the bend" was inappropriate, and I have now retracted that by striking it through. I will not withdraw "ignorant", because their comment was indeed completely oblivious to the thrust of my editing career in regard to Nazism, Fascism, neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism etc., just as their synopsis above is ignorant of what I do and have done in general, and, I believe, of my character. - they clearly have drawn their conclusions from a quick scan of my current talk page. I also note that Osomite has chosen to double-down on my being "disingenuous", which, of course, is simply polite-speak for "liar". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK, you should read it carefully, and in general just stop making ANI your playground. Be nicer and be here less often, in all respects, please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think if you read the comments above and on Talk:Operation Sealion, you'd find that a number of independent editors -- in fact, all of them who have commented -- have agreed that Osomite's remarks contained personal attacks, which they have refused to retract. That would seem to justify a remark to Osomite to be nicer, not to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say neither user displayed conspicuous politeness here. But I think the problem was Osomite's refusal to retract and attempts to justify why they were right, not the PA's themselves. Osomite you need to wholly accept you are wrong about what you said about BMK, that is was unacceptable. Not with a wall of text but just "I get what I said was wrong and I unreservedly apologize", one line is all it needs. BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it. I think we need to draw a line under this. Osomite, Wikipedia works by referencing wp:rs (you were technically correct, as I said at the time). But it also operates on a wp:or principle, as well as wp:bluesky. As many users told you Poland lost (thus the Germans invasion was a success) by any meaningful criteria. You failed to provide any RS backing your contention it was not a success, and thus waste time on a matter that should have been dropped. Even after sources were provided you still argued the toss it was not so. For me therefore there are issues here that go beyond the PA's (which may have been a language issue). You need to show that you will not try to push OR again, against consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it." That is not the case, at least at the moment. All they would have to do is revert my redacting edit and strikeout the offending remarks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A Briefer Response From Osomite

Slatersteven advised me that it would be more helpful to have condensed my responses into one or two paragraphs.

@Slatersteven: Yes less is more. Good thought. I have never been involved in a personal attack accusation and I had no guidance to follow so I did what I thought appropriate. Ironic, there was much ado about my prolonged silence, and now you want brevity. I was told to reply and that it was serious. I figured if it was serious, I would take it seriously and reply appropriately. I figured I had one opportunity to respond, so I made an effort to put it into perspective. What could I have explained in a paragraph or two? What is the critical issue? The critical defense?

You make a good point, so here is a try at brevity. A focused defense. (Hmm, and after writing the "brief", it is more than a paragraph or two. I did it with as few words as I could)

I have been accused by "inference" that I called Beyond My Ken (BMK) a Nazi Apologist. I did not. "Inference" is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." What is the evidence?

In my first post to the conversation, having spent some time carefully crafting it, I discovered when I tried to post I got an edit conflict as Slatersteven and BMK had posted several times while I composed, and I was behind. So I revised the post I was working on to place my somewhat belated comments in context. I "prefaced" with the comment, "I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland." I used the words "Nazi" and "victory" as they were prominently used in the back and forth posts between Slaterstevenu and BMK. I picked up on the theme. The words "Nazi attack" in my post were simply an "echoing" of the ideas being discussed. An echo nothing more.

The words "Nazi attack" would not be the ones I would use concerning the issue of "successful invasion". "Nazi attack" was not my original thought about the situation. BMK created the discussion section on the Operation Sea Lion talk page and titled it, "Was the Nazi invasion of Poland a success?" The original use of the word "Nazi" in the discussion done BMK.

Further down in the post, the part that I had tried to post but could not due to an edit conflict situation, I rebutted BMK's argument as being that of an apologist. An apologist, and nothing more. (See my previous post about "apologist", it is just a word to characterize a type of argument).

BMK, who clearly by the talk page discussion, at this point was very annoyed because I challenge the word "successful" and wanted a reference for that conclusion. So BMK, while annoyed (perhaps to the point of anger), read my post and wanted to reply. BMK created out of hole-cloth an imagined insult, a personal attack, because I used the word "Nazi" and "apologist" in the same post. Post hoc ergo propter hocer inferring, BMK decided that I said BMK was a "Nazi apologist". That is not true. I did not infer that, BMK inferred that.

To say that I made a personal attack is not true, I had no intent. I did not call BMK a "Nazi apologist". When I saw BMK's post back to me, I thought, "Oh Dear, where did that come from?" I immediately replied with an apology. Sadly BMK did not think it was not sufficient calling it a "nonapology apology". I am sorry that my apology did not satisfy BMK. At this point, I indicated I was no longer willing to engage (considering BMK's emotional state and imaginings). So I "went silent", which many here thought was a very suspicious thing to do. Note in my post, I said that was what I was intended to do. I invoked Godwin's law. And, I was condemned because I was not replying immediately. My speed of thought and action, unfortunately, does not match others in the Wikipedia world.

BMK made a personal attack incident report. And here we are, with me defending myself from an "inferred" personal attack. I have been accused of doing something I did not do by "inference". Is inference adequate proof to make it fact? About this inference, I believe that I should be allowed the "benefit of the doubt".

Osomite ^hablemos 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Osomite, what you wrote is not brief. I will be brief. The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was a miltary success. Period. End of story. The way you spoke to BMK was offensive and out of line. Period. You should make an unambiguous apology and behave better in the future. That's it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

And can you explain this [[183]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User Störm

Störm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also raised above at WP:ANI#AfD nominator closing own discussions

I don't like bringing editors to ANI, but in this case I feel it necessary. Last night, I was checking CAT:AFD/U when I noticed that a number of articles about cricketers were being nominated. An example of this is the Waheed Iqbal article. This article is fully referenced, and there are no BLP issues. Other nominated articles that I looked at were in a similar condition. The article was nominated for deletion with the rationale "Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found" despite it having four references. All were being nominated by Störm.

Initially, I warned Störm to stop nominating cricketers at AfD. He agreed not to nominate any more and I suggested that we see how those AfDs already running panned out so that we could assess whether or not my concerns re the nominations were valid. I also raised the issue at WT:CRICKET. Störm then started closing AfD discussions that he had started, such as this one, which Rugbyfan22 raised at Störm's talk page. Discussion at WT:CRICKET#AfD nominations of cricketers revealed that Lugnuts had raised the issue previously with Störm. A look at Störm's talk page history confirms this. Bobo192 raised the issue of these AfDs having the effect of driving away editors at WT:CRICKET, a sentiment I agree with.

To prevent further disruption to the project, I therefore propose that Störm is banned from nominating any article about a cricketer for deletion for a period of six months, and is also permanently formally banned from closing any AfD discussion that he has started. Störm may participate in AfD discussions not started by him. During the ban period, Störm is encouraged to study AfDs in the subject area he is interested in and learns from nominations that fail or succeed, leading to an improvement when he returns to nominating articles at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Storm has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, this was quick considering our agreement that we will wait and see. Your WP:ANI shows your shallow view of the issue at hand (Waheed Iqbal, the prime example you quoted above of my incompetence is sourced entirely with cricket statistic and database websites Cricinfo and CricketArchive which we can use for WP:V but they are not WP:RS and you should take note here. Also, go and read RfC on NCRIC and other related discussions). For your information (Mjroots), I am an active member of WP:CRIC since I joined in 2015 and have created and improved hundreds of articles for the project. I am also nominating cricket-related articles for deletion since long (because I believe in quality rather than quantity and in my view sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines) and most of them result in delete or redirect (an admin here may check my last six months AfD record). Störm (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: - Had you not started improperly closing AfDs you created, we probably wouldn't have been here. It is extremely rare for me to start a discussion here, as regulars will confirm. I'm not here to get you blocked or anything like that, but I do feel that this issue does need to be looked at properly. If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I know you did this in good faith, but I feel you should have waited and looked at the issue of WP:NCRIC. I accept that some of my nominations were bad and I have made a spate of nominations that I feel I should have avoided. Feedback and outcome here will help me decide my future (if most of admins feel I should be banned then I will leave this place voluntarily). Störm (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• While the articles give the impression of sourcing, they are generally nothing more than statistics and scorecards in a wide-ranging database, so they certainly don't meet the level of SIGCOV or SPORTCRIT. It is also clear that the wider community regards the low bar criteria of many NSPORT guidelines, and specifically NCRIC, as overly permissive, and GNG should be the bar. As such, I have no technical issues with the nominations, however the volume is a huge problem. A 2017 RFC specifically stated it was not an invitation to flood AFD, and that sentiment shouldn't be any different now. There is consensus for alternatives to deletion (e.g. merge/redirect), but it seems (especially from the early closes) that Störm hasn't looked into these before nominating despite have been asked directly. On the odd occasion, it also seems questionable that a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE has been done. Cricket project members have tried hard to participate in these discussions but this is something like the fourth or fifth wave of nominations now and as Bobo said, it simply becomes too much for some. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  To add to my earlier comment: While the volume of nominations presents an issue and a would support limiting the number of concurrent nominations listed at Delsort/Cricket, the outright disregard for significant or substantial coverage in factory producing these stubs is probably a bigger problem, with any reasonable level of AFD nominations unable to keep pace with creations – it should be noted that the vast majority of Störm's nominations have resulted in delete/merge/redirect. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have no problems with the rationale for the majority of the AfD's that Störm has done. A large majority of them don't have coverage that qualifies them for WP:GNG although common sense on some of them when players have played multiple games should be used. Like Wjemather though I am concerned about the large number of articles that are AfD. I similarly put through a number of rugby union articles at once and was told that it wasn't the correct process and haven't done it again, yet it's almost a daily splurge of AfD's that are difficult to keep up with, especially for members of WP:CRIC, who I am sure have grown tired of not having to comment on every one that comes through, especially with the effort that users like Bobo and Lugnuts have gone to in creating articles in the past. With no consensus on updating WP:NCRIC in a recent discussion also, the timing of all these AfD's is concerning also. If there had been consensus and NCRIC updated so that FC/List-A/T20 matches in top competitions aren't enough to qualify, then AfDing 'some' articles may have been appropriate. Me bring Störm to the noticeboard was only about him closing his own AfD's though, especially with some of them having time to run on their discussions or consensus that was still to be divided. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mjroots for the ping. This issue is not new and has not popped up overnight. But then it went without popping up for 14 years and everyone seemed fine with that. Whatever the issue of conduct relating to AfD discussions, I believe there are two separate arguments being made here and they are at cross-purposes to each other. While trying not to change the subject, the fact that "sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines" [sic] shows simply how efficient we have been at creating them over the last 16 years or more. The continued claim that the project is biased towards cricket coverage bears no weight. It might surprise some WP:CRIC project members to know that other sports are covered on Wikipedia too - and, ironically, in much greater and more thorough detail.

For the sake of statistics, Storm's article creation history of 2550 articles, contains 1356 pages with the auto-summary "moved page... to", 672 with "Redirected page to", and six with the words "may refer to". I cannot say anything else regarding the issue. (That is not to say I could not). To be blunt, I would be de-sysopped. Bobo. 09:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "low bar" of notability criteria for cricket articles, it is identical to that of football, ice hockey, American football, basketball, and baseball. Bobo. 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On that specific last point, they're not equivalent and I don't think anyone seriously claims they are; because of the nature of how global cricket is structured with multiple different variants of the game, a calendar based around international touring, and a culture of top-level clubs giving chances to newcomers, it's far easier for a cricketer to make an appearance "at the highest international or domestic level" than it is in (for example) baseball. That's not to say the notability guidelines are wrong—particularly for international level it's usually reasonable to assume that at minimum "local boy makes good" stories will have appeared in the newspapers—but the structure of cricket isn't equivalent to that of the NFL or the Bundesliga. ‑ Iridescent 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Numerically speaking, they are. My query has never been whether they were equivalent to each other. Bobo. 10:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- firstly, this should have been combined with the other thread. Secondly, oppose a ban on cricketer AfDs because this user does good work in clearing out permastubs about non-notable people. Thirdly, oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop doing that- so that a ban at this point would only be a punitive black mark that actually accomplishes nothing behaviour-wise. Reyk _YO! 10:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If only to make this point in a wider setting, away from the cricket Wikiproject talk page, to consider certain individuals as "non-notable people", whether right or wrong, is a considerable value judgement. and stands square against both subject-specific (CRIN) and overarching (N) guidelines. Reyk, I have no issue with you making this claim, in fact, I'm being surprisingly considerate in the fact that WP: and WT:CRIC may be considered (by some) to be a "walled garden". Bobo. 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD ban of some kind for any type of articles. Flooding AfD with dozens of noms can be seen as vexatious, and has driven away at least two very active editors from the project sicne the start of the year. As I've said on Storm's talkpage, I have no issue with them taking any article to AfD, and some of them might well be deleted, but excessive nominating is not the way to do it. A previous RfC closed with the text "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". I see that Storm has been willing to listen to comments, so we're not in WP:IDHT terrority, so if editors think a six-month ban from AfD is too harsh, then prehaps a limit of one AfD per day instead, which I know has been enforced with other editors in the past. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Those of us who have been busy creating articles for all this time have been driven away from doing so and/or completely driven away from the project. Article creation is no longer happening and there is no longer any incentive to do so. Bobo. 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Support limit to One AfD per day as per Lugnuts, while I have no problem with there being cricket AfD articles, they have become excessive in number. It's difficult to get a good consensus on these articles when there are upwards of 20 put up a day. Limiting to one a day would allow Storm to continue AfDing but would also allow WP:CRIC members the time to vote on them, whereas trying to find time to vote on 20 AfD's can be difficult for some members. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A limit of one AfD/day is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me and will hopefully help improve the level of discussion on cricket articles at AFD, which has dropped of significantly recently. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the limit, if User:Lugnuts also limit their article creation (especially related to cricket) to some reasonable number because they create lookalike permastubs (WP:KITTENS) and are the source of the mess we are in. One article limit is a good deal to User:Lugnuts as it will take much longer to clear their mess. I am willing to limit myself to five articles per day (I did spate of nominations in past only because I usually find limited time as I do all WP:BEFORE work at once and then nominate them at once. I willing to avoid that in future). Störm (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. If you think there's an issue with my article creations, then feel free to start an ANI thread about it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no issues with the cricket articles Lugnuts creates, they are for current players who are likely to go onto multiple games and gain significant coverage from that. There is no problem with creating stubs, it just needs others with the time/expertise to expand them (users from certain areas will be able to find sources from players from their area or language for example). Over time these stubs can be evaluated if they no longer play and can then be put up for deletion of they've only played one or a few matches and have no coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have closed a number of AfDs filed by Störm that start something like "fails GNG not notable"; however in almost all cases other editors give more substantial arguments for keeping or deleting the article (or in the rare case nobody does, I will typically close as soft delete). I think I'll put him in the same category as John Pack Lambert - "mildly annoying, but that's it". Unless there is a mass exodus of editors upset at seeing all these cricketer bios at AfD - and I don't think there is - any sanctions are more a solution looking for a problem, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction only Came here after a DRV request. I have more of a problem with the "passes WP:CRIN so GNG is irrelevant" votes at the AfDs than the actual AfDs themselves, especially considering the "when are cricketers notable"/WP:CRIN reform discussion was so all over the place it led me to take a wikibreak. The problem here in my opinion is the AfD closes (I consider the bulk creation of cricket stubs an issue as well, but this is not the right forum for that.) I'd support a light sanction that Störm not be closing any AfD, much less self-closing, which should be obvious. They do not appear to be an administrator, so this should not be a controversial restriction. I don't think there should be a formal sanction about cricket AfDs, but so many of them are open at the moment and they're all Störm-initiated that it is a minor problem, but not necessarily a long-term sanctionable one. I'd strongly recommend letting all of the ones at AfD play out before continuing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction only as outlined above by SportingFlyer. Admins should only be doing uncontroversial closures of AFD, and quite a number of Störm's seem to be controversial. In particular, closing AFDs that you've started or participated in seems to break WP:NACINV. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A sub-point to this is that of the AFDs that Störm has started, a large proportion have been closed with a delete outcome (either delete or redirect). So on that basis, I'm hesitant to support a ban on them creating AFDs, although maybe speed should be slower (as 50 in one day is a lot). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Storm; support thanking them instead, per data. There's no need for a don't-close-own-AFDs sanction where Storm has already voluntarily agreed not to do that (as I understand it). W/r/t bulk nominations, I think if we allow bulk creation of stubs based solely on statistics websites, then we should allow bulk AFD nomination as well.
  W/r/t Storm's nominations overall: of the last 116 of Storm's noms that closed (excluding no consensus and open noms), which go back a month or so to Jan 24, 2021, per AFD stats the match was 91.4% [184]. And that's counting merges as non-matching; if we count merges as matching, it goes up to 113/116 or 97.4%! Of the previous 200 noms, which range from March 25, 2020 to Jan 24, 2021, the match percent is 72.1% [185], and counting merges as matching, that goes up to 160/190 or 84.2%. The previous set of 200 runs from Nov 30, 2019 to March 25, 2020, and is 88.5% match [186]. So the data shows Storm's noms are overwhelmingly good, and that Storm's noms over the last month, though more voluminous, are still matching at >90%, which means Storm is actually getting better at choosing which articles to nominate.
  So, I oppose sanctioning Storm for correctly nominating articles; instead, I thank Storm for doing so. Though I will add that it would be better to reduce the number of concurrently-open AFDs in any one topic area: just because you have time to nominate 100 at a time doesn't mean anyone else has time to review that many. I would suggest limiting the number of concurrent open noms by any one editor to some reasonable number per WP:DELSORT list. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've not checked, but I'd wager a small fortune that a lot of those AfDs had Lambert as the only participant, with his usual deletion !vote. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Like a few has said, I understand what Storm is trying to do but the fact of the matter is, he has been flooding the Afd with all of these which isn't what should you do. For me I also support the limit to One afd per day so the people at WP:CRIC will be able to do these reviews. HawkAussie (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction - clearly, people shouldn't be closing their own AfDs unless it is to withdraw them as 'speedy keep' so I have no objection to that. I would also support some sort of limit to the number of AfDs that Störm can start in one day. There is no rush whatsoever to get these articles deleted and the risk of flooding AfD with multiple cricketers in a given day is that people will simply not have the time to actually look at the cricketers in question. Recent AfDs show this in that a lot of the responses are simply 'keep because he meets CRICN' or 'delete - fails GNG' but with little useful analysis, which was seen on the earlier ones a lot more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support one AfD per day sanction - the issue with the AfDs is their sheer volume, which creates essentially no scope for an actual debate on the article, or indeed time to improve the quality of the article, which in many cases is possible and indeed simple with a little bit of sensible online and offline reviewing of sources; this is what leads to one line responses rather than detailed debate on the merits. Essentially the problem stems from a disagreement about what constitutes notability in the case of sportspeople, as none of the AfDs are for players who have not played a List A or first class match. However, this isn't a discussion which should really be played out through individual AfDs, but across Wikipedia as a whole, as the criteria for cricket are actually more restrictive than for many other sports (see WP:NGRIDIRON, where a single Arena Football (not NFL) match is sufficient; or WP:NFOOTY, where a single match in the Moldovan National Division or the Myanmar National League would be sufficient. One AfD per day would allow this debate to happen. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Even more absurdly, in football, you can pass the SNG with just a few seconds of professional football. There have been many deleted recently that had less than a minute of football and almost zero apparent coverage. At least in cricket you usually need to at least see out the one match to claim that status of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD. If it is acceptable to community then I will continue with WP else I will leave as it will be shame if I get any type of block as I never mean it. Will appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm, you don’t mean that, that’s just hasty, & unnecessary tbh. I’m not sure how I feel about you closing AFD’s you started, which is a default no no, except you are withdrawing & speedy keeping it. However, I oppose any sanctions on you seeing as a simple warning would suffice and generally, you do very decent work. It’s a good thing the perfection threshold is impossible to meet. So just take a deep breath before commenting any further. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions, as I believe a detailed warning should be adequate here. A sanction would punitive as the “problem” isn’t ongoing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Propose limit of 3 AfD closes per day, for his next dozen AfD closes. There is no great crime, just a reminder to close carefully needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support limit to one AfD per day - I can say from experience and observation that a single person flooding a topic area with a mass amount of AfD nominations in a short amount of time is almost never a good thing (regardless of percieved or assumed cruft), except maybe in certain cases of obvious violations of recent mass consensus or something to that effect (And even then, it shouldn't be just one or two editors doing the nominating). In this case, the user seems to be mass-using copy/paste cookie cutter rationales like "Fails GNG, no coverage found" (volume of nominations + lack of variation in rationales = it's dubious that the nom is actually adhering to GNG and WP:NEXIST, or that anyone had time to properly assess the articles). Then there's the more blatant conflict of interest of closing your own AfDs, which is red flag #3. Darkknight2149 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Genocides in history (before World War I)

Various POV-driven IPs and accounts are causing large-scale disruption to the sensitive article Genocides in history (before World War I). Where they are either unilaterally removing Genocides from the list (such as the Armenian Genocide) against WP:CONSENSUS, or are trying to add non-genocides to the list (such as the Batak massacre) even though there is no academic consensus to call it as such. Attention is urgently needed. I already have filled request [187] for a temporary full page protection here at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but it is taking too long. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See my protection summary. But why are you asking for full protection? That generally involves legit content disputes, and is largely employed to curtail edit warring among established users, more often than not, ones who enjoy EC user right access (i.e. thereby often rendering WP:ECP meaningless). But these are all IPs, so semi is really the only option here. Just for future reference. El_C 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for good recordkeeping, refactoring my note at RfPP (diff) before it falls into the depths of the abyss: As mentioned at ANI, this page isn't a candidate for full protection at this time, but due to its sensitive nature, will need to be watched closely, indefinitely (I'm predicting an indef semi in its future). Its import is such that disruption (advocacy) needs to be curtailed especially swiftly and decisively. El_C 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) El_C 15:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: actually, the article saw disruption by both IPs and registered editors (of whom the one got blocked by Ymblanter for 72 hours). Had it been just IPs doing the disruption, a semi-protection would have made the most sense otherwise. However, I am still happy and won't ask for Full Protection anymore, because I am content that your strict warning [188] will be heeled and everyone will approach the sensitive article with more caution the next time. Thank you very much and my apologies in advance for having to come both here and to the Page Protection noticeboard, I did because of its very sensitive nature. Also I find myself absolutely endorsing your statement. Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize, indeed, this is a legit RfPP-to-ANI refactor. Noting of there having been two disruptive autoconfirmed accounts (both indeffed) and 5 disruptive IPs (page created 22 January 2021‎). Anyway, the point is that, per WP:ECP: [Only] [w]here semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption. The rare exception to that would be with the extra discretion afforded by DS/GS. For sure, glad I could help! El_C 15:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I note that one reverter in that article is User: Cengizsogutlu, who I have already partial blocked from Operation Claw-Eagle 2 for POV edit-warring and who is currently edit warring on Turkish Land Forces... perhaps a topic ban may be incoming? Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I just had to revert now [189] the editor from inserting fantasy claims into the article's infobox, according which the Turkish Land Forces were founded... 2.000 years ago. I have looked anywhere in Wikipedia but I wouldnt find any rules in Wikipedia permitting the use of Infoboxes for WP:PROPAGANDA purposes citing WP:PRIMARY sources. The common practice in Wikipedia is to cite only factual information into infoboxes (a good example of this are the: Greek Armed Forces article infobox, which is carefully avoiding fantasy claims). If a temporary topic ban is what can help editors understand that unhelpful edits aren't the way to go, then I support it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Same claim for the date of founding is in the Turkish Armed Forces article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• See User talk:Cengizsogutlu#New partial blocks (diff — in the likely case it is removed). As noted there, indeed, as far as mild measures go, this probably counts as a last chance saloon before we go the TBAN route. El_C 17:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is irrelevant, not like the previous one I just reverted once and I get the warning.This is not fair, I wrote the reason next to it when i revert.I did not disrespect or exaggerate anybody. I stated the correct official source if you look at logo of Turkish Land Forces you will see founded 209 BC and also on their official site and even on every insignia about genocides i re added/ reverted Batak massacre You claim that it is not a holocaust/genocide, but in the article it is stated that it is an obvious genocide. And that's why I reverted... I don't want you to reverse the blocking, just the warnings are unnecessary 3-4 times I'll pay more attention from now on, but if discussion is prohibited then remove the talk page as well.. Kindly regards Cengizsogutlu (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, Batak massacre is not described as a genocide (and "holocaust," really?). Your comment inspires little confidence otherwise, as well. We're probably treating you in too lax a manner, is my strong impression. El_C 17:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Black Kite: - sorry for the ping here but I wanted to inform you that Cengizsogutlu isn't counted in the new consensus formed in the talk page of the Turkish Land Forces. The consensus is to alleviate the editorial concerns by following Wikipedia's rules and common practices, which is to avoid anachronistic, exaggerated date of founding claims (propaganda) from being given more WP:DUE promince by placing it on the article's Lead section or the Infobox. The contentious date is still mentioned (just for the sake of compromise with the other editorial side) on History section and I believe that's fair and as far as it can get considering it is unsupported by any serious academic scholars and the source cited is WP:PRIMARY. The Talk Page consensus diff can be read here: [190]. Let me know if I missed something. Good day everyone! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident, sorry for the belated response. I've just given Cengizsogutlu an ARBKURDS DS alert in light of their latest edit earlier today (diff). This is not looking promising, I'm sorry to say. El_C 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? Half of the texts on that page were written by me. You don't have to waste time to block me If you want, block me completely. If you are going to leave a follow-up note on everything, this place is no different than a chicken coop. No need to constantly find flaws and prevent banning policy.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Also chek this page of Iran Islamic Republic of Iran Army I'm not the only one doing this perhaps..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What about this?Russian Armed Forces 16. Century?Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, it doesn't matter that half of the texts on that page were written by [you] — please see WP:OWN— what matters is that you revert a lot, but use article talk pages seldom. That's a problem, which I'm trying to make you cognizant of. El_C 06:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems Cengizsogutlu is interested in the Iranian Army's article given that they are pointing to it containing in its infobox a propagandistic claim that the Islamic army was founded 3.000 years ago, yet I do not see the editor actually trying to be useful by fixing it instead of arguing here. Their toxic attitude and edit warring behavior aren't useful. I would advice that they change course before it is too late. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon

PailSimon
@TucanHolmes, Citobun, Mikehawk10, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, My very best wishes, Horse Eye's Back, Czello, and Oranjelo100:
Uyghur genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion on the talk page of Talk:Uyghur genocide#PailSimon, POV editing, misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content regarding POV editing, misleading edit summaries, removal of sourced content by PailSimon. Several editor expressed that this should be brought to ANI, so I am bringing it here. PailSimon has been bludgeoning on the talk page and generally is creating a battleground on the article to push their POV.

Examples: [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211]

Misleading or False edit summaries: [212], [213], [214], [215].

Citobun and myself (and I believe Horse Eye's Back) have expressed concerns that this problem is not limited to this article, but is occuring on other pages as well. I had hopes after the talk page discussion this might stop before ANI, but they have continued this morning, dispite multipe editor expressing strong concerns in the talk page discussion.

This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [216] (claiming NPR was a deprecated source as an excuse to remove content), followed up with [217].

Since several editors requested this to be brought here [218], [219], [220], [221], [222] (which I support) I have done so. PailSimon has also had multiple editors leave warnings regarding this problem on their talk page User talk:PailSimon#February 2021. I have pinged the editors that seem most involved but there are others as well.  // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PailSimon

This is just a preliminary note to say I will go through each of those edits one by one and do my best to clearly explain my rationale behind them while also addressing some of the more bizarre accusations (misleading edit summaries).PailSimon (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No.1 As you can see from the edit summary I thought it WP:UNDUE to emphasis the opinion of one single nation to the extent that it was being emphasized.

No.2 The first part removed was collateral damage and I did not object to it's inclusion (Horse Eye's Back later readded the first part with no objection from myself). The issue was the second paragraph added which was later unilaterally agreed on the talk page to be removed due to sourcing issues etc.

No.3 As I have said on the talk page I mistakenly believed the user to be citing The Sun. This was a mistake on my part and it is worth pointing out (as I have pointed out above) that I did not object to its re-addition when Horse Eye's Back re-added it.

No.4 As pointed out in the edit summary the section in question was statements from countries and the organization in question is not a country.

No.5 I don't see how this is an objectionable edit from an standpoint given my explanation in the edit summary. Is it bad to restore the consensus version?

No.6 ibid

No.7 ibid

No.8 I do not really understand what could possibly be the issue with this edit.

No.9 The content was unrelated to the subject of the article given that it was referring to the 2009 Urumqi riots and not the present Chinese attitude to the Uyghurs which is what the article is about.

No.10 No clue what's so horrible about this edit either.

No.11 ibid

No.12 I don't see how avoiding WP:OVERCAT is a bad thing.

No.13 I think the edit summary speaks for itself here.

No.14 ibid

No.15 WP:ATTRIBUTION was being followed here

No.16 I was encouraging the user to stop edit warring and seek consensus on talk page per BRD.

No.17 The Sun is a deprecated source.

No.18 Edit summary speaks for itself. I am not sure how the addition of sourced content is objectionable in this case.

No.19 See No.5

No.20 I fixed a redundant statement as per the edit sumamry.

No.21 See No.5

I really dont understand what's so awful about any of these edits that warrants this being brought to ANI.PailSimon (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Misleading or False edit summaries" - No.1 See No.3 answer in post above. No.2 I have zero idea how this is misleading. I even asked TimothyBlue to explain to me what was misleading about it but he refused to do so for whatever reason. No.3 ibid No.4 ibid PailSimon (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TimothyBlue

I think PailSimon has the potential to be a good editor; I did not want to see this come to this point. But I believe the above shows a clear pattern of POV pushing and DE related to this article and as a whole I think the problem extends to China in general. As I said in the OP, I had hoped the talk page discussion would be enough to stop this problem, but I don't believe there is any indication from PailSimon that they are WP:LISTENing to other editors concerns about their editing. I believe if some help is provided at this point, possibly with a mentor, a productive editor will emerge. But if the above pattern is not addressed, it will only affirm the behavior, it will get worse and a potentially good editor will be lost.

I would like to see PailSimon voluntarily agree to abstain from working on articles related to China/Central Asia, get an experienced (uninvolved) mentor, and focus on making positive contributions to articles in other areas. This would avoid having to place a negative mark on their record and it could be reviewed at 6m with input from their mentor if the problem does not repeat in other areas. I almost always think editors should be given the opportunity to voluntarily work on a problem, rather than receive a bad mark; PailSimon should be afforded this opportunity.

PailSimon, I know there are some subject areas I am interested in, but it would only result in problems if I go there. It wouldn't be productive to edit in these areas and it certainly wouldn't be enjoyable. An example: I'm gay and I'd be banned in less than a week if I decided to edit articles related to LGBT issues (I become positively unglued over anti-lgbt userboxes, I don't even both reporting them). So these areas I've decided to stay away from, not because I have to, but because I know its the best for me. I don't read these articles, I don't engage in discussions, I just stay away and avoid the pain and problems (I know this example is different from the current issue, but you see my point). I think your responses show you have a blind spot in the CHina area (again as we all do in some areas). One of the best lessons I've learned is to know what articles I need to leave alone for others to work on.

Also please don't see the idea of having a mentor as in anyway negative (I have adopted two, CaptainEek and El C); its very helpful and even admins like CaptainEek have more experienced editors they look to as mentors.

I offer this advice with nothing but goodwill; please consider it, no need to directly respond. The items I've bolded above are directly specifically to you, again with goodwill.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of recent developments and this thread I strike my comments. See my proposal below.  // Timothy :: talk  21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see have me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:COATRACK, WP:CONSENSUS, removing deprecated sources etc justifies this whole overblown song and dance. It seems to me like you're just making a mountain over a molehill. Perhaps if you explained what was so awful about the above?PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The speedy reply shows you didn't even bother to take time to WP:LISTEN and consider my post; this is in the hands of the community at this point, they can consider your editing and responses.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Consider what exactly? You haven't said anything substantial beyond "take a step away for some vague reason". Step away because why exactly? Because I have removed deprecated sources and enforced WP:CONSENSUS? The fact that you're taking me to ANI over removing deprecated sources among other things means it's hard to assume good faith. I would also note that you didn't answer my question PailSimon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mikehawk10

To give a bit of background as to my involvement on the Uyghur genocide article, I was the one who initially created it as a new editor as a part of a class assignment in 2019. That class has since terminated, and I have gained a bunch more experience on Wikipedia since then. The class generally sparked an interest of mine in the topic area, and I've kept following it in the news, as the facts on the ground have changed into what we have access to now. After a decent amount of time away from Wikipedia, I returned and then began to edit articles, including ones related to the topic area.

From the beginning of PailSimon's disruptive edits on the page, it is clear that the user has engaged in prohibited POVPUSHing. PailSimon appears to have become involved in the Uyghur genocide article around December of 2020, when the user made an edit that removed a use of the term "Uyghur genocide" and instead substituted "Chinese policies towards the Uyghurs" as a descriptor of the same actions in its place. PailSimon appears to have first edited the corresponding talk page on December 9, 2020. The first day on the talk page, PailSimon declared that, "Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately."

The editor has continued to edit with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in mind ever since this point. The editor has subsequently affirmed that they do not believe that a genocide is occurring in Xinjiang, writing that the Uyghur genocide is "just accusations." This is certainly their right as an individual. However, editors are required to make edits to Wikipedia that improve articles in line with information provided by reliable sources, not simply their opinions, and PailSimon has crossed several lines and repeatedly violated policies against disruptive editing in pushing their own viewpoint, as described in the initial report and as I recapitulate below.

The editor has removed information cited from perennial reliable sources that contradict the editor's preferred narrative that no genocide is occurring, including edits (1, 2, 3) that repeatedly removed information sourced from National Public Radio and provided misleading edit summaries in doing so. The lattermost of those edits also removed content sourced from The Independent that document medical experimentation performed on Uyghurs by the Chinese Government. In another series of edits, the user changed language in the article to cast doubt upon reporting, replacing the word "mentioned" with "claimed," which goes against advice listed in MOS:CLAIM. After these edits were reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PailSimon reverted HEB's reversion.

The user has also added palpably false information to the article, even when sources already present state the opposite. One example is this edit, in which PailSimon inserted that "the ruling Liberal Party [did] not [cast] a vote either way" on Canada's non-binding recognition statement. This was an addition of false information contradicted by sources already present in the article, and this addition may have served to cast doubt upon Canada's actions as a result of this false information being included. I don't see a reason why this could have been added if the editor had done their due diligence. Later, after the Dutch Parliament issued a similar resolution, PailSimon attempted to remove information from the lead relating both to the Dutch and Canadian Parliament votes.

The editor has casted aspersions in edit summaries, including here, where PailSimon bizarrely accused NoonIcarus of disruptive editing.

Overall, it has become clear to me that PailSimon has been engaging in a WP:POVPUSH that has risen to the level of disruptive editing. I believe that administrative intervention is justified given the current situation and that a topic ban may be appropriate given the history of POV pushing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There isn't very much different in this statement to Timothy Blues statement so see my own statement above for a response. To respond to the "adding false information" charge, I misread the source admitantly and thought it said that the Liberal Party MPs abstained when in fact it was only the Liberal Party Cabinet that abstained. This was a legitimate mistake on my part and doesn't really deserve all the hoo-ha that Mike is churning up. PailSimon (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And also you have cited one of my edits as violating MOS:CLAIM when in reality it supports my edits - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." PailSimon (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NoonIcarus

Before commenting, I'll point out that PailSimon currently has an open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician) that I believe should be taken into account in the discussion.

That being said, and seeking not to repeat much of what has been said, in brief PailSimon has demonstrated disruptive editing and edit warring that needs administrative intervention to stop. They have blanked warnings issued against them in their talk page and accussed other editors of disruptive editing, but has decried WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "harassment" when their behaviour has been scrutinized.

For these reasons I think that a ban is an appropriate measure to address the issue and fully support it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jancarcu

Due to time constraints and a lack of personal involvement on my part in this issue, I will be abstaining from detailed comment on this issue. Some of PailSimon's edits and behaviours are concerning, while others may be justified. Jancarcu (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Citobun

I was not involved in any of the many disputes at Uyghur genocide. I commented on the talk page discussion that I had also observed a consistent pattern of POV editing by PailSimon on other China-related topics (e.g. Hong Kong and Taiwan), coupled with the use of misleading/disingenuous edit summaries, and provided diffs to support those claims. PailSimon responded in part with a baseless personal attack, accusing me of being a "a Hong Kong localist" with "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible". A serious accusation, absent any evidence, which is patently untrue. That pretty much sums up his POV-driven battleground mentality toward Wikipedia. He similarly cast aspersions against User:TimothyBlue ([223]) and does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to shift the narrative on content he views as "demonising China" via edit warring/page-policing (as at Uyghur genocide), and by casting aspersions against those who question such POV editing. So I agree with OP's concerns and also object strongly to PailSimon's baseless personal attacks against myself and others. Citobun (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Its ironic to me that your evidencless post above accuses me of casting aspersions when you've done exactly that. PailSimon (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is in my original comment, to which I provided a link. Citobun (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In which case see my own response to it.PailSimon (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To which I replied thusly. BTW, to get back on topic – I'd like to note that you've still not retracted your baseless personal attacks despite being alerted to Wikipedia policy on the matter. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SeePailSimon (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you really just re-link to the personal attack rather than retract it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing there that's a personal attack.PailSimon (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How is that not a personal attack? The difference has already been explained to you. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling somebody a "Hong Kong localist" is an objective description, its not intended to be a value-laden judgment or an insult or any sort of inditement.PailSimon (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that why you followed it up by accusing me of possessing "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible"? Because that isn't a "value-laden judgement" nor an inditement? Good lord. What disingenuous nonsense. You seem to be incapable of knowing when to stop, and I hope you are indefinitely banned sooner rather than later. Citobun (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, PailSimon did not provide any evidence for their accusations. This is getting ridiculous. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TucanHolmes

This is coming in a bit late, but I couldn't find the time to formulate my statement sooner.

I regularly check the Uyghur genocide article for vandalism and patent nonsense, as well as bad-faith and POV edits (which, with such a topic, happen quite often). From what I've seen, PailSimon's edits are definitely aimed at softening any accusations (for example, they repeatedly tried to cut or remove a sourced section about medical experiments, see [224] and [225]), and numerous edits already mentioned in this notice (which I won't relist here) reveal a clear POV. It's not a radical one (they are not outright denying human rights abuses), but it's... favourable towards China, and they seem hell-bent on rewording the lead in a way that focusses less on the genocidal character of the human rights abuses carried out in Xinjang. Their POV-pushing (as far as I can tell) isn't blatant; they usually employ subtler tactics (e.g. misleading edit summaries, see the other statements and comments). Some of their edits are legitimate (like removing G4 categories or removing unreliable sources), which makes it difficult to discern whether their non-legitimate edits were in good or bad faith.

Comments by other editors

• Comment: In the list of diffs, I see some legitimate edits (e.g. removal of a G4/CfD category) and some illegitimate edits (e.g. mischaracterization of a source as deprecated). A more detailed listing of diffs with why those edits may have issues (e.g. similar to PailSimon's diff-by-diff response) might be helpful for examining a broader pattern, since not all of the diffs given in the original post are problematic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey MarkH21, I've tried to do this in my statement. Is that more along the lines of what you are looking for?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question @TimothyBlue: What action are you expecting from ANI? Jerm (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Jerm, sorry for the late reply I have limited internet and my mind is foggy atm (see my userpage for an explanation).

At this point I'd like to see PS banned from China related articles and generally placed on a 1RR restriction, advised to find an uninvolved experienced mentor, and be warned about POV pushing, LISTENing, misleading edit summaries, edit warring, and battlegrounding. (I actually inquired with El C if the page could entirely be placed on a 1RR restriction).

I'll give a final example of the battlegrounding, misleading statements, edit warring and POV pushing.

• 23:42, 25 February 2021 Content is added by Mikehawk10 [226] with the no objection from other editors.
• 08:51, 27 February 2021 Pail Simon removes the content [227] with a misleading edit summary
• 11:26, 27 February 2021 I start a talk page discussion about restoring the content [228]. Two other editors support the restoration.
• 16:09, 28 February 2021 Content is restored by Mikehawk10 per support of three editors on the talk page discussion [229]
• 03:45, 1 March 2021 PailSimon again removes the content [230] with a misleading edit summary.
• 08:48, 1 March 2021 it is restored by forth editor My very best wishes [231]
• 11:35, 1 March 2021 PS again removes the content [232] with an insulting and misleading edit summary.

This has continued right up to now, dispite the talk page discussion and this ANI thread.

Here they are directly edit warring with four other editors. This edit warring alone should be enough for a block. They've engaged in a similar pattern with others. Combined with the other examples above, I believe it merits the sanction I propose for DE.

They have shown no indication they are willing to LISTEN in anyway to others, either here or on article talk pages.

From the above comments and talk page discussions, I am clearly not alone in believing this is a serious problem. I count Czello, Mikehawk10, Normchou, TucanHolmes, El C, Citobun, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, Horse Eye's Back, My very best wishes, Oranjelo100 plus myself (12 editors) that have recently expressed significant concerns about Pail Simon. The excuses they have given above are simply not believable when the entire pattern is taken into consideration.  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The constant edit warring alone is enough for a block. I would support a topic ban and/or a long-term block but not indefinitely, thanks for the response TimothyBlue. Jerm (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jerm They have placed an edit warring notice on my talk page. My patience is over. This is now NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: This is a completely disingenuous account of the dispute. The content in question has been the result of multiple previous talk page discussions (conveniently omitted here) which concluded that the text in question not be included. This is the relevant context that has been ignored here PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a clarifying note, I only "restored" the page after seeing that the lede had been partially restored on Feb. 28 by another editor. I've also been subject to a bizarre edit warring template being placed on my page by PailSimon for allegedly engaging in "repeated edit warring." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See my above reply to TimothyBlue. PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that Africa–China_relations is another article where PS has been actively challenging other editors. In particular, in this conversation, they seemed self-absorbed purely in the process of editorial decisions as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made—e.g., repeating you need to gain a consensus or something in that line without showing any interest in elaborating what actually prevented a consensus from being reached. Normchou ^💬 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC); edited 02:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We have reached a very strange point if we are now attacking other editors for discouraging edit warring.... PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Pail Simon may believe that he/she is doing the right thing, but they are clearly ignoring arguments from other editors. The changes seem to reflect his/her own worldview and not Wikipedia policies. I would advise him/her to step away from the article, and stop reverting all the changes. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Brief note by El_C

I'd like to note that I have also found my interactions with PailSimon on that article talk page to have been, erm, challenging (diff). El_C 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have handled myself better there I will admit.PailSimon (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Breif note by Czello

Unfortunately PailSimon is still being a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND-y with his edit summaries. This was unhelpful and the edit he was undoing was not disruptive behaviour. There is a lot of content on that talk page and it's more than likely that My very best wishes simply missed it; given how often he calls edits he doesn't like "disruptive" I would advise that he reads WP:AGF on priority. — Czello 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

All you have to do is look on the talk page to see at least two previous talk page discussions regarding the lead. If My very best wishes is not bothered to go and look then he should not be editing the article.PailSimon (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Once again, you fail to understand WP:AGF. He may well have looked and simply missed it -- don't assume that he simply "couldn't be bothered". In fact, his edit summary makes it clear that he did look. Labeling good-faith edits as disruptive when they're clearly not is one of the reasons you're here right now: given how polite he was in his edit summary, only for you to react like this, can you see why some of us think you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Czello 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no way he could have missed it if he actually surveyed the talk page properly, one of the sections is even titled "Revised lede" which is a major hint to say the least. He may have lazily glanced over it but its really impossible to miss if you actually take the time to read the talk page properly. When somebody acts like this its difficult to assume good faith even though you may want to.PailSimon (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: The talk page isn't small, dude. There are currently 32 headings on there. It's very easy to miss a specific conversation. That's why we AGF when someone politely says they couldn't see it. — Czello 21:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you actually look through it, as opposed to briefly skimming it really is not.PailSimon (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Do you not think your absolute refusal to see things from other editors' perspectives (and again, your absolute refusal to assume good faith) is at all a problem here? — Czello 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't confuse me not agreeing with you as not seeing things from other's perspective, something I don't see you doing here with me. I get the sense that you're more focused on pointing and wagging the finger at me than anything else. PailSimon (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon Honestly I think you dug your own grave with this one. All you had to do was be civil to other editors, AGF, and not try to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. I hope when you come back to the page a month from now you'll have taken this on board. It could be worth reading WP:OWN while you're at it. — Czello 08:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have always attempted to assume good faith unless when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues.PailSimon (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This thread, and your editing history, shows you're not doing a good enough job of assuming good faith. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues -- you realise that you are the common factor in these "issues", right? — Czello 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well as WP:AGF says - "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism".PailSimon (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not evidence to the contrary, or vandalism. — Czello 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that's your personal opinion and unfortunately we are going to have to agree to disagree.PailSimon (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

False edit warring notice placed by PailSimon

PailSimon has placed an false edit warring notice on my talk page [233]. I have reverted this edit exactly once and it was with the support of four editors. Taken with the above comments towards others, they are clearly harrassing editors now.  // Timothy :: talk  21:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon really needs to take a time out from editing this page. This is just sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND editing now. — Czello 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing false about it (see reply in the 'Comments by other editors' section) PailSimon (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That section makes it fairly clear that you're the one edit warring. — Czello 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only if you never bothered to read my reply.PailSimon (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for NOTHERE block

The false edit warring notice placed by PailSimon on my talk page is the last straw for me.

Per to the above comments regarding:

• Battlegrounding
• POV pushing
• Edit warring
• Refusal to LISTEN here and on talk pages
• DE on Uyghur genocide
• Leaving false edit warring notices on editor talk pages

I propose PailSimon be blocked as NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked - discussion may continue I agree the edit-warring notice placed on your page after a single revert, given PailSimon had reverted three times today, is the last straw. I have partially blocked them from Uyghur genocide for one month whilst this discussion continues. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite beat me to it. I endorse this block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: This is not his first revert.PailSimon (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is in the last 24 hours, during which time you have reverted three times. Looking at the last month, he has made five reverts; you have made 21. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Endorse partial block per this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

These are all nonsense accusations debunked above.PailSimon (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have doubts as to the efficacy of partial blocks or TBANS for PS. My impression is that this user feels they are always right. No one is always right, not even me. Their responses here do not engender confidence. If others agree, I would endorse a WP:CBAN for WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. It is always to be hoped that lesser measures will prove effective, but that would depend on the user's willingness to learn and grow. Just don't see it. If CBANned, I would encourage the user to edit constructively on other Wikipedias/WIkimedia projects and then appeal the CBAN in six months. (Assuming they are not blocked elsewhere. Haven't looked.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"My impression is that this user feels they are always right." - I have actually admitted I was wrong at least two times during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'd be in favour of this. I had hoped this ANI would make PailSimon realise where he went wrong, but he seems to be mostly unrelenting in his ways. I have no reason to believe he'll be any better in a week's time after the current partial block ends. And between then and now I suspect he'll just take his battleground mentality to other articles (such as the aforementioned Africa-China relations article). I haven't seen him seriously address the bullet list above by TimothyBlue, which makes me think he's suffering from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support the block They did something similar on the talk page of another editor, Amigao, regarding the Africa–China relations article mentioned above. The revision history of that article, however, shows PS was actually more involved in edit-warring behavior, making iffy edits and overriding others' edits. Their tendency of using the process/procedure merely as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made is a worrisome signal pointing to WP:NOTHERE. Normchou ^💬 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yea reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring no matter how much you spin it.PailSimon (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep calling it the "stable version" -- I'm not sure you know what that means. There are now 5+ editors who are against you on this. You don't WP:OWN the page. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two editors (originally one) opposed on that page. Please follow the discussion carefully.PailSimon (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two opposed it? So you agree that consensus is now in favour of including the lead? — Czello 10:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Again you need to follow and read things carefully. You're confusing two different pages here.PailSimon (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I misread there -- though my point stands about your definition of "stable version", which found it's way onto the Uyghur article. — Czello 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It really does not if you look at the talk page history going back months.PailSimon (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. — Czello 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Luckily for me it has not then.PailSimon (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Czello, you are correct that 5+ editors have supported inclusion of the content: TimothyBlue and Czello (obviously opposed), Oranjelo100,[234] Mikehawk10,[235] My very best wishes,[236]. I'm sure others would have expressly supported, but didn't both to comment because the consensus was clear. Two admins saw this and imposed a block on PS for edit warring. Now they are just being a timesink disputing what is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As I have reiterated there are multiple previous talk page discussions regarding that very lead introduction which concluded that it should not be included. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge their existence does not change that.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we and PailSimon are talking about two different things. You and I are talking about the lead for the Uyghur genocide article, whereas he's talking about the Africa-China relations article. Either way, where you and I are concerned, we now have a consensus to include the lead on the Uyghur genocide article, contrary to what PailSimon believes. — Czello 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No you're still confused.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• PailSimon, You stated above: "reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring",[237] - you know this is false and you have been told by multiple admins and editors it is false.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

See my above response.PailSimon (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support either an indef NOTHERE block for PailSimon or a siteban, per the evidence provided above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from any articles related to China or Hong Kong at minimum, per the diffs evidenced by Citobun here. Not familiar with their broader editing in regards to a site ban (it should be noted that a NOTHERE block as a result of community discussion is a community site ban). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, having taken a look at some of the talk page comments and removal of sourced material diffs (at the same link) compiled by Timothy and Citobun I'd also support a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Which sourced material diffs are you referring to?PailSimon (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: continuing this thread in the below section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban or (at minimum) a topic ban from China-related subjects per the evidence presented above and at Talk:Uyghur genocide. Citobun (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban per evidence above. At minimum (agreeing with Citobun), I think a minimum topic ban from China-related articles is needed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly the ban (making clearer what I said above). I was hoping PailSimon would see where he went wrong, but this thread has seen him double-down resort to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This could have been a wake-up call for him, as I think there is a good editor somewhere in there, but his obstinacy has shown that he might not be compatible with the project. — Czello 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have admitted I was wrong on four separate occasions during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have, well done -- but there have been other areas where you doubled-down: such as the aforementioned labeling of good faith edits as disruptive, for example. — Czello 14:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban per the evidence presented here, and the fact that their POV-pushing is achieved by gaming the system (esp. abusing copyright and reliable sources policies, mixed with misleading edit summaries) which necessitates the assumption that their editing is done in bad faith, thus destroying the foundation that allows editors to work collaboratively, i.e. every one of their edits has to be checked in the future. They also refuse to back down, or even just retract personal attacks. In short, their behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia as a project. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have backed down and retracted personal attacks during this very discussion. Have you even read it? If you had you would have seen it.PailSimon (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading. You have not retracted the personal attack noted in the section below. Citobun (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support at the very least a WP:TBAN on China-related articles, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per Timothy or any other sanctions that others suggest. That user just does not seem to be a "net positive" for the project, being significantly involved in POV editing and conflicts with other users. And this is not just Uyghurs in China, but whitewashing crimes by communist regimes which they committed against minorities. For example, [238],[239],[240]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOTHERE and the provided reasons above. I ask that special attention is given to the current related open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon is still defending his personal attacks, against which no action has been taken

The personal attack in question. His continuing defence of this personal attack. Please just ban this person on blatant WP:NOTHERE grounds and a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings. Citobun (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont see how calling you a Hong Kong localist is a personal attack, either way it was not intended as one. I have "a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings"? I have admitted I was wrong at least three times on this page alone and on multiple occasions on other pages. What are you talking about?PailSimon (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So retract the personal attacks against me and TimothyBlue and apologise. Easy. And please stop the disingenuous replies. You did not merely call me a "Hong Kong localist". Citobun (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What personal attack have I made against TimothyBlue? I don't understand what you're referring to here. Its true that I did not merely call you a Hong Kong localist but that's what I called you here and nothing else. Let stop veering off topic.PailSimon (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling you know what I am referring to, considering I already commented on your personal attack against TimothyBlue and you replied to me. So just so we're clear: it has been explained to you what constitutes a personal attack, it has been repeatedly explained to you that you have made personal attacks, and you remain unrepentant. Citobun (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well first I have to actually know what you're referring to but now that I know what is being discussed yes I do retract that TimothyBlue comment and apologize to said user.PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That comment appears a personal attack per WP:NPA bullets #2 and #3. However, it does need to be considered in context, which was this comment. I've taken a skim through the diffs listed by Citobun in that discussion. By themselves they obviously demonstrate a pattern of diluting words, which I don't think alone is problematic, but the diluted words no longer represent the sources accurately, which is a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain by what you mean when you say I dilute words?PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. For example this diff even though the source says "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong" (the new wording appears to make the law seem more legitimate than the source does). Here where the source says "And it was the latest in a quick series of aggressive moves by the pro-Beijing establishment that had the effect of sidelining the pro-democracy movement." And here, more of the same. I'm willing to assume good faith on some of the other dilutions, for example on the argument that the source picked may be biased, or is a primary source, which is true for some of them. But for the 3 examples I cite, and various others, it isn't really true and it's hard to AGF that this is just an attempt to 'restore NPOV', because these edits don't actually represent the sources at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Those were copyright violations.PailSimon (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Article: The national security law imposed by China on Hong Kong, has curtailed free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.

Source: The national security law that China has imposed on Hong Kong is already curtailing speech in the territory

Your edit: It has been described as curtailing free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.

2. Article: anyone criticizing China and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested

Source: Anyone who criticises China and travels to Hong Kong is potentially at risk of arrest under the new law.

Your edit: anyone violating the law and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested.

3. Article: on a wave of massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong.

Source: sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong

Your edit: on a wave of massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law legislated by the Beijing government.

You were correcting copyright violations? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The third edit you list is evidently a copyright violation as both the source and the article contain the phrase "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong". The first edit was just me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION and the second one was improved wording as the content was vague (what on earth does criticising china mean in this context?)PailSimon (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That is in no way a copyright violation; re-using a single phrase misses the bar for that by a country mile. I am less and less inclined to assume good faith, and believe this is an instance of Gaming the system. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If I read WP:COPYVIO I get the impression that copying word for word an 11 word long phrase counts as a copyvio. PailSimon (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This does not violate copyright; for that matter, it's not even plagiarism. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism § What is not plagiarism:

Plagiarism is less a concern where the content both lacks creativity and where the facts and ideas being offered are common knowledge. [...] phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information [...] lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

Besides, this is a red herring: If it was the copyright violation you were concerned about, rewording it in such a minor way doesn't change anything.

Please stop Wikilawyering! It is obvious that you're using these guidelines as cover for POV editing. You're wasting everyone's time (including your own). TucanHolmes (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO makes clear that this is a copyvio. You're not allowed to copy and paste sentences into articles from sources.PailSimon (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if we assume that this is a copyright violation (I would argue it isn't), this doesn't change the fact that your edits don't address that issue. From the policy you yourself cited:

Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism.

As I've mentioned above, this is a red herring. ProcrastinatingReader already asked you that same question in the beginning, and I've now explained the problem in excruciating detail, yet you still haven't answered anything; you're deflecting. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be right and I should have rephrased it more thoroughly to deal with the copyright problem.PailSimon (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no copyvio. But by your own admission above all you did was insert your POV, you did not correct what you are claiming is a copyright problem.  // Timothy :: talk  13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There certainly was a copyvio (that is evident per the above TucanHolmes provided copyvio quotation) and I attempted to fix it although it was a somewhat inadequate fix as noted above. What pov did I insert exactly? I simply rephrased the article while retaining the exact same semantic content.PailSimon (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I doubled down so harshly; in retrospect, I should've explained it like that in the first place. Copyright is a difficult topic :(. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have the time right now to go through this entire thread, but this section alone is enough. The "Hong Kong locals" bit may include a geographic objectivity, but the rest, "your editing practices which includes a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible", that is just a blatant violation of WP:AGF. That's from a week or more ago, and I wouldn't have blocked for it now, but PailSimon had to go and defend it, and play ignorant. I refuse to accept that they didn't realize what they were saying, and that makes this move back into blockable territory. The claim of copyright violation is ridiculous, and the charge of "watering down" is acceptable because example and context for these POV edits are provided. If everyone, including some seasoned editors, says "not a copyvio", then maintaining that it is one is either obstinate or incompetent. In both cases, it's disruptive. I blocked PailSimon for a week. As I was placing that I saw that this comes on the heels of a partial block a few days ago, by Black Kite, and that makes a NOTHERE block seem even more reasonable; Black Kite, I wonder if you have any thoughts on that--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies I blocked them from that article because they were being utterly disruptive on it; I am fine with any other sanctions that there are consensus for, obviously. Personally, I think we are looking at a China topic ban at the least. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass reverts

• Hippeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hippeus has a habit of mass reverting edits I have made on this article. He has done it here. [241] He has also done it in the past. [[242]]; [243]; [244]; [245]. As you can imagine, it is disheartening and impossible to make constructive improvements to an article when they are deleted without distinction, particularly when 1RR limits the amount of change one can make. Jontel (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jontel has a habit of edit-warring against consensus, for was sanctioned before, on the Atzmon article. He has been removing reliable sources, and has prefixed reliable sources, diff, with: "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively...", all the while adding extensive content from Atzmon's website. His response has been amazing:

" Almost all the other sources are not reliable or bitterly hostile, which affects their reporting. I do not think I am downplaying antisemitism. It is mentioned dozens of times in the article. The commentators were all Jewish. While this would normally not be relevant, it is relevant here where the discussion is around differing views of Jewish identity."

So according to Jontel, reputable media and scholars are "bitterly hostile". And "Jewish". In the recent bout he has been reintroducing content that was rejected by consensus last May-July.

Jontel has been warned this month by User:Nomoskedasticity for vandalism on David Miller (sociologist) and by warned by User:Pigsonthewing for original research on Emma Barnett. Jontel running to ANI after a single challenge of his edits is quite an escalation. Jontel is unable to edit these topics neutrally. --Hippeus (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring against consensus; rather Hippeus took it upon himself last year to revert repeatedly all changes en masse without consultation with anyone. Recently, other editors and I (mainly me) on Gilad Atzmon have been working to make the article more balanced instead of it being a highly critical near attack page. Again, Hippeus, who has not been involved recently, came in and reversed all the changes without justification. He should bring up content issues on the Talk page, but has failed to do so. Obviously, one does not include all reliable sources just because they are there if there is repetition. My description of the commentators was non-judgemental, relevant and accurate: Hippeus is perfectly at liberty to edit it or raise it on the Talk page. As the subject was what Atzmon said, using material from his website illustrated the issues and is permitted under WP:SELFPUB. I don't know why Hippeus should think it surprising that commentators take a strong view; it is in the nature of the subject. I did not vandalize David Miller (sociologist) and have asked User:Nomoskedasticity what change caused concern and not yet received a reply. I do not think I used original research on Barnett; I was quoting from the sources. This is all a diversion from the main point. How can anyone and why should anyone work to improve articles on Wikipedia when editors like Hippeus can descend at any time and reverse large amounts of consensual changes with mass reverts lacking any justification? This breaks all the rules of editors working together. Jontel (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Jontel's rewrite of the article. In May 2020 there was a clear consensus that Jontel's edits were tendentious, with User:RolandR, User:Drsmoo, User:Tritomex, User:Bobfrombrockley, and myself all agreeing against these changes. My actions were with in consensus. Jontel is breaking 1RR. I think this recent comment by User:SlimVirgin on Jontel's editing:

You're making edits in at least two articles about how many people did or didn't die, and you're edit-warring to retain a certain Holocaust-denial aspect.

on a the page of Nicholas Kollerstrom and some other page is relevant. Using self-published material by Holocaust deniers is an unacceptable standard of source use, and Jontel has clear issues on the wider topic.--Hippeus (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Attack page" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not suprising views of Atzmon are polarised given that its essentially an extension of WP:ARBPIA. Jontel, what's your justification for removing mentions of holocaust denial? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes pending discussion on the talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What mentions of Holocaust denial are you referring to? Jontel (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It was this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=1009286750&oldid=1009281937.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Jontel from WP:ARBPIA, with an WP:ARBEE one also remaining a likely outcome. Needless to say, logged WP:ACDS action. El_C 22:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page on Gilad Atzmon contains only few recent comments by either Jontel, or Hippeus. ANI reports should not occur before trying engaging in a discussion. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:TheLionHasSeen

User:TheLionHasSeen has made a particularly harmful comment against a user here: Talk:Texas#History section too specific. The comment claimed a user is pushing a "WP:Agenda of White supremacy as evidenced by their contribution history, targeting anything that goes against racial viewpoints of theirs, in particular". He then provided evidence that in no way backs this egregious claim. He attacked this user to silence them and interfere the discussion process in a talk page and appears to be attempting to dig up something on me, as said here, "Please investigate further Iamreallygoodatcheckers." This conduct is very inappropriate and his response was not to remove his comment or give a strong apology, but to continue to try and prove his point with more evidence that also fails to prove the user was a white supremacist. This conduct directly damages the discussion process in a talk page by quite literally scaring users that they will be labeled with a term as damaging as "white supremacy" if they were to contribute to a discussion. I'm not sure what should be done in this situation, but at the very least the user needs to be given a firm warning, which I have tried to do. Clear violation of WP:No personal attacks. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, but are we not currently still discussing this on the discussion page? If one can reason with me, with citations and philosophy, I am willing to act on good faith. I did not seek to attack them, nor to silence them, but made the statement that it appeared to be an agenda being pushed, with behavioral evidence among other things. I have neither dug up anything upon you, and neither made reference to you. I was instructing you to further investigate the other contributor and their contributions to Wikipedia. This is all now appearing to be either a trolling of me, or very poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Might I further add, this began with starting dialogue on reaching consensus with the article, and I as a contributor to that article had every right to participate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your right that it was a misunderstanding that you were trying to find something on me, I apologize for saying that now. But none of that changes you comments, which is the concern here, about the other user. Yes the discussion is still going on in the talk page, but attacking someone like that is not appropriate or helpful to that discussion. You can't just be going around saying someone is pushing an agenda of white supremacy when the evidence is not clear, like in this case. You have every right to participate like me or anyone else does in that discussion, and I want you to participate, but you attacked someone and I'm you worried may attack me or another user.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to forgo the contents of what was previously written, so here is what was better off written before the edit conflict here: Pardon me, but in response, this character was alleged in good faith and the term appear to refers to the allegation, upon participating in behavioral contributions pertaining to the anti-thesis of white supremacy with several articles related to the Horn of Africa by other non-related contributors (and again, notice the anti-thesis of it, where they attempt to utilize similar behaviors of two polar opposites). Further responding, I have provided extended contribution history pertaining to them, and per WP:blue, I am quite sure in 2021 character traits may be obvious with anyone's contribution history. In my personal instance I am termed a "historical and citation geek with dabs of philosophical intent" by several peers after reviewing my contributions here on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, continuing, I did not seek to attack them, nor silence them. I have also neither "dug up" any information on you, nor made reference to doing such; I have no time to investigate the wiki contributions of someone that does not warrant such a need (I participate often in sockpuppet investigations as a reporter and watchdog for Horn of Africa related articles, which is why in detail, and that was apparently volunteered upon me through consistent vandalism on such articles). Reading the discussion, I made no intent of seeking out any information you whatsoever, so that is a great and dangerous accusation of highest intent personally, and makes it seem as if one is a stalker, and that is horrible in my personal opinion. You were merely instructed to further investigate the other contributor through their contributions to this online encyclopedia. I fear this is now an instance of trolling or poor communication, moreso poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Now, that such rewritten defense has been published, it is quite alright as life is full of misunderstanding. Please refer to my revised comment which was intended to be published before the edit conflict, as I utilized WP:blue as a further defense of the commentary, in addition to the very detailed basis pertaining to claiming their appearance of an agenda being pushed. Thank you, and why personally attack you or others, or even them when there is no basis to do so? I have dealt with an issue similar to this I believe. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify I have apologized for saying he was trying to find something on me, I apologized above. I'm not claiming that he's stalking me or anything of that nature. My concern is with his unwarranted attack on a different user as I have stated above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, understand again, I have not verbatim said the contributor was a white supremacist but had the appearance of one, which has been the argument this whole time. I believe you are reading with emotion into my text written here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You believing that user has an appearance of white supremacy was not at all relevant to the discussion in that talk page. Under, WP:No personal attacks your not supposed to use someones political beliefs, even if there not mainstream, to invalidate their argument. Technically, even though white supremacy is disliked by you and me and many others it doesn't invalidate someone from editing Wikipedia. But thats all beyond the point because that user hasn't added anything condoning white supremacy and your speculation is wrong. Also I'm not aware of that user committing any policy violation. If you weren't trying to belittle them and silence their opinion, then why did you feel it was appropriate to ever bring that up? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be upon discerning the apparent motives through contribution history, I would argue, respectfully. I am not intending to invalidate their argument, but their contribution history as espoused within detail on that article's talk page appears to do it for them, fellow Wikipedian. Please reread the context of what has been explained several times before as well, before asking such a question in that manner, and making accusations of silencing them. They appear to have gotten tired of Wikipedia before I ever involved myself - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If I have yet to respond, I am sleeping. It is past midnight here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"User:TheLionHasSeen has made a particularly harmful comment against a user" The user in question is User:NorfolkIsland123, but neither of you bothered to inform him/her that the conversation concerns them. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would have thought it virtually impossible with their claim of quitting Wikipedia for its accused liberal bias of non-factual information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have not directly left a comment on NorfolkIsland123's talk page. I have pinged their name at least once on the Texas talk page, but I think they should be notified of this discusssion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Walled garden around Mika Simmons

• Mika Simmons
• Gynaecological Cancer Fund
• Lady Garden Campaign

A trio of promotional pieces. Alabama73 (talk · contribs) has been persistent in adding promotional and poorly sourced content, and claims to be Ms. Simmons [246]. The account has a long term WP:COI interest here, [247]. All the articles were created by different WP:SPAs, so it may be worth doing a sock check--my money is on all being connected to Alabama73, or at least to one another. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've indeffed Alabama73 from editing the Mika Simmons article as this editor claims to be the subject of the article. Editing by Alabama 73 at the other two articles has not been investigated, but it may be that a similar sanction is needed there. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at Simmons' biography now. A major problem is that there is citable information, but a lot of it is in the Daily Mail. I need to go and dig through the editor history more thoroughly, but as far as I can tell, the basic story is Simmons thought she should have a WP biography and paid somebody to do it - of course we all know that's a silly thing to do, but if you've got no expertise in writing WP articles, it's the sort of mistake you can make. As for the article block, that's probably the right decision but I would just caution everyone to take things easy and not go on the "COI Editor! Spam! Spam! Spam! Get Rid!" rampage just yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've had a look at the article and was going to drop a note on her talk page to ask if she had a WP:RS for the elusive "chosen as one of 40 inspirational women to front L’Oréal Lancôme's powerful women campaign" which seems too precise to be a total fantasy but is untraceable except to connected sources or wiki mirrors. But I find she has already been indef blocked, while this ANI was open. PamD 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PamD, She hasn't been indeffed everywhere, just from editing Mika Simmons. So she should be able to still communicate; although I think she hasn't picked up on what talk pages are yet, and today went to the AFC help desk to get assistance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Ah, Thanks. I think I read that but didn't register it - first time I've seen an article-specific block like that. PamD 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's apparent that Ms. Simmons is still under the impression that Wikipedia is a venue for promotion of herself and her charity work [248] (By the way, I'd check that post to PamD's page to make sure there's no copyright violation therein; I'm seeing a lot of identical content at [249], though I don't know which came first). When that's the misapprehension, every removal of inappropriate content and each warning against its restoration are viewed as personal attacks. The decision to remove her from autobiographical involvement is justified, as is greater attention to the satellite articles. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• My thanks also to El_C for rev/deleting all the copyright violation edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• For sure, IP. Good catch. I've also pointed out these issues to the user/subject: User_talk:Alabama73#Possible_copyright_breaches_at_Mika_Simmons_and_elsewhere. Thanks again — best IP, ever! Though I'm admittedly biased about that due to compliment monster. El_C 18:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• What struck me, El_C, was the similarity--if not in scale, then intent--to Michael Harris (producer) and the killer whale articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• IP, RE: whales — gotta nuke somethin'. Also, speaking of which, again, I ask: am I Sea Captain now? (diff). El_C 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Different user: KillerWhaleGuy

Hello Sea Captain? KillerWhaleGuy here, with apologies if I may not have seen or responded to much of the discussion about my first foray into Wikipedia editing, which obviously has not gone well. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, I've used Wikipedia for years and some of these articles for as long and yet I've never tried to edit. I have clearly made many mistakes. But as I've expressly assured the Wikipedia folks, I have absolutely no association with the subjects or previous editors. I just want the proper story told, as it is known to us here in the Pacific Northwest. Our newspapers and television news documented the Luna and Springer stories on an almost daily basis, and all of those orca articles have been preserved by government and non-government organizations. If not with active links, then they are easily retrievable. And as a new editor I've relied on a book documenting all of these events, which won Fortune Magazine's "Best Nature Non-Fiction" award, "OPERATION ORCA: Springer, Luna and the Struggle to Save West Coast Killer Whales." Its references and other news reports of the two years of Luna's life and his increased interactions with humans are absolutely critical to his life story. Its omission is glaring. Again, my apologies for fumbling through this first experience editing on Wikipedia, but I believe in the platform and hope to contribute regularly. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, my opinion as regards any similarities between some of these articles is that I have slso noticed that there are some similarities, and that would not surprise me. Perhaps that is because the same author/s produced the Springer (orca) and Luna (killer whale) pages? That would be a reasonable expectation as both of those orca efforts overlapped with the same Seattle people involved, including Michael Harris, Fred Felleman, and Jeff Foster. My guess might be someone involved with the charity orgs OrcaLab in BC or Orca Conservancy in Seattle at that time, almost twenty years ago? I am aware of the groups and have supported their efforts, as a guy who loves killer whales!! But I know Orca Conservancy especially used to be all over the news here in the Pacific Northwest during these orca rescues and that could've prompted any one to author articles. I think as long as they followed Wikipedia rules it seems the only important thing is that their contributions are properly cited to reliable sources. Upon reading Springer, it appears they are properly cited and reliable. With few exceptions, Springer also seems to be written in an objective, neutral way. Thanks again for this discussion and I'll keep checking in for responses. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KillerWhaleGuy, you write on your talk page about the Orca Conservancy, an organization that I have donated to over the years and have followed closely, as a person who loves orcas. Now, I'm not sure that counts as a conflict of interest (likely), but regardless, the problem is that your editing do come across as advocacy, which, indeed, those pages seem to have have sustained a lot of over the years. So, that remains a problem, I'm afraid. El_C 04:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and response. Following closely a charitable organization should not disqualify me for conflict of interest, no more than an author following closely any subject he/she edits would disqualify. My read of the rules is that it does not constitute COI. But in full transparency I wanted to respond to the question put to me. And to be clear -- I am NOT currently a member of Orca Conservancy, and my support for the group has only been in the form of volunteering for events in the past. It has been at least 10 years since I have done that. The fact is, I followed closely every group and government agency involved in these orca rescues here in the Pacific Northwest, including the media reports on Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, both negative and positive. The COI here if any appears to be someone associated with the primary subjects of the article now and to promote their commercial documentaries, as each edit that includes reliably cited material noting their non-permitted interaction (called "controversial" by the LA Times but described as "stewardship" by the editors/authors) continues to be removed from this article. My intent on this article is not to take sides on the matter, but certainly to not allow an editor or editors associated with this important article diminish the critical role of others and elevate themselves. IF I CONTINUE TO BE BLOCKED from editing this article and anything you call "whale-esque," I will need have a clearer reason why that is the case. Outside of some form issues, which I admit and will correct, I am not outside the rules. PLEASE UN-LOCK THESE ARTICLES and allow me an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia, as I've been trying to do. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

HELLO ALL... This is KillerWhaleGuy, a new editor to Wikipedia, and YES, I have in fact been attempting to communicate on the labyrinth of fora associated with Wikipedia. The content I have added and in some case restored are and were absolutely verifiable and cited to reliable sources. On the other hand, the substantial current content attributed to Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, with the resulting product looking like a promotion for their films. And YES, as I've admitted, I mistakenly listed all of my edits as "minor" and have been advised on avoiding that for future contributions. It will not happen again. But I certainly plan on continuing my contributions to the Luna (killer whale) article and any related pages that may have been improperly edited. This is not a matter of conduct, but learning the protocols. And again, to be expressly clear, I have no association with the subjects or previous editors on these pages, with the possible exception of perhaps using the same common server with a previous editor here at a very large, public business (I do not own) in Seattle, which provides free WiFi to scores of customers, clients and tenants every day. I am simply a Washington resident who has followed orca stories in this region for decades, particularly the rescue attempts of the orcas Springer and Luna, led by local groups and individuals like Jeff Foster, Michael Harris, Fred Felleman, Paul Spong, OrcaLab and Orca Conservancy. Those who followed the Luna story also know that several publications at the time, including the Los Angeles Times and the award-winning book OPERATION ORCA (Harbour Press), included notable criticisms of Parfit and Chisholm's interactions with Luna, which they documented and made into their film. The Times called it a "controversial proposal" to become Luna's "Human Pod," and a top scientist expressed deep concerns about potential harm they would cause. And yet, that content continues to be removed by an editor without explanation. We in the Pacific Northwest take our orca stories very seriously, and so this article will continue to see changes. I will continue to get better up to speed on the rules of the Wikipedia Community and contribute to this and other articles. And I will do a better job of communicating when I do. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KillerWhaleGuy, honestly, I think it's better that you restrict yourself to article talk pages and edit requests for any and all affected pages, at least for the time being, until we figure out what's what. El_C 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)]]

I would respectively ask that no restrictions be placed on my editing, and that you don't "nuke the whales." Wikipedia needs to have neutral and unabridged articles on these stories. After the blocks are lifted from my editing, if I fail to follow style, protocols or rules of the Community, then block me permanently. But I promise you I won't. I've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks. I will look for your decision here on this Notice Board. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

KillerWhaleGuy, that's a noble sentiment, but again, you gotta nuke somethin'! Anyway, the restrictions have already been imposed, including the partial blocks, whose duration I've set not to expire. But, as mentioned on your talk page, if another uninvolved admin sees it different, we can certainly look into maybe adjusting these, possibly even lifting them outright. To reiterate, I don't think that's likely to happen, but am more than happy to give it more time, just in case, before concluding this portion of the report. El_C 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As a refresher to any passing admins who don't know why a partial block was imposed, per previous threads at ANI: this is KWG's edit history: [250]. It was comprised of two interests, the addition of copyright violation content to Luna (killer whale), and the restoration of unsourced and promotional content at Michael Harris (producer). I detailed in two previous reports that both articles have a history of related promotional edits, and don't think this ought to be continuously re-litigated. The restriction to talk pages is more than generous; the thread here is further evidence of a single purpose of advocacy. As with previous edits to these articles, the abiding impression is that someone--or multiple someones-- associated with Mr. Harris are involved. But no matter; WP:COI doesn't necessarily need to be proven. The activity speaks for itself. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2C2B:FB39:A295:F543 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor

• Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Wilkja19's editing strikes me as seriously problematic:

1. they make changes to articles without ever providing reliable sources
2. they never explain their changes in edit summaries
3. they falsely mark all their edits as minor
4. they have never responded to any attempt at communicating with them, in just under three years of editing. Not a single post on an article talk page; not a single post on a user talk page; not a single response to any of the many messages that have been left for them.

Their conduct has been discussed before ([251],[252]) They have been blocked twice for their failure to communicate, the second time indefinitely, but were unblocked on 22 January by User:Nyttend who stated that they have "done nothing wrong".

I think it is clear that they are doing many things wrong. They are violating core content and conduct policies. Their total refusal to communicate is simply incompatible with participation in a community. The mere fact of marking every single edit as minor without ever providing an edit summary is disruptive. Lack of a summary prevents the building of trust that comes with seeing that someone is doing what they say they are doing; marking an edit as minor when it is not is explicitly not doing what you say you are doing.

So I am raising this here again. I think that communication between editors is essential and nobody has the right to opt out of this. If their changes were not marked as minor, and if they provided reliable sources, I would still be troubled by their refusal to communicate. But these things all together, I cannot see how it can be tolerated. I think that blocking this user until they respond to communications is necessary.

On their talk page, there are arguments that the software they are using to edit is culpable somehow for their refusal to communicate. The software may, it seems, not give them a notification when a message is left for them; it does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries or providing reliable sources, nor compel them to mark their edits as minor. And they are not obliged to use the software in any case.

Andesitic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This editor was subject to two community discussions and unblocked accordingly. The content changes they make on their account are not problematic -- throughout the AN/ANIs/user talk messages I've reviewed several and would be happy making those changes on my own account. Their editing is within policy. No, they often do not provide an inline citation with their changes. But they change/add entries in tables, which do not have any citations to begin with (which is completely normal for tables). Policy does not require citations for everything (as explained at WP:MINREF). Their changes are correct nevertheless. For example:

• Special:Diff/1009126991, verified by existing source
• Special:Diff/1009126991, verification
• Special:Diff/1009150509, verification
• Special:Diff/1008965161, verification
• Special:Diff/1008850467, verification

Nevertheless, all the above edits (which improve the content of the encyclopaedia for our readers), some of which are supported by existing sources on the article and simply updated, have been reverted by User:Andesitic, who has went around hounding Wilkja's changes, indiscriminately reverting them for being marked as minor and not having an edit summary, and edit warring [253][254][255][256] over a notice an admin (Nyttend) placed when they unblocked Wilkja. Their reverts are not in line with WP:CHALLENGE.

As for the communication issue, progress has been made on T275117, T274404 (currently high priority) & T275118, so hopefully that will be solved soon. In the meantime, this editor does not get any notifications of talk messages, pings, and does not see the message of block messages, due to the awfully designed app they're using. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Their editing is not within policy. Adding information without a reliable source violates a core policy and does not improve the content of the encyclopaedia for readers. Refusing to communicate is incompatible with editing through WP:CONSENSUS.
• I have not done anything indiscriminately.
• The software the user is using does not prevent them from communicating or leaving edit summaries, nor compel them to mark edits as minor. Those behaviours are the user's choice.

Andesitic (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How are they supposed to know that they should be doing those things, if they've never received any of our messages telling them to do so? It should be mentioned explicitly that this is the official WMF iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

By doing what many of the rest of us do, look at their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would they know a talk page even exists? The link to it is hidden within the settings. You wouldn't know to look for one unless you knew the concept of a "talk page" is a thing on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It is? I do not recall having to change any settings when I created an account, just click on the talk page tab. But maybe you are right, as I see not one talk page post, either to theirs or on articles. So what is to be done if a user is not communicating?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed only a handful of user talk edits (and most of those spam or edits to other users' pages), and zero, count 'em, zero article talk page edits from any iOS app user in the past 30 days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For user talk pages you need to go into the menu, settings, user, then "Your talk page", iirc. I only know that because I actively hunted through the app to find the link to my talk page, because I already knew what a talk page was and wanted to find the link. If I didn't know what one was there's no reason I'd think to try, never mind check it regularly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see, I use a PC, so I presume its different.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's truly a miracle the project has survived this long with the Foundation's paid developers working so hard to undermine it at every turn. EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Adversity powers evolution. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• If we blocked all the app users, that would probably get the WMF to spend some money to update the app. It's within the community's power to decide what software people can and cannot use to edit (we already regulate this via policy). I'm not sure it's fair to block any one user for using the app, though. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  It sounds like this iOS app is severely flawed. But to reemphasise my point, the problem is the user, and not the app. From the recent changes link, one can see that the app does not prevent anyone from leaving edit summaries, or compel anyone to mark edits as minor. I see iOS app users responding to messages, noting that they have been blocked. This user is making the choice that they will not communicate. I cannot see any reason to tolerate this. It seems to me that anyone who will not communicate cannot be here to build an encyclopaedia. Andesitic (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Will you please read the last 1/3 of this thread before repeating all that yet again? EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  If you think I missed some salient point, then say what it is. Andesitic (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  The discussion makes clear that your determination to ascribe motive to an iOS user is unjust. EEng 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make that clear. The app they are using does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries. It does not force them to falsely mark their edits as minor. It does not prevent them from providing reliable sources as required by WP:V. And nothing is compelling them to even use the app. Andesitic (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It does prevent them from knowing that we want them to do all those things, unless they stumble onto their difficult-to-find talk page by accident, or sometimes edit using a web browser. That's the point. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent that. They are able to read policy, guideline and help pages just as anyone else is. It only impedes them from receiving messages. Do you consider them exempt from the rules? They are obviously not going to change their disruptive editing behaviour, so that seems to me the choice - declare them exempt from the rules, or block them until they agree to follow them. Andesitic (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. The IOS app makes it easy to do one thing: to access articles and edit them. Doing anything else is extremely laborious, and is actually only doable if one already has a substantial knowledge of the structure of Wikipedia and the necessary navigational concepts it requires. It does absolutely nothing to help a novice editor, or even an intermediate one, go "behind the scenes" and participate as a member of the Wikipedia community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the app genuinely prevents users from even seeing policy and guideline pages, then it is clearly totally inadequate and should not be used by anyone. The problem remains that this user is editing disruptively and is obviously not going to stop unless some action as taken. Andesitic (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not "prevent" you from seeing policy pages, etc. If you know what they're called, you can (laboriously) input them into the search bar and get to them, but that assumes that you already are aware of them and know what they're called, or what shortcut to use. It doesn't "prevent", but it also doesn't in any way facilitate it. And that IOS app users can't see a message flag is downright counter-productive. What the heck were the developers thinking? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Ignorantia juris non excusat", then? -- 2001:16B8:148F:BC00:3DF5:6CFA:1ED5:3E4F (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So (I ask again) what are we to do, allow (what is in effect) bad editing practice because we can't tell them it is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But I am also concerned about Andesitic, as they seem to have taken it upon themselves to undo Wilkja19, over the issue of no edit summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have undone, in total, twelve of their edits, because they did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor. These issues make it impossible to trust those edits, and this editor. That is the whole basis of the issue here.

As for what to do, I cannot see any argument against blocking this editor. The alternative is to specifically state that certain users are exempt from the rules, because of the software they use to access Wikipedia. That would seem crazy to me. Andesitic (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ON pages you do not seem to have edited before, so yes it does look like you are targeting them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I consider Andesitic's actions towards Wilkja (for example, reverting indiscriminately every single one of their contribs since 21 February for minor/edit summary, especially when all of them were correct) to be harassment (see WP:HOUNDING). Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And he's still going! Special:Diff/1009533705 & Special:Diff/1001759662 (verification). revert. To a list with no sources (as is usual for lists)! The hounding is obvious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not doing anything indiscriminately. I have undone twelve edits which did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor, because these edits were harmful. What is your motivation for so aggressively defending this harmful editor? All they need to do is provide reliable sources, write edit summaries, and not mark major edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow, this has really opened a can of worms. I'm glad someone is on top of it. Perhaps I need to look again at some of my dealings with anons. Deb (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure HOUND applies here. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. If an editor has made a recent series of unsourced edits, and refused to comment on said edits, then it is reasonable to address the issue. Ideally by finding source but often by removal. If the editor is using an editing program that doesn't notify them when others revert their edits and try to ping them, well I don't see how that is on the editor trying to fix a problem. Springee (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  It applies because the edits are correct and are all verifiable. The content does not require inline citations per policy. Most casual lists do not have verifications. WP:CHALLENGE requires consideration of the state of the article or portion of the content before tagging or considering removal, and even then advises finding a reference yourself. Ergo, the 'tracking to prevent disruption' does not apply, because their edits aren't disruptive. Andesitic simply has it out for Wilkja (repeated in their "harmful editor", "clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia", etc rhetoric above, and when they were edit warring over an admin-placed notice claiming it was false). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  To emphasise the point, if Andesitic really cared about 'verification' he would've removed the entire list at Randy Zisk, rather than just Wilkja's edits. Similar thing applies for every single other one of his reverts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Regardless of why the editor was not replying to questions about their edits, it looks like the Andesitic was concerned about a legitimate problem. Even if you feel they were misguided, the "no overridingly constructive reason" clause would come into play here. That said, it would be best if they stopped until the community figures out a better way to handle this. I can certainly see how an editor would be frustrated if they made the usual good faith efforts to contact and editor and talk about a problem and received radio silence in reply. Prior to this discussion I would certainly have taken this to be something other than good faith. I've also been concerned when I see editors marking so many edits as minor. Again, perhaps that is an failing of an edit program vs the editor themselves. Springee (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would point out these are not stand-alone lists (which is what our policies on lists apply to) but to lists within an article. But I would (as I have said) agree they only seem to have an issue with one editor adding unsourced content to these articles. Yes I think that they should leave the user alone until we figure out how to deal with the communications issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is no material on Wikipedia that does not need to be verifiable. Inline citations may not in some cases be essential but verifiability always is.

  Honestly this seems quite straightforward to me. The user is misleadingly marking all their edits as minor, not providing reliable sources, and has never written a single edit summary. Is this behaviour harmful? Yes it is. Will the user change their behaviour? They have been asked to, and it is clear that they will not. So what can be done? Either allow them to continue, or block them until they acknowledge the need to change their editing style. Lesser remedies than blocking will not have any effect because the user refuses to communicate. Why should anyone be allowed to make unsourced, unexplained, misleadingly marked changes? Andesitic (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  You're getting awful close to WP:IDHT territory. EEng 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

When these users are blocked, they do get to see the block message right? Like, a block message saying outstanding notices on your talk page here [link] require your attention, and so on. El_C 22:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Nope. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Total impenetrability, that's just lovely. Sigh. El_C 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the user has a confirmed email address then (by default at least) they will get an email for each talk page message and ping. Wilkja19 does not have a confirmed email address. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For the confused, here's how the various platforms differ (thanks to ProcrastinatingReader for testing the iOS stuff):

Comparison of communication features as of Feb 2021

Editor	"New message" alert	Other alerts	Custom block messages	Custom edit filter messages
Desktop (IP)	Orange bar of doom	No	Yes	Yes
Desktop (User)	Miniature orange bar of doom	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mobile Web (IP)	No	No	Yes	Yes
Mobile Web (User)	Looks like other alerts	Yes	Yes	Yes
iOS (IP)	No (?)	No	?	Broken; only message name shown (?)
iOS (User)	No	No	No	Broken; only message name shown
Android (IP)	No	No	Seems flaky	No (?)
Android (User)	Yes (w/ ding+vibrate)	Yes (w/ ding+vibrate)	No	No

So the one way we have to reach this user is to create a page called MediaWiki:We want to talk to you! Follow these steps to reach your talk page: Go to "settings" and tap blah blah blah... and set it as a the warning message of an edit filter that targets this user, and only this user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We could generalize that to an extent. Create some sort of edit filter for "alert iOS user to check their talk page for a discussion concerning them" and apply it as necessary to catch the attention of iOS users when needed. Then create some sort of system or procedure for when to apply it, with appropriate requirements (ie. there's an active discussion, such as ANI, that requires alerting the user and there's no indication they ever receive talk page messages.) Obviously it's a crude hack, but it's better than nothing - who knows when or if this issue will be fixed? We need some way to attract the attention of iOS-only users. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be desirable to hold a big RfC where the community asks Arbcom to ask the WMF Board to address the issue? At least we could find out if they know about it, and whether they care, and whether they would commit resources to solving the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the last 100 edits from iOS app users go back about 5 hours. By comparison the last 100 edits from mobile web IP users go back about 15 minutes. So I wouldn't want to focus on just the iOS issue; if this route is taken we should be demand that all the mobile editing interfaces be fixed or disabled.

For now I think we should just keep commenting at WP:VPWMF#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) so it never gets archived; the lack of any edits to that thread from a (WMF) account is growing more and more conspicuous. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No WMF Board member will read that discussion (unless dragged to it). WMF staffers are irrelevant as history has shown they have to do what their managers direct, and they are presumably encouraged by the Board to focus on shiny new things (or hopelessly naive attempts to "engage" new editors—using an app where they cannot communicate!). Thank you for your efforts clarifying how this works but enwiki discussions will achieve nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What a sorry situation. In any case, I've started expanding the table at User:Suffusion_of_Yellow/Mobile communication bugs, but I'm still not finished. IIRC they can't see edit notices either! Feel free to fill in any missing parts.

I'm beginning to warm to the idea of using an edit filter to disable app editing entirely (and maybe logged out mobile web editing, too). As Levivich suggested, just the threat that we might do that would probably encourage swift action, and the filter wouldn't actually ever be turned on. But we'd need a very carefully worded RFC to get community support for this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've been looking onto this for a moment here, this looks on its face like classic WP:RADAR behavior. I noted they have a user page, suggesting they do in fact know that exists, but oddly, their userpage was created by Toyotaboy13, who also never, ever, not even once ever communicated with another user in any way and was repeatedly warned for adding unsourced content. I think this suggests they are the same user, although Toyotaboy went quiet in September 2019. This in turn suggests that this person has been editing Wikipedia for five years without ever speaking to another user. I find it difficult to believe that software is the one and only issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Possibly. But at the time when Toyotaboy13 was last active they were using an Android device, while Wilkja19 was using an iOS device. There's some obvious overlap in the articles edited though; more likely these are two users who know each other, and one learned the bad habits from the other. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  An equally likely explanation is another user clicked the red link and created their user page (as commonly happens) and this user didn’t notice (afaics, there’s no link to ones user page in the app; none, unlike the talk page link which at least exists but is buried in the settings), hence didn’t request U1 deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So the question is what to do about this editor. As this discussion has been ongoing, they have continued to make edits falsely marked as minor, without edit summaries and without sources. Their editing is disruptive, and nothing about the iOS app compels them to edit in this way or prevents them from understanding how to edit collaboratively. The only thing it does is make it possible that the user does not know they have received messages requesting them to change their behaviour.

They are clearly not going to stop editing disruptively unless something is done. Doing nothing would mean that by never communicating, they have gained an exemption from normal community standards. So I advocate blocking them until they communicate with the community. Andesitic (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The stronger consensus here is that you should stop reverting them at least while the community figures out what to do about this issue. Yet you have continued. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, and I find your aggressive defence of this editor very strange. I will note the similarity of this case to another below where a block is being considered, and a recent case where a block was applied. Andesitic (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Andesitic, you've got an increasingly serious WP:IDHT problem of your own [257], and I see a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way if you don't stop obsessing about this one editor and start attending to improving your own understanding of project policies and guidelines and community norms. If you're smart you'll be quiet now while experienced discuss how to address this general problem. EEng 04:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the merit of this report but just wanted to note I blocked Andesitic for long-term abuse (best known for IP again). Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Surprise! EEng 18:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

POS78

• POS78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long history of moving articles without any form of discussion, let alone WP:CONSENSUS. I've tried to explain to him a zillion times that he just can't do that, yet that hasn't stopped him. Can a admin please do something about this?

Some examples:

[258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not intend to sabotage, I just think there could be a better title in the articles, Well, I try not to repeat it And I use Wikipedia:Requested moves POS78 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What you think is a better title is irrelevant, we have a rule called WP:COMMON NAME. You've already said this before [265]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia encourages being WP:BOLD including with non controversial page moves. I don't have an opinion re the specifics, but I do think after being notified about it, it would be good for POS78 to make an effort and post on talk page, before making a move in the future. If after a week there's no objection, or clear consensus, then make the move? Shushugah (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I promise you this will not happen again And I do not transmit an article without consensus Unless the title is completely wrong, Is that enough for you? POS78 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like POS78 has apologized and promised that the issues will not continue. If they do, please don't hesitate to let me know on my user talk page and I'll be happy to look into it further. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Btw @Oshwah: could you please move Miral castle back to its original name Château de Miral? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the beginning of February he has created over 500 new articles. That's quite a lot! It's hard to verify all of them especially when the citations added a lot of the time I have found don't work. I don't know about other people but this feels excessive! Kinda disturbing in a way. Govvy (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the articles created are lists in which the text of the entries in the list are copied and pasted from existing articles without giving attribution, for example List of caves in Jamaica. --John B123 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

InvestigativeNews

Told to take this here from WP:AIV; thought it was obvious spam. User:InvestigativeNews is spamming nonsense, possibly legal threats (although it is impossible to tell), across various talk pages. See Special:Contributions/InvestigativeNews. I am inexperienced, so if more detail is necessary, can provide. Urve (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they want to add information about a lawsuit, not make legal threats, at least from what I see. The trouble is that the lawsuit does not seem to be covered in RS. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I read their messages as entirely just raising awareness for the lawsuit to random people, not trying to get inclusion somewhere. Mea culpa. As for legal threats, I didn't think they were, but AIV admin said it's possible so just wanted to include it if possible. Possibly shared by many people based on "we" on their talk. Urve (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with 331dot. They're not making legal threats. However it does look like a single purpose account and has failed to heed recommendations on WP:NPOV/WP:RS. Not to mention a WP:BLP violation, to name people involved in a lawsuit with no news/secondary coverage. For that reason alone, worth blocking imho, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SUSPECT Shushugah (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, that username is dodgy to say the least. Deb (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for the username currently, however I do have concerns with their editing as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

12 O'Clock Boyz doesn't even seem like it should exist, the only sources are to the US Copyright Office. ValarianB (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My thought also. I've AFDed it. Executive summaries of the lawsuits mentioned in the AFD can be found at User talk:InvestigativeNews, above my {{Afd notice}}. Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to question if this user is here to build an encyclopedia. See this recent edit to the AFD: here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Four keep !votes in one AFD might be considered excessive. Especially with the tone of that last one. Narky Blert (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that the user created a new account, User:Matt at InvestigativeNews, rather than waiting for a rename. They are claiming to work as a journalist, but have not actually declared their COI or if they are a paid editor. Plus their comment Please do not disturb this Contributor with trivial matters does not inspire confidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe this should be looked at.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9

Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leechjoel9 discusses politely on issues related to Eritrea, but repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED:

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eritrean population: 3.5 million or 6 million? The most reliable source for the population of Eritrea, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) Population Division 2019 report, appears to be unacceptable to this user. I NPOVed the article, improving the sources to have specific dates and archives rather than bare URLs, citing both the 3.5 million and 6 million population estimates. Leechjoel9 reverted this NPOVed version (along with some other intervening edits), asking to discuss. In the discussion, Leechjoel9 provided some extra sources, which is fine, but none appear to be as detailed and serious as the UN DESA report. I eventually proposed that this first be sorted out at Demographics of Eritrea, but Leechjoel9 has reverted a significant amount of work, despite it containing no controversial or weakly sourced claims.
• Eritrean Defence Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eritrean Defence Forces' (EDF) presence in the Tigray War:

• I added specific, falsifiable claims by WP-notable people (former defence minister, founder of a peace research institute) about divisions of the EDF present in the war. Leechjoel9 did several reverts of material to keep any mention of EDF participation in the Tigray War out of the EDF article:
• 19:55, 22 February 2021
• 18:08, 26 February 2021
• 21:02, 26 February 2021‎
• 21:46, 26 February 2021‎

Leechjoel9 accepted to talk but does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. S/he has been aware since late January 2021 that Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War was the consensus point of view at the Tigray War article (anti-consensus POVs can still be included, of course).

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Reverts by Leechjoel9 to keep any mention of EDF participation in the Tigray War out of the Eritrea article:

• See the lower part of this edit, which reverted Tobby72's edit
• Another revert of Tobby72's edit

Again, Leechjoel9 accepted to talk, but firstly seemed to confuse my edits with edits by others, secondly seemed to wish to discuss a separate topic (the population issue), and finally returned to the issue, but without providing a serious argument for overriding WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED.

• Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Leechjoel9 appeared to wish to exclude listing the currently most famous person in the world born in Asmara, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was in world news headlines almost daily for several months of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, on the grounds of citizenship.

• Leechjoel9 removed Tedros from the list
• and again removed Tedros from the list

Leechjoel9 accepted to talk: Talk:Asmara#Notable people; Talk:Asmara#Notable people again, but the most recent restoral of Tedros to the list was again reverted by Leechjoel9.

Leechjoel9 has been aware of Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions since late January.

There's obviously nothing wrong with an editor presenting the POV of the Eritrean government, but not to the degree of using fringe or weakly sourced points of view to exclude the generally higher quality sourced points of view. This is a tricky case, because the editor engages in discussion that is polite and makes statements that generally appear reasonable, but the reasonable statements are vague and evade the issues, ignore most of the specific points made by me and other editors, and the statements and reverts don't seem to acknowledge Wikipedia policy. The actions by this editor constitute a timesink, appearing to suggest that s/he owns several articles, with the right to exclude unapproved material; s/he does not appear willing to accept NPOV. My suggestion is a topic ban. Otherwise, Wikipedia Eritrea-related articles risk looking like an advertisement for the Eritrean government, in some cases (population) sourced from bare urls rather than dated, archived, up-to-date specific references. Boud (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boud is trying to politicise several articles relating to Horn of Africa. In particular subjects relating to the Tigray War which is ongoing in Ethiopia’s Tigray region. The Horn of Africa are under discretionary sanctions wikipedia:ACDS. Which means users must pertain level of caution when making edits to these articles. Most importantly reach consensus before making controversial edits or edits that affects large parts the articles. From my knowledge the subjects that are covered in this dispute are:
• Eritrea- Dispute started when the user wanted to include accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War, which is an ongoing conflict in Ethiopia. These allegations are one sided, not neutral, not verified and are views or/and allegations by certain individuals that are involved in the war/conflict. These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations, governments or government officials. The government of Ethiopia (country of the conflict) has denied Eritrean involvement. Eritrea has also denied involvement, the UN secretary-general of the United Nations António Guterres, and former US- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially denied Eritrean involvement conflict when the conflict was at its peak. So what I have asked this user is to be neutral in editing this article in relation to this conflict since the conflict is complex and it’s not possible to provide all sides of the conflict in this article. I have advised that content relating to the conflict is better suited in the article that is about the conflict which is the Tigray War article. I have also suggested to the user that such content can be described short, for instance that there have been accusations against Eritrea in the conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia and that Eritrea have denied such involvement along with credible cited sources.
• After bringing up above issue the user went on with questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I asked for engagement in the discussion created by this user [266], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [267]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [268]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but has repeatedly added content relating to the population of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion has been ongoing 1)[269],2)[270]. In the discussion page of the article I provided four sources independent of each other that indicates that the population of Eritrea is around six million. This is supported by CIA estimates for 2021, African development bank [271], COMESA-Comon Market for East and South Africa [272], and two government sources. The two government sources, one that mentions that the population was 3,5M in 2002 [273], and one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [274]. The government sources are consistent with the three other sources. The user is solely relying on one source for the population which is decreasing the population of Eritrea with three million individuals, half of the population! I have argued that the UN source are possibly basing their data on older data (prob.2002) when the government of Eritrea reported a population of 3,5 million, so that would be the least credible one. For this reason the population should be based on the data that currently on the article which has been explained in the article talk section, along with the ones provided here.
• Lastly the user wanted to add content to Eritrea’s history which is perfectly fine. The problem is that the user added redundant information that already existed in the section that brings up accusations of Human rights abuses. I kindly asked this user to add this content in this section and not add it the history section since it’s not content relevant to the “History Of Eritrea”.
• Eritrean Defence Forces- Here the user have been adding similar content as in the Eritrea article, non verified and non neutral accusation from a party participating in the conflict/war in Tigray War/conflict. I have told the user to add this type of content in the relevant Tigray War article.
• Demographics of Eritrea -User decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [275]
• Asmara-In this article there was a dispute of the WHO director Tedros could be in the list of Notable person of Asmara, the capital of Eritrea. Which he can, however his names on the list has caused controversy since he is an anti-Eritrea figure supporting and a member of “Tigray People Liberation Front” the main political party in Tigray conflict. This has caused users removing his name from the list. I proposed several solutions to this issue in the talk page of the article. That discussion is ongoing. However user Boud has taken opportunity to involve the only user that objected to my proposition and asked this user to get involve in the the Eritrea article, which is against Wikipedia policy.
• Overall the dispute can be sorted with engagement in the discussion, However this user must refrain from making edits without reaching consensus, per above explanation. The user also needs to acknowledge that these articles are under wikipedia:ACDS, to avoid breaching the discretionary sanctions, which this user might have done already. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a detail on the Eritrea Ministry of Information URL: "one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [332]", to explain why I didn't include it: the URL does *not* state the nearly 6 million estimate. Boud (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leechjoel9, you said that the person's political view "has caused users removing his name from the list". Can you provide diffs or evidence showing at least two users removing his name from Asmara? Or are you the only one who removes his name from the article about the city? I wasn't able to find anyone except you removing his name, but I only spent a couple of minutes looking. If I overlooked other editors making the same edits, please share the proof here. This looks like slow-motion WP:Edit warring to me, and you could get blocked for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is recent removal which triggered the latest issue in the Asmara article [276]. However I did provide a solution, to link to this list instead and /or adding a list of notable Eritreans from Asmara instead since would be more relevant to the article. If I recall, it happened before I’ll try find another similar edit. As mentioned above his name can stay on the list, in the talk section of the article there is a discussion that I’ve started about the usages of notable lists in that article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by Alex2006:I would like to intervene because I am also part of it. The ip removed Tedros from the list of Asmara's notable persons without giving a reason, and I, who have the article on my watchlist, restored it. The removal was clearly disruptive editing. After my restore Leechjoel9 came in and removed it again.[277] After two more reverts I opened a thread on his discussion page asking why, and he replied that that name was "controversial" for political reasons. The solution according to him was either to remove non-Eritreans from the list, or to split the list from the article.[278] Clearly doing ethnic cleansing of a list goes against at least a couple of policies, and is not a negotiable solution by consensus. Splitting the list would make sense if there were hundreds of names, but there are only eight names. After that, two other users came along and restored the name for the same reasons as me. However, each time the name was removed again by him, who proposed more and more fanciful solutions, but all with one point in common: that non-Eritreans linked to Asmara must disappear from the article because Asmara is now an Eritrean city. By the way, this is not his first attempt to remove the list: he had already tried it a few months ago. He deleted the list,[279] after my revert he opened a thread on Asmara's discussion page, writing that the list should be split (deleting a list is a rather strange way of splitting it), but after my objections he gave up.[280] At that time there were only two non-Eritreans on the list: Gianfranco Rosi, a famous director, and Remo Girone, a theatre and television actor, both born in Asmara. According to his latest statements, neither of them is worthy of inclusion in the article. At this point (and after several edit wars on this article which I won't mention) I think that you have more elements to judge: personally, I support a time limited topic ban, hoping that in the meantime he will understand on what principles Wikipedia works. Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Alessandro57 Your entitled to your views but banning users simply because they don't agree with you is not a solution and not how Wikipedia works. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand this. I would prefer if you would engage in the Asmara discussion in the talk page, as you see now Tedros is still on the list as mentioned three times now so that is not an issue. But apparently that is not enough reason to remove him from the list. The others ones will certainly not cause controversy since they are not known individuals to many, however the question about a list of Eritreans from Asmara that are notable to Asmara is still legitimate question. Because there are at least 10-20 that can be included in the list, so work would be done to achieve this and this was why I started the question in the article, similar questions have been raised before yes but nothing with that discussion, it was revived again after the ip removed Tedros from the list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment by Alex2006:I see that unfortunately you continue not to understand: in my opinion you should not be temporarily banned because I disagree with you, but because you do not understand (or if you do, you refuse to comply with) the policies and principles of this encyclopedia. I have participated in both discussions, trying to explain to you why you (as well as I and anyone else here) cannot even begin a discussion that is based on the assertion that a list of notable people has to be cleaned up on an ethnic basis. The sentence "the whole section of notable people of Asmara should include Eritreans and not non-Eritreans" [281] (BTW, Rosi and Girone are both Italians, so according to your proposal they have to be excluded) needs no further explanation about your real intentions. And what does being popular have to do with being on the list? So, according to you, if Fellini was born in Asmara, he should be removed immediately, because he is known all over the world, and this would make him "controversial". In this whole story, the only one who has having problems with this list, for months, is you, and the reason should be clear to everyone at this point. And with that I'm done, I hope the admins do what they have to do. Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Once again (for the fourth time) , Tedros is still on the list, I have refrained from editing that part, so there is currently no issue about this, it is already cleared out the way. I have not said anyone should be excluded based of ethnicity, please stop assuming stuff and commenting on my behalf. I have seen several notable list that are divided by nationality, perhaps they were incorrectly used on Wikipedia? Suggestions was to add of list of Eritreans from Asmara, If that is not possible according to Wikipedia policy then I of course agree with you that we can’t add such list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Leechjoel9 wrote: accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War ... These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations. See: Amnesty International; also, Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: Eritrean Forces Massacre Tigray Civilians. Boud (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A policy which has not yet been raised here is WP:NOTPAPER. Leechjoel9's live edits have an average size of -92 bytes (a negative number of bytes); they remove more material than they contribute. Eritrea is a topic that has too little coverage in en.Wikipedia rather than too much. Boud (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussion with you in a number of articles. You simply disagree with me in these subjects. The right place for discussions are the talk pages of those articles. Every user is different on Wikipedia, and user contributions is not about bytes, the bytes are not static and changes over time depending what’s edited and when. Regarding the coverage of Eritrea, it’s covered on the en.Wikipedia and of course could be covered more like many articles. You still have to gain consensus when users disagrees with you. Actually I’ve tried to improve the coverage on Eritrea and not the opposite. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You entered text in the talk pages, but that wasn't engagement with the substantive content of what I wrote. Boud (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Independently of me, other users have tried to explain sourcing issues, and have been surprised at outright removal of what they felt was properly sourced material: Ssbbplayer, 13:33, 20 April 2020; OldGalileo, 21:37, 30 May 2020; Pathawi, 20:40, 2 January 2021; regarding substantive discussion, see Pathawi, 23:51, 2 January 2021. Boud (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been following the Timeline of Tigray war and Tigray war for a few weeks now and Boud has behaved as if he owns those articles. Also, many of the users who edit simultaneously with Boud seem to agree and edit the same pages. I suspect Boud is a sock puppeteer and is using these other accounts to form this false consensus. Just reading all of the other users commenting in the same style of English and editing the same articles. Moderators how do I open a Sockpuppet Inquiry on Boud?Clownshking (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: I disagree with the claim, but here is the place to start reading: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Handling suspected sockpuppets. Boud (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you now randomly finding ways to come up with accusations? All the discussion were solved or ended within those discussions. You lacked to reach consensus on several articles and now going of topic. I couldn’t agree more with user Clownshking that Boud is very active on the Tigray War article. One thing I noticed is that Boud is informing users about the discretionary sanctions WP:ACDS for Horn of Africa on user talk pages. I do agree that it is good to inform users about this, however this might discourage users from editing, especially since Boud is active editing these articles and involved in the disputes. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: The past discussions may have been solved, but they may help understand the current situation, and uninvolved people will judge whether you have learnt from the past.

I agree that I am active on the Tigray War article. However, adding sourced content or improving the quality of sources does not mean WP:OWNing.

TLDR: To those interested in the population of Eritrea issue, I suggest this self-contained summary of the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation of how Eritrea seemed to drop in population by 1.8 million from 2017 to 2019 (the whole times series since 1950 was revised in 2019); the current best estimate is about 3.5 to 3.6 million. To see a lack of substantive arguments against a proposal on the same talk page, scroll up. Boud (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud you clearly have a AntiEritrea and ProTPLF POV. You have been overly involved in depicting the Tigray conflict with all the articles that you have edited or made up to promote the TPLF view. Nothing has been confirmed but only weaselly worded reported. You present Tplf Statements as fact but contest PM Abiy or Eritrean governments statement as not reliable. And you have been using multiple accounts to make a false sense of consensus. You also left message on my Talk page as if you are some kind of authority on Wikipedia. I stopped editing any articles at this point because of you. Are you a moderator? If not why are you contesting and discussing adnaseum about these certain articles? The population of Eritrea has multiple reliable sources stating a range in 6 million but you have gone too far with your one source cross examining the other official sources. The consensus is 6 million and not 3.5 million. And what is the point of this ANI to keep discussing your one source?Clownshking (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record: my POV in Wikipedia editing is neither anti-Eritrea nor pro-TPLF; it is pro-Wikipedia, i.e. based on the sources and NPOV. If you seriously think I'm sockpuppeting, then you should file a request instead of repeating your claim here, which is the wrong place for that. Accusations should not be made lightly. Messages on talk pages by me do not imply any kind of authority on Wikipedia. We don't have moderators on Wikipedia; we have a community. My comment was meant to help because your edit did not match the content of the source. We assume good faith and do not accuse each other of trying to support or oppose particular groups. This AN/I is about Leechjoel9 who "repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED"; I added WP:NOTPAPER as an overlapping issue; and the difficulty in substantive engagement on talk pages is a related timesink issue. Regarding sources, I recommend that you read the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation by demographers of why the population of Eritrea is currently best estimated as 3.5 million and why 1.8 million Eritreans "vanished" from the point of view of the improvement in historical estimates for a country that has never had a census. In fact, here I have brought attention to the Eritrean National Statistics Office 2010 estimate of 3.2 million in 2010, which matches the UN DESA Revision 2019 value of 3170.437 thousand for the year 2010. The relevance to AN/I is whether Leechjoel9 (and you?) can accept that sources are not just websites. For demographic information, demographic organisations are the best source. Boud (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

UN DESA is not the census taker of any country! There are more sources disagreeing with your Source. Stop pushing your agenda. You are being a disruptive editor pushing your narrow one source agenda. Your one source is not consensus by definition. Yes there will be Sockpuppet SPI on you. Btw I will talk with a real moderator please stop threatening new editors with your threats of getting banned. You did that to me and now some editor Biniam on FANO nationalist article. Clownshking (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by Alex2006: Clownshking, these are ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you have problems with Boud open a separate thread in AN/I. However, consider that if he hadn't opened this thread about Leechjoel9, I would have done it within a few hours. As for myself, I don't deal with the horn of Africa except marginally (I only have Asmara on my watchlist) I've been on wikipedia for 15 years, so I have some experience and, like many experienced users, I do routinely some anti-vandalism work. In this context I've noticed in the last few months a disruptive behaviour from Leechjoel9. And that is what is being talked about here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, the subjects brought up by Clownshking is relevant to the discussion. Boud has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS. Despite knowing this the user added disputed content several times before reaching consensus which the edit diffs I provided shows. One can’t impose his or her views by force in articles and on others users, you got to engage in discussion to form consensus. Alessandro57 reporting users just because you feel they disagree with you on a subject is not first step to resolve disputes over content. I fully engaged with you through the talk page of Asmara article. Ive been around long enough to tell the difference between vandalism and an ordinary content dispute. I have also done anti-vandalism work when I’ve seen vandalism being committed. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: Regarding "has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS": discretionary sanctions are fully compatible with WP:NOTPAPER. COVID-19 Wikipedia pages have been under discretionary sanctions since 17 March 2020, but many Wikipedians have added a huge amount of content to COVID-19 pages. The sanctions are not meant to slow down the addition of content by discussions where the meaning of sourcing is ignored and where points are not responded to properly. Even now, after you have failed to show why a highly reputable demography research organisation should be ignored, and after I did the work to solve the population-of-Eritrea puzzle by finding the UN DESA 2019 Revision Release-Note-v1, and I found and showed an official Eritrean Ministry of Local Government + National Statistics Office estimate (see Sect 1.1.4 on pdf page 31), you have not yet restored my edit. Boud (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue was not about wether a user can edit articles that are under sanctions, but your overall edit style and behaviour when editing these articles, despite knowing they are under sanctions I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with you, doing changes before reaching consensus, and now not respecting that you haven’t got consensus when it comes to the population estimate and you can’t simply impose your views by force.Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So Boud continues to stalk the articles that I edited and then he falsely gives me a vandalism warning. Boud stop harassing me, you do not own those articles. Stop using other accounts. You behavior on Wikipedia is making new users like myself from editing anything. Clownshking (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Clownshking, either file an WP:SPI or withrdaw the accusation of sockpuppetry. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I found this copyright violation from https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/africa/eritrea-political-geography/tigrinya with a misleading edit summary while investigating another editor. MER-C 10:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have informed I will look into this past edit.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Uchar-hadji article. Warring for distorted representation of a source

User:Goddard2000 repeatedly provokes edit warring. There is a source from 1848 saying: "Sala, or Salatavians, ancestors of Kumyk Sala-Uzdens... are considered/supposed to be related to Aukh people." Based on this, user claims repeatedly that Sala Uzdens are Chechen. Explanations on Talk:Uchar-hadji#Not_in_sources talk page that it's original research, and that even this source says Sala-uzdens are Kumyk, can't change his agenda of abusing the article repeatedly. --KrakDuck (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, maybe add some relevant diffs, because, to be honest, I found that article talk page discussion rather difficult to parse. El_C 04:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Sorry for that. Example, I quote the source after I give example how the source is distorted, he says it's all a proof, I argument that what he says is WP:OR, he gives a heap of more original research or links, which contain "proofs" such as DNA tests without any scientific works/articles, or pieces where "Kumyk class Sala-uzden" is repeated again. And the tone is very aggressive, accusing me for being pro-Kumyk. [282]. The problem is that Chechen version is also described in the article in Descent section. He just uses Wikipedia to make a point.--KrakDuck (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, And he continues warring again --KrakDuck (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakDuck, sorry, I still am unable to make sense of this. Perhpas a dispute resolution request, like 3rd opinion or a Request for comment will help get more outside input from editors with some grasp of the subject matter...? El_C 06:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Thanks for protecting. However, FYI, you protected disputed version, with a bunch of original research and falsely presented sources. Pre war version is from 18 October 2020 this one.--KrakDuck (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, I'm approaching this as a content dispute at this time, so I don't get to choose which version to protect, as a matter of policy. Obviously, whomever doesn't engage the article talk page effectively forfeits their position, per WP:COMMUNICATE. Also, just noticed that you have not informed User:Goddard2000 of this discussion, as is required. I will do that for you. El_C 07:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C I see, different from other language Wikipedias then, usually pre-war is protected to prevent recent abuse. Not good also that you couldn't understand how he abused the article, but I guess if you're OK with it, I'll be OK too. Tried to prevent, but not very interested in the topic. And mediation should have been requested by the abuser, not by those who prevent abuse. Let's leave in a poor state then, too much time spent on such an obvious disruption.--KrakDuck (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, your report simply isn't clear enough for me for make immediate sense of (content-wise). Maybe I'll figure it out eventually, maybe not. Who knows. It is what it is. But when it comes to edit warring, that is a matter of some urgency, so I felt decisive action was called for nonetheless. El_C 07:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C The report is simple. Source says "Kumyk (it's an ethnicity) social class Sala-uzden, who have ancestors Sala, who are related to some people/tribe Aukh". Abuser says it means that Sala-uzden are Chechen (an ethnicity too). As a proof he gives a heap of DNA tests of a few individuals and original research, and claims it's all "clear" they are Chechen, and conducts prolonged edit warring without resolving concerns and dispute. And you indulge him in such behaviour. And he will continue doing so. Btw, now I see early talk sections, it seems two editors were blocked for giving the same absurd and warring for it.--KrakDuck (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, anyway, maybe another admin will find it easier to make sense of all this. If so, then they can act as they see fit. Until then, I've recommended to you what you should do in order to get more outside editorial (as opposed to administrative) input into the dispute. And please don't call your opponent an "abuser" until actual abuse has been established. That is inappropriate. El_C 09:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C I established it on an appropriate Talk page clearly. And I edit plenty on another wiki project under another account. But it's a useful experience for me and tells a lot about the quality of articles on English Wikipedia, where apparently admins allow whatever havoc. Good to know, better to stay away from reading and editing here.--KrakDuck (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, please don't ping me again to this thread, it's just more of the same complaints. Not helping. I get it, you want the admin hammer to swing in your favour. But we don't operate this way on the English Wikipedia on the basis of a report that is this terse and this poorly-documented. Also, the article talk page is not the place to demonstrate "abuse." That place would be here, with diffs. In any case, my finding is that you continue to fall short on that front, as well. I, for one, just don't have time to read walls of text on that article talk page. Again, maybe you'd be able to find an admin who will. But it won't be me. El_C 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C It's a wrong conclusion. But you're the admin and can do and impose whatever conclusion you want. Just a friendly advice: if nothing makes sense for you in some simple case with clear diffs, leave it for those who can make sense, otherwise you make it worse and your admin status is devalued. And you may think that it's your hammer required, but in fact it was your adequacy and care for Wikipedia. Now you can be proud that one more article turned into trash and will stay there for years, while there was one who tried to make it better. Good bye.--KrakDuck (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

But I guess you continue to ping nonetheless. I'm sorry, but I'm not that moved by your exaggeration that one-week protection spells the doom of that page "for years." And your you can be proud innuendo is a bit much. There's hundreds of others admins out there. If you're just going to continue to complain, I submit to you that you are not, in fact, advancing your position positively. You still don't get it. As I suggested already above, on my part, I expect you to at least try a 3rd opinion for a case that is proving this opaque to me. You don't want to do that? Fine with me. Want to wait for another admin who may be able to resolve the problem otherwise? Also fine with me. But all the moaning about how much we (and me) suck here at en, I think you've taken that sentiment as far as it is courteous. Your version of an article was protected for a week, that happens on the project as a matter of course. So, maybe brace for it...? On Meta the occurrence is described whimsically in a page called m:Wrong version (WP:WRONGVERSION is a soft redirect). El_C 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

TV6 (Malaysia)

TV6 (Malaysia) is being recreated without any sources repeatedly by few users and IPs, even after it was draftified once, CSD 3 times and a proposed redirect. Requesting create-protection on subject-title. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is to be an official launch next week, and there's sources to back it up, then why can't we have an article for it? Under the assumption it meets notability standards of course. Canterbury Tail talk 13:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are sources existing for the article, why can't it be created? SoyokoAnis 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we give this one a little time. As the channel is launching next week, I suggest we give a further week for the article to be bashed into shape, then AfD it if still unrefrenced. In the meantime, I'll notify the relevant WPs of the article's existence and request assistance. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attacks by User:AngstLil

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

---

Hello! Please help me with Ad Hominem issues here on WP. User @AngstLil: has been repeatedly calling me derogatory names such as "idiot" and "prick" in his edit summaries at Populorum progressio and Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 2. Please deal with this disruptive user. WP is no longer safe and free because of his continuous bullying of me through his edit summaries, and then reverting them even if my edits were constructive. He calls me names, and is a violation of the, I suppose, non-Ad Hominem rule. Red Flavor (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be easier for administrators to assess this if you provided diffs for the edits you think constitute ad hominems. (Since you did not give AngstLil a {{ANI-notice}} on their talk page, I have notified them.) jp×g 00:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like in Special:History/Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 2, AngstLil does indeed, during a revert war, call RedFlavor a "prick", and calls them an "idiot" in this edit to Special:History/Populorum progressio. jp×g 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The user had not had any sort of warning from what I can see, so I issued one. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Red Flavor, you called AngstLil a prick as well here. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Here's what you guys think. First of all, when I open the wikipedia page Ninoy Aquino International Airport, I have noticed that User:Red Flavor, added some of aircraft pictures. I directly go to User talk: AngstLil if I can remove some of aircraft pictures, as it is no needed to add, he said yes. So, I removed it especially Mactan-Cebu International Airport, General Santos International Airport and Butuan Airport. As I came back one day, User:Red Flavor adding it back.. I also try to explain why it's not edit, he/she also added back. When I was to message him User talk:Red Flavor, he also said to me "you double standard prick". It hurt my feeling also. I was able to User talk:Andrewgprout on "Complain of adding or removed pictures of Airlines?". I also remember yesterday when User:Red Flavor called me and User:AngstLil team tagging. We're not team tagging. And also I don't want to Wikipedia:sockpuppetry. So, please bear with me. Because User:Red Flavor founded 7 days ago. Hope you understand me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner2002 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Maroon 5 band member hoax: Andy Blair

• Maroon 5
• List of Maroon 5 band members
• Andrew Blair
• 2600:8800:106:A500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we get a rangeblock? Somebody from Phoenix has been inserting the name Andy Blair into various articles about the band Maroon 5.[283] There's no such person in the band. I have a very low tolerance for hoaxers. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Looks to be pretty static, so blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Super. I will keep an eye on the range. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by user:CGBoas

I can't remember the last time, if ever, I posted on ANI. But I draw the line at being called a nazi. But that needs to be retracted, and then the edit summary deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we've got another WP:RADAR editor here, they have barely ever spoken to another user on any kind of talk page, and barely use edit summaries, and when they do use them they sometimes use them to insult others. This isn't exactly what we want to see either. @CGBoas: I can see you have been editing in the last few minutes, you need to acknowledge this conversation as opposed to ignoring it if you want to be able to continue to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change and protected it for a while. Deb (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Trendmeister

Trendmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rarely edits. In every series of edits, has been warned against repeatedly removing sourced material, but is aware enough of the rules against 3RR, spacing them out over days. I've already repeated uw-vandal4.

1. 2021-02-14 19:44:20 Trendmeister (This section is about Anna Robinson. This section is not about the CEO of Quaker Oats, John Stuart; please start a new wiki page or separate entry for John Stuart.)
2. 2021-02-19 03:18:51 Trendmeister (→‎Anna Robinson: Anna Robinson was not the CEO of Quaker Oats; a comparison of 2 unlike things does not belong here. This section is about Anna Robinson. This section is not about the CEO of Quaker Oats, John Stuart; please start a new wiki page or separate entry for John Stuart.)
3. 2021-03-02 17:20:49‎ Trendmeister →‎Anna Robinson: NOT A RELEVANT COMPARISON. Anna Robinson was not the CEO of Quaker Oats; a comparison of 2 unlike things does not belong here. This section is about Anna Robinson. This section is not about the CEO of Quaker Oats, John Stuart; please start a new wiki page or separate entry for John Stuart.

Although John Stuart (CEO) already has his own page, this section is about Aunt Jemima#Anna Robinson who was his employee. It is a sourced contrast with the official company statement about her employment, where they incorrectly conflate Anna Robinson with Aunt Jemima#Anna Short Harrington. Trendmeister has repeatedly removed the sourcing.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson , I don't want to get into the content weeds of this, but it just isn't coming together for me (your explanation). Let me see if I understand this. With today's equivalent of $22K a year, Anna Robinson ends up renting rooms to boarders to get by financially. Then, the paragraph ends talking about how the CEO, John Stuart, had a house in this and that town, with the sentence unexpectedly finishing by saying he did not take in boarders. Do you mean in his house/mansion? Like, how can that be, as you say, "an apt comparison"? It doesn't seem apt to me. It seems weird and forced. Possibly, I'm missing something pivotal...? El_C 02:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with El C. I'm not sure why this is ripe for ANI discussion, but if anyone is sanctioned, it would be William Allen Simpson for edits like [284]; I'm not sure if you're trying to make a WP:POINT or just don't understand what "germane" means. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That's right. Though it is actually a matter for ANI, because I'm concerned with both WP:BITE and the lack of article talk page engagement on the matter. I'm seeing aggressive use of a user warning template on WAS' part here. Slapping an (unsigned) {{uw-vandal4}} over this, as their first and only edit to this user's talk page? No, that is straight up misconduct in my books. WAS does not get to dictate (i.e. with removal being deemed vandalism) whether the wikivoice uses the same example as the source it cites (circular?). Nor does he get to treat a content disputant like a vandal —see what vandalism is not— which is a personal attack. El_C 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe to clarify further. What I say directly above has to do with a normal content dispute (Which this isn't). But what myself and power~enwiki are saying ("germane") raises some serious WP:CIR (AGF'ing, but otherwise, indeed, it is WP:POINT) red flags about WAS' editing, which I am admittedly unfamiliar with. El_C 02:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• El_C This isn't supposed to be a content discussion. The problem here is an editor repeatedly removing a reliable source. WP:NPOV is a policy. Editors are required to present all sides, based upon a WP:RS making the argument. Prior to the more recent contrition of Quaker Oaks, they formerly had an official line that the various "Aunt Jemimas" were well compensated (even richly rewarded), and ran advertisements saying so (see earlier sections). In fact, Nancy Green did not have a "lifetime" job (contrary to official statements and advertisements), and died a pauper. Anna Robinson was paraded at very expensive venues in NY, but was in reality poorly paid and had to take in boarders. The CEO inherited his wealth, and did not have to take in boarders in his house/mansion in a very high-end neighborhood (click link). Fairly straightforward. Indeed, the Ann Robinson section could be expanded with other tenement locations (reported from census data by reliable sources) and names of supported children and relatives, but that would seem to be overkill. Trying to keep the comparison and contrast without overwhelming detail. Got a barnstar for my work on this article. (edit conflict)
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a new editor. The repeated 4th warning was because the editor was already at level 4. Seemed better to repeat 4 than to take to ANI immediately. Only level 1 template is signed. Also, not WP:CIRCULAR, the WP:RS is not taking its content from the wikipedia article. The WP:RS preceded the subsection edits (check the dates), and the author is a history professor.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• William Allen Simpson, they are inexperienced, let's not play with semantics. And it's circular because you're saying that the example is presented in the source you're citing when presenting it. That is what was meant. Otherwise, I would have used all-uppercase. Anyway, I don't think you're getting this. I, as an uninvolved admin, have deemed your conduct to have fallen markedly below expectations, with how you behaved regarding this WP:POINTy, editorializing edit of yours. Again, possibly it's a WP:CIR issue, but regardless, there's also the aggressive false invocation of vandalism, which, again, is a personal attack. I'm really expecting the aforementioned to resonate with you. El_C 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have always treated removing or blanking text that is reliably sourced (and removal of the reference itself) as vandalism. Note I'd added the 3rd parameter to the warning template: "Please do not delete relevant information from reliable sources." As to your circular argument, I'm not understanding. How would it be appropriate to add an example that isn't present in the reliable source?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Removing sourced content isn't vandalism by default. It's often just a normal part of the editing process when refining a page. El_C 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @William Allen Simpson: As El C said, that's quite wrong. A lot of removals of sourced content isn't vandalism. If you call something vandalism when it isn't, especially when it's clearly a WP:content dispute, that greatly reduces the ability of other editor's to trust your judgment, and it is also a personal attack. Also remember even if an editor's removals are wrong, it doesn't mean it's vandalism as a lot of editors are confused or misguided about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and genuinely think they're improving an article even if they aren't. One classic example of a failed ANI case is when editors call something vandalism when it clearly isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Mostly veering outside the matter at hand. El_C 04:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You miss my point. I don't care if the CEO of Quaker Oats was black or a Presbyterian or a Mason or a "person who doesn't host lodgers", there needs to be a reason to include this in the Aunt Jemima article that is about Aunt Jemima, not the CEO. (This is still a content dispute that probably should be on the talk page and not ANI, but if WASimpson insists I will discuss it here). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC) No, I'd merely reponded to a direct question. Let's stick to whether or not you personally will enforce sanction for removal of well sourced material, or you require even more warnings and further discussion. William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson, Power~enwiki isn't an admin, so they cannot enforce sanctions. But I can. And you are not making it easy for me. El_C 03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC) @El C: Calm down, you're arguably INVOLVED, and some other admin will sanction WAS if he doesn't give up this argument soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, this is the admin noticeboard, I am an admin. I'm uninvolved, as I have never edited the page before and have only encountered this matter while patrolling this noticeboard. Please don't tell me to calm down. I am perfectly calm. So, if you don't mind taking a step back, maybe... El_C 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I apologize if "calm down" was offensive, but you can surely wait for a second or third admin to agree before sanctions are imposed dot dot dot ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) It wasn't offensive, it was just plain false and unhelpful in resolving this. Like with your "arguably INVOLVED" bit (basis?). And I didn't say sanctions were impending, but there's enough WP:IDHT issues here that, yes, makes it difficult for me to conceive of another way to make WAS meaningfully absorb that these various problems are, well, problems. The "arguably INVOLVED" bit isn't helping, either. Hopefully, my note to WAS on their talk page (here) will, though. But to be clear, I'm in no rush to act. El_C 04:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Perhaps I mis-phrased something. The editors that determine a consensus cannot enforce that consensus; I intended to say nothing more. As you are the only admin who has commented so far, it would be inappropriate for you to introduce sanctions now. Nothing more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Sigh. I did not determine consensus, power~enwiki. My take is that these are, ultimately, WP:CIR issues. Now, you are entitled to your view, but the reality is that I am perfectly capable of imposing sanctions singlehandedly as I see fit on whichever ANI report I'm attending to (like the report directly bellow this one, for example). At the event, I'm opting to not to rush to sanctions, but, again, I don't see how it would be "inappropriate" for me to do so with immediate effect if my evaluation of the matter has deemed it warranted. So, again, please, this is not helping. El_C 04:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (over 11 stars) If I am not mistaken, there are not discretionary sanctions on Aunt Jemima, so you do need to wait for consensus. Apart from that, I agree with you, so can you please just wait for someone else to show up and do the needful? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) No, power~enwiki, I do not, as a rule, need to wait for consensus in ANI reports that do not involve DS/GS. That is not a thing. I'm collapsing this exchange. El_C 04:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Fuck your collapsing. Without discretionary sanctions, you do need to wait for consensus. I will either start an ARBCOM case against you or file my own RFA to get my own adminship if you disagree. I will not reply to you or anything else on this thread until at least 2 other admins comment on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, you do whatever you see fit. If you can cite such a rule, then go for it (just linking to DS doesn't count, though). Otherwise, please restrain yourself. You are not helping, still. El_C 04:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I'm not trying to help you, I'm trying to assure William Allen Simpson that site policy will be followed. If you intend to violate site policy, not even 上帝 can help you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, can you please just stop? Again, you are not helping resolving this outstanding matter at this point with these various retorts. El_C 04:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I just said I'm not trying to help you; your concerns about this or any other topic are best directed to my talk page, not ANI. My opinions on consensus are not governed by you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• NO. I will not "enforce sanctions" for removal of what appears to be non-germane information, but your behavior is bad and you should feel bad. I have experience editing Donald Trump, which is far too long. If you feel this information is germane, you need sourcing supporting that. You are dangerously close to having the community request sanctions against you; the previous issues on Greek place-of-origin categories weren't entirely your fault but if you continue to be disruptive the Eye of Sauron will gaze upon you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Copied personal attack from my Talk:

• I am not an admin, but I can get you banned (or, more likely, some admin will ban you before I get around to it). Your edit-warring is not welcome on this project, please stop doing it. There's no reason to care whether the CEO of Quaker Oats hosted borders in the article on Aunt Jemima; if you feel otherwise please discuss on the talk page, not ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have gotten far more nasty these days.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson: That's not a personal attack; whether you know it or not you are in danger of being sanctioned. As I have already said I cannot do so myself, but this looks really bad for you right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"I can get you banned" is not a warning. It's a temper tantrum. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, "Your behaviour is similar to that of previous editors who have been banned". Is that a warning? If not, please substitute something that you consider a warning. I would like to warn William Allen Simpson. I feel their editing behaviour and history is likely to lead to a block if it continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, it is not clear why you think El C was wp:involved, or why he would need a consensus before they can warn or block WA Simpson if they believe that they are making personal attacks or otherwise editing disruptively. Threatening to take them to ArbCom over this to get their admin status removed is way over the top, and make your chances of becoming an admin yourself in the near future quite unlikely, as you seem to misunderstand too many policies here. Fram (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure where the idea that there needs to be DS/GS for admins to be able to take appropriate action against an editor's misbehaviour. A key point of ANI is they they don't, plenty of cases here are closed with admin action with little or no community discussion. Indeed sometimes admins don't even know about the thread when taking action. And many ACDS (not GS obviously) cases don't make it here since they're at that noticeboard. DS and GS do allow admins to impose stuff like interaction bans, topic bans, 1RR restrictions, etc which would normally require community consensus. But blocks, including partial blocks don't require community consensus beforehand. They can of course be overturned with an appropriate appeal based on the judgment of an admin, whereas cbans can't and DS/GS blocks are more complicated to appeal. It's also generally accepted for admins to be take action more readily in DS/GS areas or to have a lower threshold for misbehaviour, but that doesn't mean we require consensus to block editors outside those areas. Wikipedia would fall apart if we did. I'm also not seeing what makes El C involved. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, User:William Allen Simpson, I already commented on your misuse of the term vandalism above. But there's another obvious problem with your editing here which maybe partly arises from the mischaracterisation but whatever, it's still a problem. The last edit to Talk:Aunt Jemima [285] was by you which would be great except that it's from 10 February and a comment on something other than the current area of dispute. Someone needs to start a discussion over this rather than both of you just continually edit warring (remember it takes two!) and it might as well be you. It's not generally helpful to get into arguments over who should go first in cases like these, as it often isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

i am grateful to everyone here for the spirited debate and discussion. the fact is, for me, editing wiki is intimidating, especially after this experience. for one i have no background as a web programmer and it seems one almost needs to have some coding skills. in addition it seems one also needs deep knowledge of wiki's editing rules/standards/exceptions and all the associated tags etc., and i have none of that. what i was proposing in my initial edit and my follow up edits, was very simple: this bit about John Stuart taking in or not taking in borders is clearly and unquestionably extraneous. if the author intends to make some broader point then there must be better ways than merely depositing a few words at the end of a sentence and hoping readers can infer/intuit it. this should be (and to the best of my knowledge still is) a page dedicated to the factual history of Aunt Jemima, and not a paged intended to offer up personal opinions and editorials. at this point i wont attempt any further edits. however this doesn't mean i think this bit (about John Stuart taking in borders) should remain part of the Aunt Jemima page. whether this information was sourced correctly or not is irrelevant to whether the content itself belongs here. again thank you to all who have participated in this discussion.Trendmeister (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Diwakarjha987

Diwakarjha987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an almost exclusively disruptive pattern of editing. They have been altered to discretionary sanctions in the topic areas of IPA and BLP, warned multiple times for a variety of reasons, including personal attacks, edit warring and removal of sourced material, as well as blocked once for their conduct. None of this has led to any changes in their behavior, in their latest edits they removed the word "allegedly" from an article on a murder, contrary to the cited reference and in the absense of any conviction. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Something's gotta give. El_C 03:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll maybe clarify that, though this involves the IPA topic area, this is a normal admin action, not an AE one. The disruption —which is egregious, especially, BLP-wise— simply isn't nuanced enough to bother invoking WP:ACDS at this time. El_C 04:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• They have been altered – While in the past I've toyed with the idea of lobotomizing editors [286], I think we should draw the line at, er, altering them. EEng 05:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EEng, is the implication of this that the sexual organs are more important than the brain? Gotta have your priorities straight... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Report to Happyrunner605

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

---

Hello! A user recently created an account and I believe it's used to make unconstructive edits to Ivers and Robert Ivers. I believe a 3 day block is necessary so they can learn Wikipedia's policies. SoyokoAnis 16:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Which user account and which edit diffs? Not everyone has the time/energy to do investigations from scratch. Shushugah (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Happyrunner605 (talk · contribs) user is WP:NOTHERE. Deleting a biography to replace it with a non notable, adding same to multiple other articles. Ought to be a simple AIV report with indefinite block, but nobody is watching AIV.... 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely They've been blocked indefinitely Sandstein per WP:LEGALTHREATS, and clearly WP:NOTHERE Shushugah (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, I did not block Happyrunner605, but I have now done so on account of their vandalism. Sandstein 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

HUGE Backlog at AIV

Just reported an IP to AIV and there is a massive backlog at least 30 deep at AIV. It needs some admin attention yesterday. It would be greatly appreciated on behalf of all who have reported. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:29 on March 3, 2021 (UTC)

• You're welcome! :) You can thank Nosebagbear for dragging me in today. --Izno (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Izno and Nosebagbear: I do thank you both! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10 on March 5, 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive reversions by Mr. Matté

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

---

This user came to my attention after reverting my addition to Maine State Route 395, claiming that it was a "test edit". How is that a test edit? He also claimed that there were no sources for my edit, despite them being plainly visible on MaineDOT's website. How is this an acceptable behavior? Pelham87 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I do suggest you try to resolve the issue on your own or at dispute resolution before bringing it to ANI, though, unless you already did that. 4D4850 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87, it is quite common in certain circumstances for a reviewer to reinstate a redirect if an article isn't ready for article space. I see that Mr. Matté left a note on your talk page commenting on the article, and explaining why he felt it wasn't ready to be published. I suggest that you engage with him and talk through the issues - you haven't provided evidence of a chronic or urgent behavioural issue that needs admin intervention. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@GirthSummit why are you deleting people’s comments? Pelham87 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87 Because they were off-topic - this noticeboard deals with conduct issues, it's not the place to discuss content issues. That said, the second comment was focussed on contentconduct, so I'll leave that in place.

Now, here's a question for you: you reinstated your edit here, without addressing the issue that Mr. Matté raised with it, which is that it does not support the changes that you made to the article (which it clearly does not). Why did you do that, rather than discussing the issue? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the sources were easy to find, and if he wants them so badly he can add them to the article himself. Be the person to bell the cat. Pelham87 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87, I don't know what bell the cat means. Are you seriously saying that you think it's OK to make substantial changes to articles without providing a source, and that it's OK to reinstate those changes when someone reverts you? (Hint: read WP:BOOMERANG before responding.) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, to bell the cat means to just do it and don’t argue, like what you are doing here. Anyway, I am not violating WP:3RR, and BRD is happening here. Pelham87 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Um actually, bell the cat means to propose that someone else do a difficult and dangerous task. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87, the onus is on you to provide the source when someone disputes your change, not on them to go and find it for you. You don't need to breach 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, that's just the bright-line point at which you will almost certainly be blocked. The D part of BRD should come before the reinstatement. I suggest that you either find a source to support the changes you made, or self-revert. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Pelham87 for disruptive editing (see the history of this page). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, there's a familiarity here with Wikipedia policies and noticeboards that's not normally found in accounts less than a week old. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, the same thought had crossed my mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I don't know the master but is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime a possibility? (Feel free to delete this per WP:DENY.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, honest answer is I don't know. I'm not familiar with that particular puppeteer, I can't rule anything in or out, but would obviously be happy for anyone with concrete suspicions to raise an SPI report with details for review. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've saved anyone the paperwork, and added an ILT CU block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Zzuuzz, and a tilt of the hat towards Nil Einne. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And indeed, a CU link was found: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Morales Garcia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by Lisamoonsun

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

---

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

Replaced "Persian" with "Turkish" in the Layla and Majnun article four times [287] [288] [289] [290]

Replaced "Iran" with "Azerbaijan" in Uzun Hasan [291]

Bizarre ethno-nationalistic battleground comments such as these (can be found in the diffs);

"Historyofİran.I complained to the police about falsifying history. We will meet in court soon.You Persians will never be able to Persianize South Azerbaijan.We are turk"

"Nizami Ganjavi was never Persian. At that time, he wrote in Persian because the official language was Persian. But this does not make him an ethnic Persian. The people of southern Azerbaijan are Turks. It would be good if the Persians understood this."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:TheriusRooney: WP:RADAR, WP:OR, Copyvios, no edit summaries, etc.

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

---

TheriusRooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A quick glance at their talk page shows an editor who is trying to fly under the radar. Further looking through the page will show numerous copyvio issues, articles being made WP:TOOSOON and sent to draftspace only to rot and be deleted (7 total edits in draftspace), and a general unwillingness to WP:COMMUNICATE. Going through contribs reveals numerous additions of original research (often of the trivial kind)[292], inappropriate page moves [293], and generally unhelpful edits (here's a manual revert of 9 of TheriusRooney's edits.

In 10 years of editing, they have made a total of 13 edits to UserTalkspace and 8 edits to Wikipediaspace including this gem from May 2019. Furthermore, I have noticed a distinct lack of edit summaries. I think it's clear at this point that the user doesn't want to communicate, make whatever edits they want, and leave us to clean the mess. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Babel userboxes here imply this user may not be particularly comfortable with English. ("en-3" is a hell of a range.) Do they have any cross-project work on idwiki? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently they do indeed have 2042 edits on idwiki, but again, the same patterns arise in that 0 of those edits are in User Talk and none at quick glance have edit summaries. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like they're WP:NOTLISTENING, as they're still making OR trivial edits [294], rather than communicating on this ANI. I've only come across this editor a few times, but it does seem like these sort of edits are a pattern- I came across this ANI as I was going to warn the user about unsourced, OR trivial edits, and then found there was this thread for it. Editors who don't communicate and have lots of problems tend to be a net negative to Wikipedia- we had a similar case for a football/soccer editor a few weeks back (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#User refusing to talk or collaborate), which resulted in a block until they agree to talk and collaborate with people. I think similar would be justified here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. They are a clear net-negative to the project, in my opinion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They should have been blocked a long time ago. I have corrected that oversight. I will also refer this user to WP:CCI - I have seen this behavior many times before, and every time there are more copyvios. MER-C 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Challenging rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal

• 2607:FEA8:BD43:6400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BD41:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BE20:1F90:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BE20:898:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BE20:14C4:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I have been chasing a long-term abuse case involving hoaxing and vandalism from multiple Ottawa IPs. Typical vandalism is substituting actresses for musicians on an album,[295] or fabricating a sax player on Thomas Dolby's first album (which has no sax at all.)[296]

This person was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/67.210.165.248 and Special:Contributions/174.114.162.149, blocked for three months as Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BE20:14C4:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BE20:898:0:0:0:0/64, and blocked twice as Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BE20:1F90::/64. I would love to know if we can devise a larger rangeblock to stop this nonsense without too much collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• The overarching range is 2607:fea8:bd43:6400::/38 which is pretty wide, and also seems to have a fair bit of collateral (~67,108,864 /64 ranges and is fairly active). If you split the first two, and last three /64s, then you get 2607:fea8:bd43:6400::/46 and 2607:fea8:be20:1f90::/51 which both seem to reduce the collateral significantly (and are much less active) which might just be feasible. Jack Frost (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• The last three haven't been active since last year, though, so probably not worth doing anything there at the moment. Yeah, tricky one. I can construct one that would hit the previous one used (BD41) and the current one (BD43) without any problem - but we don't know what they're likely to move to next or in which range - those two addresses are in a /46 but is it simply two addresses in a bigger range? For the time being, I've blocked the active one for a month (at least when they reapear they'll give us some more clues) and semi-protected the Dolby album as it appears to be the main and long-running target. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, that should cover the current trouble. If they pop up in a new range I'll report back. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Highly disruptive edit warring by Connorguy99

Connorguy99 was blocked by Izno (kindly, I might add) after they made 32 reverts of several editors at List of EastEnders characters. 32 reverts to any article is disruptive. Connor was warned, acknowledged it and is now going after any editor who dare touch the article or talk page and badgering them endlessly. They do not appear to understand that they were disruptive and insist that anyone who reports them, reverts them or otherwise doesn't go to bat for them is "disgusting and biased." Despite multiple attempts by multiple people to explain this to the editor, they just don't get it and won't leave it alone. I am proposing this be turned into a longer full block based on their continued disruptive behavior. CUPIDICAE💕 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see Cullen328 blocked while I was writing this but I think it's still worth discussing as this disruption took place across several articles. I could care less about the subject matter but I think that the excessive edit warring needs to end and the editor doesn't appear to understand (or is unwilling) that this type of behavior is disruptive and damaging and ask that this be left open to discuss what further actions or sanctions may be needed once their 72 hour block is up. CUPIDICAE💕 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have already warned them that if they carry on when they are unblocked, there will be further sanctions. I note that their talkpage contains edit-warring warnings going back to 2018, so clearly they aren't on a learning curve here. Perhaps they will take heed, perhaps not. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite their last response to me and others leads me to believe this will not be their last block...I'm quite curious to know what bias they're accusing me of though. CUPIDICAE💕 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked Connorguy99 for 72 hours for disruptive editing, and the editor is hereby warned that a longer block will be the result of a return to disruption and/or edit warring. If there is support for a longer block, so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Update As hostilities continued, I removed TPA. Feel free to undo if I acted in error. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

First set of blocks, so 72 hours is suitable. Perhaps, they will gain a better perspective. I think we can hope for the best and deal with what comes when it comes. They really need to read the WP:GAB. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have to say my original inclinations are with Cupidicae - 72 hours for what's happened is much lower than we usually see. Still, since other admins have indicated they want to go with a slower escalating route, I'm inclined to think that either Connor will blow-up shortly after return, in which case that's simple enough, or otherwise improve. I guess we'll see Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The editor Prunexor (talk · contribs · logs) is making serious personal attacks against me:

• Listen, man. Are you freaking out there just because I spoke badly of your sacred "socialism", then do Tag Team with 2 socialist users and keep putting pressure on me in a cowardly way, why is this all? FREAKED OUT? Are you crazy or what? What kind of childish little behavior, did you see? If you think you own Wikipedia, do you think you are a superstar because it appeared in the newspaper, "Heitor C. Jorge"? Dude, you need to disconnect from this world and go and breathe a new air. You're crazy, you don't respect anything and nobody. I am older than you; I work every day and I don’t waste my life thinking that I’m some kind of avenging superhero who’s going to change the world through Wikipedia, no. You will talk to your parents instead of attacking strangers on the internet, you freak. (translated from Portuguese)

• You are a born loser, go there and use your little junk power that nobody cares about. (translated from Portuguese)

• STOP CHILDHOOD, Chronus. You are just another nobody with God's syndrome. You freaked out, you're going to take Rivotril, you nut. Respect others. (translated from Portuguese)

• But first of all, run over to your mom and dad and let them know that you are in a state of continuous dementia and think you are important for using Wikipedia, you will die being an irrelevant maniac. (translated from Portuguese)

This "editor" has previously been alerted by other users, such as Ashleyyoursmile, Moxy and Lennart97, but he preferred to become more and more aggressive instead of following the rules of the project. Chronus (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A few of us have tried to communicate with this editor to no avail. Realizing today that perhaps they don't speak English. That said I would normally try to explain the problem edits to a new editor ... but seeing the translation of the only replies we've gotten from this person....they are clearly not the type of editor we need here.Moxy- 02:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Prunexor for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They do speak English, for the record; just see the latest section at Talk:Brazil. They've made it abundantly clear there that they are unable to edit collaboratively; any editor who disagrees with their political POV is labelled a "radical Marxist socialist". While still behaving semi-civilly at that talk page, it seems they didn't feel the need to hold back when writing in Portuguese. This well-deserved block will probably be seen as proof that Wikipedia is a grand socialist conspiracy... Lennart97 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense of course, it's an open secret that WP is controlled by the Illuminati. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Pl. monitor/watchlist article Aurat March for a week

Greetings to Admins,

Aurat March are 'women's rights' protests March taking place on 8th of March each year in Pakistan. This year I am expecting increased chances of spamming and vandalism or subversion to article Aurat March. As far as possible I won't recommend blocking of article since the same thing might block anon women too from doing experiential editing. Rather I am requesting help in monitor/watchlist article Aurat March for a week or so. Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No Nazis

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

---

At Romani people DacicusLiberus seems to perform WP:TE, using WP:BATTLEGROUND and raising suspicions of WP:NONAZIS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll go to sleep, an IP from another country seems to handle DacicusLiberus's edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Requesting reversion at Railway Police (Bangladesh)

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

---

Which I can not do, since Wiki's fine censors interpret my attempts as vandalism, and have blocked me from restoring the properly sourced version. Also, there's a fair amount of copyright violation content added by the WP:COI account. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

...and have blocked me from restoring the properly sourced version. So, you're self-incriminating yourself for block evasion? Or are you claiming that an edit filter has stopped you from performing an edit? If the latter, you need to report to WP:EF/FP, but consider carefully our policies before doing so. Insinuating that we are "censoring" you will not help your cause. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Rather than misinterpret my report as some nefarious confession, or an accusation of censorship, have a look at the article in question. What happens is that an IP is automatically blocked from making a reversion of a massive block of content, because the action is interpreted as vandalism. Multiple administrators can vouch for my history and credibility, though this can also be inferred by looking at my talk page. To return to my point: A COI account has added a mass of unsourced content, lists of non notable persons and copyright violation. I'm asking that someone revert the unencyclopedic content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

...Which JJMC89 has done. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not care what the article says; I am giving recommendations based only on what this report says. If you truly believe you were constructive, then go to WP:EF/FP. Or don't, because it's already done. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And I don't care for your help. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine then. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(New attempt to answer this thread) What happens is that an IP is automatically blocked from making a reversion of a massive block of content, because the action is interpreted as vandalism. This is undoubtedly an edit filter, correct? This would've been indicated by a message being shown to you as an error message. Then this issue should've been reported to WP:EF/FP, not here (unless there's other issues which require immediate attention). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this look like the edit you attempted to make? And was this the message you received? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Phantom Hoover blanket reverts all helpful edits, most of which were encyclopedic, and attempts to gaslight.

I recently revamped the page List of space flight simulation games to meet our guidelines better. I removed redlinks, I removed primary sources, obvious promotions, spam, and content that had been long tagged as unsourced. I also linked to other notable articles, condensed the article to flow better and added subsections, and also did numerous typographical and syntax corrections (such as adding italics to titles, for consistencies sake. I removed duplicates and also updated the article due to many cancelled games not being indicated as such, and also updating games from years ago that were in the works, and were cancelled, or released. Here is my first edit: [297] and here is my last: [298].

User:Phantom Hoover did a blanket revert of all of my edits and then used gaslighting in their summary "Re-add enormous section of the article, listing space combat games, which was apparently deleted accidentally.") Clearly they could have rede my edit summary and seen my motives, instead they decided to issue a disruptive blanket reversion that added all of that back, and they did not attempt to improve the article after that. Not only that, but there were numerous helpful edits by @Jnnnnn: ([299]) and @Sundhaug92: ([300]) that were reverted and disregarded by the user. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/997960415 may be the issue. A vandal blanked a section and it was never noticed. Numerous edits were made and then the revert of the vandal happened. A little editing and everyone's work can be restored. Phantom Hoover should have been more careful but maybe not an intentional gaslighting 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Chalk it up to a mixup, I guess...? El_C 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be really careful about misusing the colloquial-but-meaningful verb "to gaslight". This isn't what it means. No person B appears to have been trying to make any person A believe that person A is too mentally ill to be able to trust person A's own perceptions of reality. Person B was possibly doing their best just to WP:AGF: "this might not have been what someone meant to do". If there is an ongoing history of bad relations between person A and person B, then that's a whole 'nother story, but I'm not aware of any such history here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Agenthercules14

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

---

• Agenthercules14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Agenthercules14 continues to make similar edits across multiple articles despite being reverted by multiple editors. I should point out that their edits are not really vandalism, however, they continue to restore their edits, despite explanations given for why they are being reverted. On top of that, they are not using the edit summary and are not responding on their talk page to explain their edits.

I have tried reaching out to this editor on their talk page, but they have clearly ignored it. They have also ignored the edit summaries explaining why they were being reverted. I warned them that they would be reported if they continued to make their edits without any explanation. They ignored this and continued to make the same edits, still without explanation.

Based on their editing history, this is a newer editor, or at the very least, a new account, as it is only about two months old. However, I feel it should be noted that they have previously been reported for similar disruptive editing.

Example of recent actions at article, WWE New Year's Revolution:

• I made this edit to clean up the article some and bring it closer to MOS standards.
• Agenthercules14 made this edit without an edit summary, reverting what I had done to the infobox, despite my explanation in my previous edit summary.
• I reverted him, again explaining the issue.
• Agenthercules14 reverted, again with no explanation.
• I reverted, asking them to please stop ignoring the edit summaries.
• Agenthercules14 continued to ignore the edit summary and reverted again.
• Another editor reverted them.
• Agenthercules14, still not explaining himself, reverted again.
• The other editor reverted them again.
• Agenthercules14 reverted, again no edit summary.
• I reverted them, explaining that I warned them about their continued reverts.
• Agenthercules14 ignored that and reverted again.
• I reverted and am now here making this report.

Similar actions have been done by Agenthercules14 on similar pages where myself and the other editor mentioned have continuously had to revert Agenthercules14. --JDC808 ♫ 09:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Boyonahill – COI editor unwilling to abide by Wiki policies

Hi. On 3 March, Boyonahill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s unsourced additions were reverted by multiple editors at Alex Glasgow: [301], [302], [303].

After the second revert, they posted to @NoahDavid771:'s Talk page: [304], indicating they had been editing the article for a while and claiming to be son of the article's subject. I assume they have previously edited as GlasgowDan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted to their Talk page explaining why they'd been reverted. They did not respond.

Instead, they continued with their unsourced additions which I reverted: [305], [306]. One of their edit summaries included multiple violations of WP:NPA: "distruptive editing and vindictive and not in the line of being welcoming to new members....what is this to you? it means nothing you pedant. go and do something useful you are petty minded".

I again posted to their Talk page with explanations and suggestions how to handle their COI. They replied on my Talk page with further abuse and stated their intent to start socking if they were to be blocked: [307]. At this point, I think a block is in order. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boyonahill, you have to stop. I understand that for you the memory of your father overrides your knowledge of what Wikipedia is and how it works, but you have to stop. Please consider this a final warning for inserting unverified content, for edit warring over that content, for personal attacks. You must understand that the Wikipedia editors you are fighting with want the article to be as good and fair as possible, but within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. And you have to operate within those as well. So please, no more of this. Why don't you go figure out what kind of sourcing you can bring to the article, and discuss it with the editors on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your empathetic message to Boyonahill is commendable and I really hope it helps them to understand. Unfortunately, they have been making further unsourced additions since you wrote here. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Efe Alt

Efe Alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• As you can see by his/her edits, he/she is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They have now created WBQE-LP, a failed redirect to itself. It is already tagged for speedy deletion, but it seems that Efe Alt lacks the necessary skills to edit here: of the 5 articles they created, 3 are already deleted, the above one will soon be deleted, and [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American television stations available in the Caribbean the fifth is at AfD] and heading for deletion. And Template:American stations in Caribbean TV is also up for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul

KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul is obviously looking to create pages for themselves as seen on their talk page. No diffs are really needed right now. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think they want to create pages, they seem to want the opposite, to remove an article about themselves. It has been PRODded. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

For sake of writing this here, the user has the same writing style and behavior as MommaBaker60, who also claims to be Kokumo. - GoatLordServant^{(Talk - Contribs)} 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) To expand on that they want an article if they are the only one that can edit it(which we don't do). They don't want "privileged white men" editing about them. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

She's very quick to call everything we say harassment, racist, misogyny, transphobic, and so forth. Sadly, it's still evident that they haven't read any of the policies we have presented. - GoatLordServant^{(Talk - Contribs)} 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, exactly! The first message on my talk page is evidence. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the place for this observation, but there's something odd about the article at the moment. It looks like it's conflating two people into one subject - from a quick poke around the Scottish Poetry Library website and a couple of publishers' sites, I don't think that the Scottish poet Fadeke Kokumo Rocks, who was born in Cowdenbeath, is the same as the writer from Chicago that most of the article's about. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the comments on SoyokoAnis's talkpage from them fall foul of WP:NPA and demonstrate to me that they're not here to engage and edit collaboratively, only to try and own an article about themselves. Everything I've seen has been by Wikipedia policy from people, and it's not okay to call people racist misogynists when they disagree with you, and when you don't understand how Wikipedia works properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, is a permenate block okay? It's also sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoyokoAnis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it sockpuppetry per se. The user announced that the new account was replacing the original account. (Their intent was improper, but there's nothing socky about the behavior.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkarcher with a COI removed POV tag without discussion

User:Bkarcher with a COI has removed tags of multiple issues about COI and POV from UBF [308]. It had the tags and was still in disputes. But he removed the tags without any discussions and consensus. It is a violation of Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. And also he disrupted the talk page removing old talks about the disputes, here [309] and moving some talks into my talk page without any discussions and consensus, here [310]. He added a section to the talk page after I pointed out the violation, here [311]. I don't want to have edit wars so asked him to put it back and discuss to have consensus but he refused it. Dlee612 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this by good chance. DLee612 is one of an endless stream of SPAs with obvious COI editing at University_Bible_Fellowship and its talkpage. I was one of a small number of people who keep an eye on the page and revert the tedious whitewashing, but I've been too busy recently to keep up with it. Bkarcher's editing has always been fine. The page would certainly benefit from more eyes. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, it is very interesting. I only informed to User:Bkarcher talk page but you just stumbled across this by good chance less than a day? What a coincidence! You are claiming that "DLee612 is one of an endless stream of SPAs". What are your bases to say I am one of SPAs? How come you speak conclusively? As I already talked to you in the article's talk page, I am here to contribute to the Wikipedia with my professional knowledge and experience. I am doing my best on my free time. University Bible Fellowship is one of them and I declared my COI. You are saying his editing has always been fine. Let me ask you

• Is it fine for him with a COI to remove NPOV dispute tags without any discussions and consensus?
• Is it fine for him with a COI to remove old talks without any discussions and consensus?
• Is it fine for him with a COI to move talks from the article's talk page to my talk page without asking and any consensus?

Are you showing support for such violation? Do you think his dogmatic behaviour is fine? We have a very simple solution which is just revert them and discuss to have consensus. In order to avoid editing war, I asked him several times to put it back but he refused and ignored. This editing behaviour is not fine. Dlee612 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation/ potential sock

Hi All, Wmax sopra has been making unconstructive edits and has claimed to be me on LGBT rights in South Korea. Their edit summary states: "Hello, I'm Archives908. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks." Furthermore, this user has made identical edits as the blocked account User:JDQUD1 due to the same pattern of WP:SOAPBOX on the talk pages of Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, LGBT rights in Europe‎, among others. I have left two warnings on their new talk page, but I believe this user is not here to genuinely build this encyclopedia. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for block evasion. El_C 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applied to LGBT rights in Europe‎ and LGBT rights in South Korea, noting obcious WP:ARBGG facets, but otherwise an un-logged action. El_C 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Clownshking

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

• awareness of DS/Horn: since 03:34, 3 March 2021‎
• vandalism:
  • Fano (nationalist movement) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): replacement of sourced material by material strongly disagreeing with the references;
  • Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): replacement of sourced material by material strongly disagreeing with the references;
• Timeline of the Tigray War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): repeated introduction of material that vaguely could be inspired from the source, but is not stated: unsourced edit 1; repeat of edit 1; 3rd iteration of edit 1; addition of source that says nothing to support the claim in the context of the 2020 timeline;
• removal of sourced material:
  • Mai Kadra massacre: removal of sourced material (contributed by me), calling it "ethnoracist vandalism" without any real explanation; removal of reference (contributed by me)
• personal attacks: evidence-less claim that I'm a sock puppet; claim that I'm "AntiEritrea and ProTPLF"; calling me a racist in an edit summary (without evidence);
• removal of two warnings from Clownshking's own talk page: (same as edit with 'racist' in edit summary)
• unclear if acting to construct and encyclopedia: awareness of meta-level Wikipedia policies, but difficulty with the core policies of sourcing, NPOV, and AGF: accusations without evidence
• Demographics of Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): refusal to accept elementary reasoning about sourcing for demography and refusal to make even a minimal attempt to understand the reasoning and evidence presented.

Boud (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been stalking me on Wikipedia and giving warnings without good faith. I am not a vandal since I don’t edit much. You have been acting like a moderator not only on me but other users. Also setting this ANI like you did with that other user Leech only shows you are not editing in good faith.Clownshking (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Any editor may give a good-faith warning to other editors about inappropriate conduct; it doesn't just have to be administrators doing that. I also don't see evidence that Boud is acting in bad faith. I would encourage you to explain how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems bad faith editing to portray an entire ethnic group as bad. I disagree with that and Boud has pretty much stifled my ability to edit without a threat of warnings every time there is a disagreement. Look he disagreed with two editors and jumps into using warnings and taking us to Wikipedia court. That is bad faith behavior. He needs to explain why editing these articles especially about an ethnic group with the POV of bad group. I was correcting that because broad brush attacks on an ethnic group is wrong. He also did not reach consensus then he uses ANI against two of us. Clownshking (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Again, I ask how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. Further, you have made some serious allegations against Boud. Do you withdraw the allegations and accusations of racism against them? —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My edits were good faith because they brought balance to these articles where they were portraying the Amhara ethnicity as bad. That is not fair. Also NPOV would mean to show the TPLF as the agent of the conflicts. When Boud can agree and show fairness in his edits about Non-Tigrayans ie Amhara then I will not call him a racist. Are you neutral in this? Also why did you refer to Boud as them? Is he not just one user?Clownshking (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Hrm. Are we to interpret that as you're just calling them racist as leverage over them? (And please note that I use singular they when the gender of an individual is unclear.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I called Boud racist because of POV editing which paints Amhara people as bad. I would call a white supremacist racist if they continued to vilify Black people and Jewish people. The content of his edits paints Amhara people as bad. If he stops that then he won’t be a racist. Otherwise I am free to point out when someone is showing racial bias which I strongly feel from Bouds edits especially about Amhara people. But he can continue to edit how he feels then that won’t change how he appears to me and any other editor who will notice that bias.Clownshking (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Please focus on the content and not on the contributors. A quick read of your edits shows that any bias introduced was done by you, not Boud; your edits painted Fano as better than the sources indicated. Accordingly, I see no indication that Boud is acting in bad faith or with bias or malice—so continuing to accuse the editor of racism would be deemed as a bad-faith action and personal attack by any person who made such accusation.

If you would like to provide sources to counter, for instance, the Guardian story in the Fano (nationalist movement) article, then the place to discuss—to civilly discuss matters of the article including content and sourcing, not to discuss editors and their motives—is Talk:Fano (nationalist movement). You need to work to build consensus for the changes you seek. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Several recent edits by you on Mai Kadra massacre have helped preserve NPOV and proper matching with sources there. Thanks! However, this entry in the RfC ignores the content of the RfC and focuses on me. (The comment effectively states that I am the UN DESA Population Division. I appreciate the compliment, but I cannot take credit for UN DESA publications.) Boud (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud actually no, the discussion is there and not here. And the statement Boud’s estimate is exactly that since you are the one pushing that estimate in Wikipedia. All the sources disagree with your claim. But you can continue to discuss there instead of here unless this ANI is just being used to try to paint me as a bad faith editor? Are you assuming I did not respond to your RfC in good faith?Clownshking (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:STALK behavior by User:Nableezy

Following a disagreement at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, User:Nableezy immediately reverted or partially undid my edits at two other unrelated pages.[312][313].

The user denied it when I raised the issue with them, so clearly they won't fess up. It is obvious what happened here: Nableezy returned to their computer, saw I pinged them in a talk page discussion, responded there, and then their very next two edits were to revert my following two edits at two other pages. Whether or not these pages may or may not have been on their watchlist is irrelevant; this user made no other edits in the interim and immediately set out to undo my edits at multiple pages. Edit histories at both pages show Nableezy has not edited either page in weeks or months. Maybe I'm underestimating the odds that Nableezy just happened to follow the same links I did, in the same sequence and the same exact time frame, but I generally don't believe in coincidences or purchase lottery tickets.

There are a lot of issues that I could bring up over the past two weeks from my interactions with this editor, but I will limit it to asking that this editor be reminded to refrain the urge to WP:STALK my edits at multiple pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Um, my first edit to Israeli settlement was in 2009. Im apparently the 12th most active editor on that article. My first edit to Israeli checkpoint was in 2018. I saw too bad edits back to back in my watchlist. I reverted them. Thats how watchlists work. I dont exactly understand how my editing articles that Ive been active on for years and years and years can be "stalking". Those two edits were back to back in my watchlist, and I dealt with them in that order. Maybe dont make a series of crappy edits in a row? nableezy - 00:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikieditor19920, just because you say it is "irrelevant" does not make it so. Nableezy has made edits to those two pages before you even joined Wikipedia, so they don't need to follow your contributions to pages they've never been. And there is no IBAN to compel them not to challenge your edits, including through reversions. El_C 00:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And I very much did not see a ping from Wikieditor. Ive actually muted that editor as they dont seem to understand that when I am active on a talk page I have it in my watchlist and dont need to be pinged every time they feel the urge to respond to me. Maybe it just is he doesnt get what a watchlist is? nableezy - 00:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, No editor has the right to follow another and repeatedly revert or undo their edits or contributions absent a compelling reason to do so. A content disagreement is not such a reason. And perhaps "irrelevant" is the wrong word, but Nableezy's claims of using a watchlist should be utterly unpersuasive to any reasonable observer as a counter that he did not look at my contributions log, immediately visit the pages I made changes to, and promptly revert them. The timing and sequence of his edits are the evidence. The issue is not 1) that Nableezy is interacting with me or 2) that Nableezy has challenged any of my edits. The issue is that Nableezy is violating WP:WIKIHOUND, which states: Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, it's 2 edits. I, for one, am just not seeing how that can possibly count as HOUNDING. El_C 00:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Editors 1 (E1) and 2 (E2) have a disagreement at Page A. E1 moves over to Page B and makes a few changes, which were not clear vandalism. E1 then edits Page C and makes other changes that are not clear vandalism. E2 reverts E1 at Page A, then immediately follows E1 to Pages B and C and reverts them there as well. That is WP:HOUNDING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikieditor19920, it is not HOUNDING. Other disputes do not immunize yourself (or vice versa, Nableezy, from pages that are on your watchlist) against Nableezy still being entitled to disagree with your significant changes to the lead sections of both of these key ARBPIA articles. Articles which, again, they've been editing for years (as mentioned, before you even joined Wikipedia). El_C 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as WP:WIKIHOUND, it is irrelevant whether my changes were significant or not or how long I've been editing Wikipedia. The only reason that would hold any water is if I were going around intentionally vandalizing pages, which I certainly am not. And throwing around seniority is not a defense for bullying behavior either. Editors should strive to avoid even the appearance of hounding, and the diffs I cited clearly show intentional hounding. The fact that it stemmed from a disagreement is an indication of why this user is monitoring my edits, and which is not a justifiable reason to do so. It's not an "immunization" for me from being reverted. I appreciate, at the very least, that you said "vice-versa." I certainly do not intend to follow Nableezy to every page they edit, and if I did I expect similar concerns would be raised. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, honestly, it's starting to come across as a bit of WP:BLUDGEON'ing on your part at this point. Again, you have no proof that they followed you, specifically, as opposed to them simply having encountered your edits to those two pages on their watchlist, as they do, in fact, claim they have. And you asserting otherwise comes across as an WP:ASPERSION. El_C 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, you are wrong, and you have been told as much by an administrator. No one else is going to come by here and support the absurd notion that an editor reverting two (TWO!!!) of your edits to articles they have a long history of editing is "hounding" you. It's simply not going to play, and you'd be best advised to drop the matter before it leads to a WP:BOOMERANG block for disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I agree with El_C and Beyond My Ken. I do not know what your watchlist looks like, but mine is enormous and includes every article I have ever edited since 2009. I scan the recent entries several (or many) times a day, and when I see something even slightly fishy, I check it out. You are advancing a losing argument and you should drop it and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor, you included me in a stalking comment here. I am quite active in IP area and also have a lot of articles on my watch list whereas you edit occasionally in the area, returning in December last after an absence to the Palestinian enclaves article and then more recently to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Your style is rather forceful, edits made are almost always likely to give rise to reversion/discussion and I could just as well have made the edits made by Nableezy myself. If you want to continue editing in the IP area then you should expect a robust response to controversial edits across a range of articles.Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:193.143.239.108

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

---

193.143.239.108 (talk · contribs) is tauntingly wanting to be blocked [314], and has seemingly called people coming to their user talk page "stupid" [315]. This user has blanked material [316][317], and vandalized articles [318][319]; all on 2021 March 4 -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Their wish is my marching orders, or something. El_C 00:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Their every desire is your whim? Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, it seems to be some sort of a weird pattern — see thread directly below! El_C 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Bullying by Vaselineeeeeeee

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

---

This user is bullying other people like in this edit. Block please! I am who i wanna be (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Morales Garcia, who has a long history of edit warring over these topics. This user should probably be added to the sockpuppet list! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Boomarangaroony. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Block please! Don't mind if I do! El_C 01:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Long-term ownership of an article by User:McKhan

I am having an extraordinary amount of difficulty with User:McKhan at Al-Ahbash and the article's talk page. This is a long-standing issue, beginning with his edits to the article in 2005, and the user is extremely resistant to any edits that may portray the Al-Ahbash in a light more favorable than he deems acceptable. He does not assume good faith, constantly casts aspersions, and assumes ownership of the page. He also does not demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia content policies despite being an editor since 2005. He has previously used a sockpuppet (User:AmandaParker) to exert control over the article over a 6-year time span. The locus of our dispute was primarily a statement that, in my perspective, contradicted an assertion made in a journal article with a number of primary sources and other sources that providing only circumstantial evidence against the fact asserted by the journal article.

For context, here are some previous comments in other discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding McKhan and the Al-Ahbash page.

From a 2012 conversation regarding the article: There are a serious issue with two of the people who edit this article, one at least is a spa. Since at least 28 September 2008‎ user:AmandaParker has done nothing but revert any additions to the article, and that appears to be her only contribution to Wikipedia. The other user:McKhan appears no better, all he does on this article is revert. It is simply impossible to advance the article past a stub due to these two users ownership of it. I am proposing a topic ban on both users from the article so it can actually be improved upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC) This is a content issue that likely belongs at WP:DRN but one thing that did jump out and bite me was this talk page thread which runs counter to the concepts of WP:BOLD, "anyone can edit" and WP:OWN. With some exceptions, nobody should have to ask permission before editing an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC) From another 2012 conversation: user:McKhan is a single purpose account who for years used sockpuppets and IP's to edit war on articles relating to the Al-Ahbash group. Since 3 May 2007 he used socks and IP's to edit war to his preferred version on Abdullah al-Harari. Since 25 August 2005‎ he did the same on the Al-Ahbash article. He is violently opposed to them as can be seen with this comment he made after being blocked for one week for sockpuppetry[320] He is back from his block and is flooding the Al-Ahbash talk page with wallsotext[321], his attitude towards this group are venomous to say the least. I am quite sure the term "Habashies" is derogatory. This editor needs to be topic banned from any article dealing with Al-Ahbash given his attitude towards them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC) From a 2013 conversation: i think its time McKhan (talk · contribs) gets an article ban..he has over 8 years of reversions on the ahbash article..before i appeared on the page it was a stub containing 3 lines due to his constant edit warring with other users..he removed RS material by using socks and ip's and only recently got caught because i put the article under spotlight..this has gone on for too long..i inserted a material today that was well referenced and he reverted it claiming that it is outdated…he then went to the talk page and included unreliable sources to back his claims..he is also a spa and only reverts edits from this article. its quite obvious he has deep hatred for the group which is evident by looking at the talk page archives Baboon43 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

McKhan's tone changed after he realized that not all the content I was adding to the article portrayed the Al-Ahbash favorably (in particular, edits I made to the article on March 2 2021). Given his focus on personalizing the discussion in the first place, however, there was only limited progress on the substance of the policy-based arguments. He then considered it his place to decide when the discussion should conclude:

• I think we have discussed enough...
• I think we have made a very good progress and reached to a compromise. Let's not ruin it by pushing it any further

He then blows up here stating that I believe that he and the clerics are idiots, that I am "bullying" him, and implies that I am denigrating scholars by calling them clerics.

Finally, despite our ongoing discussion, he refuses to allow any sort of template on the article noting the dispute because he has decided that we've already "discussed enough":

• Removing the frivilous npov-section tagging. See the talk page.
• Firviolous tagging and indulging into edit warring.
• ...do not indulge into claiming the ownership of the article, edit-warring and frivolous tagging nor assume that you are the only one who knows Wikipedia guidelines...

Because I restored the NPOV tag, he also decides that I am owning the page and issues a warning on my talk page. Snuish2 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

--

It is important to note that the topic of Al-Ahbash is very contentious and controversial and the pages, Al-Ahbash and Abdullah_al-Harari, have been a target of sock-puppeteering, POV pushing by various IDs and rotating IPs for years.

Why the Al-Ahbash keep coming back to Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia? It is not about respect for Wikipedia, Al-Azhar, Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah, mainstream Sunni Muslims or academic integrity. It is basically all about marketing.

They keep coming back to the the Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia because these are the pages which shows up on most of the search results on Google, Yahoo and other major search engines. Thus, it is very important for the Al-Ahbash to keep all good, positive and sanitized information being posted about themselves and their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari on Wikipedia in order to make sure that they are able to keep their current adherents as well as recruit potential adherents.

That's where having the "affiliation" with Al-Azhar or using the banner of "Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah" becomes handy and important because Al-Azhar being one of the oldest Sunni Institution and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah being the majority of the World Muslims being Sunnis can really be good for marketing and to buy the clout and legitimacy. Otherwise, the Al-Ahbash couldn't care less about Al-Azhar or Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah or the mainstream Sunni Muslims.

Don't believe me? Please, read this excerpt from Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context:

At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion.

Notes

• [1]. Olivier Roy, L’Islam mondialisé (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2002), 127.
• [2]. Michael Gilsenan, Saint and Sufi in Modern Egypt: an Essay in the Sociology of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).

Source: Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context

What I described above is just the tip of the iceberg.

For the past many years, their target has been the following sentence

"The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." Their main focus being ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in Al-Ahbash's books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash.

The common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity. Hence the following questions:

• Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
• Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preaching of Al-Ahbash?
• Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?

Following is a list of some of the previous editors who have edited Al-Ahbash

• Shawwal (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• AbeEll (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• KevinAbdulqader (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• Socialistmark (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• Samsparky (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

With reference to this, this and this, I have no doubt on my mind that the individual with rotating IPs is Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as this ID came straight to that very sentence, tagged it and removed the sources arbitrarily.

Sample diffs - Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Starting February 28, 2021

• 15:37, March 4, 2021 diff − Al-Ahbash moved content to "political positions." Added NPOV tag to section of remaining concern -- see talk page for details.
• 22:37, March 3, 2021 diff -‎ Al-Ahbash "heretical" seems to occur less often.
• 21:14, March 3, 2021 diff -‎ Al-Ahbash ‎moved "North America" section to religious beliefs since it has not been described as controversial. Inserted direct quote from "From madness to eternity" instead of relying on description.
• 09:31, March 2, 2021 diff − Al-Ahbash ‎This sentence is not at all supported by the source, which states: "The complex structure of Shaykh Habashi's belief system blends elements of Sunni and Shii theology with Sufi spiritualism"
• 21:59, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash ‎{{original research|section}} "claim denied by Al-Azhar" and Germany section seem to be original research, if not other claims.
• 12:13, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash removed self-published sources and primary sources not meeting WP:RS criteria.
• 11:50, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash

Rotating IPs

• 2601:243:2200:60E:B1EC:F03A:76FB:7965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:2200:60E:4555:795D:C8F5:5DEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:2200:60E:393E:CD8B:E48A:7E4D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:903:3F5B:C40C:2837:ED73:51F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:903:3F5B:1D28:70B2:3ED9:B79E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following are the reasons:

• First, the person behind rotating IPs showed up as soon as the RfC closed after years of discussions and sock-puppeteering. See @EdJohnston:'s response.

• Then the person behind rotating IPs moved the sentence from lead to Controversy.

• Then the person behind rotating IPs removed it from Abdullah_al-Harari.

• Now the person behind rotating IPs back with an ID (After waiting for 4 months.) to get the second part of the sentence, "...a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." removed and simply keep ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in Al-Ahbash's books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash.

• Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) picked up exactly from the place where the person behind rotating IPs left (or did he?) and has been laser-focused on the very same sentence.

• Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't seem to be a novice Wikipedia user. He has been around Wikipedia for a while now hence @EdJohnston:'s response.

• Please feel welcome to compare the tone, arguments, style and verbiage of the person with rotating IPs and Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Talk:Al-Ahbash for further reference.

With reference to an extensive discussions on the Talk Page of Al-Ahbash, first with the person behind rotating IPs and then with Snuish2, just like in the past, I have been fully involved in the discussions despite having an RfC about the existing sources. As we reached to a compromise (At least, that's what I thought.) from

"The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar."

to

"According to Kabha and Erlich, the AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."

Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suddenly became stuck on "According to Kabha and Erlich."He wants to remove it along with a WP:RS

Yawar, Athar Ahmed (2020). From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World. London, United Kingdom: UCL (University College London). p. 166. Retrieved March 2, 2021. (Refers to the fatwās against the Ahbash from a range of scholars, including Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt (fatwā dated 1999), and Ahmad Umar Hashim, the president of Al-Azhar University (2001).)

by hook or crook, and absolutely insists on only having

"The AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."

And he has all sort of explanations and interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines to throw in for that, which is really absurd and reminds me of the very same behavior which I have faced for years by various sock-puppets, IDs and rotating IPs.

I will let @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:, @Cunard: and @EdJohnston: chime in and let the admins see through this. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 12:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is ironic that McKhan has frequently leveled accusations of "canvassing," and yet here on this page he's pinged four other editors. That strikes me as very similar to his accusations of anyone that disagrees with him as being agenda-driven. With regards to the user accounts he's listed above, a cursory review would reveal that my editing and writing styles are significantly different than all of them and that User:Samsparky is still in good standing. With regard to the IP's, none of which were the subjects of any adverse administrative actions, McKhan's discussion on Talk:Al-Ahbash seemed to rest on the assumption that he is entitled to know my IP address or that it is not permissible for an unregistered user to register an account. As a result of his persistent accusations on the article's talk page, I suggested multiple times that he take his accusations to the appropriate venue. Snuish2 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2, that is not canvassing. Those are editors and/or admins in good standing who share many hundred of thousands of edits between themselves, while you are an WP:SPA who is engaged in advocacy, who joined in Nov but still not reached the EC user right — not that there's anything wrong with that (not getting to 500 edits in that time), but I'm comforted by the knowledge that the indef WP:ECP I've applied to the page will still work to restrict you, at least for now. El_C 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: McKhan chose those editors based on their opinions of his edits. That would be canvassing. The crux of the issue is not only users who have advocated on behalf of the Al-Ahbash, but on a single user who has dominated the article, persistently allowing edits unfavorable to the subject without much scrutiny while quickly reverting any edits that do not align with his point of view. Your resolution misses the mark. I have no relationship with the Al-Ahbash and, in fact, have done no favors to them as a result of my edits, which is obvious if you look at the introduction of the article. Your characterization of my edits as "advocacy" is patently incorrect. Snuish2 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2, you're free to argue that, but as an uninvolved admin, that doesn't align with what I'm seeing. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? I think that's unlikely to happen, but who knows. In any case, I stand by my action. El_C 15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I certainly don't want to beat this to death, but I invite you to compare the introduction of the article before I arrived and in its current state if you have already not done so. That is not what advocacy looks like. I do not expect other admins to review this lengthy AN/I post and don't see any avenues for appeal, so I'm pretty sure you're the end of the line here. Snuish2 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2, yes, that may well be so. But whitewashing is also advocacy. It doesn't need to be about adding content that reflects positively on the subject, because removing or softening content that is critical of it is basically the same thing. El_C 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Point granted, I completely agree that could be construed as advocacy. Though I don't concede that there is any "whitewash" occurring here—the statement that McKhan was controverting is unequivocally stated as a fact in a journal article and was made to appear false with primary sources or sources that didn't actually contradict the journal article—but I am willing to return to this discussion after I reach the necessary number of edits. Snuish2 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. McKhan, looks like I've applied extended confirmed protection to this page once before back in 2017. Clearly, the incessant advocacy isn't going away any time soon, so hopefully, that will take care of the crux of the problem. El_C 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, I am glad that you were able to see through this. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

+1 El C, I'm glad you were willing to read through the above - that's a multi-pitch wall of text right there. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Deceased user

I believe I have come across the recent obituary of a fairly prolific editor. Would someone with email turned on be willing to give a second opinion, just to be sure? --- Possibly (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, I'll be at my laptop for the next little bit, so go for it. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

sent, thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

well, we both agreed that the obituary matches the user. If anyone knows what to do with that info, ping me. --- Possibly (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Would this happen to be an editor who hasn't been around the 'pedia for a month? GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Absent for last ten weeks or so. I think I will just post his username to the in memoriam page. RIP.--- Possibly (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:DWG has a guide for WP:RIP. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thanks, I just read that. Now I'm not sure what is appropriate.--- Possibly (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz and Johnuniq:, you appear to be active atm. Any suggestions? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Is there an on-wiki self-disclosure that links the user name to the real-life name of the person in the obituary? If not, my guess is that nothing that links them should be posted—for example, any comments should not link to the obituary and should not name the individual. I would look for people who are experienced at editing WP:RIP and ask them, possibly at WT:Deceased Wikipedians (WP:RIP says to ask there). FYI, editing your comment like this does not ping the target (me). You have to add a new comment with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: No ping even if I delete my existing sig and re-add the ~~~~? That's what I did here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That diff did not generate a ping. That is because it looked like an edit as far as the software is concerned. Some editors tweak their comments several times and the software tries to avoid re-pinging people just because a comment was edited. The new signature simply looks like an edit of the old signature and does not count. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, WP:OUTING is clearly intended to be read in the context of the living rather than the dead, but if an editor has not abrogated their right to privacy in life, then here absolutely no reason for us to do so in death. And if a reliable source does so after death, that puts the onus of doing so onto the source rather than onto us. So, as with much else here, if a RS hasn't made the link, neither do we.
  Although why we would want to add anything to that page other than a deletion tag is perhaps less fathomable...  :) ——Serial 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  AFAIK, we've generally allowed people to be tagged as deceased based on confirmation of family and friends who've contacted us. This includes friendships developed from Wikipedia but which have continued off-site. And I'm fairly sure some people have been linked to obituaries even though the person has never commented on their name, when these have been provided by family or maybe friends who've agreed for them to be linked here. (When it comes to friends, I think it's generally the case that they contact family and ask them rather than just deciding for themselves. These aren't simply contacts out of the blue of course, as normally either the friend is in contact with the family because they've found out their friend is deceased, or sometimes family comes into contact with the friend because they're trying to contact the person and the family now have control over their phone, email etc. There are exceptions of course e.g. where someone is estranged or at least distant from all family and it's friends who are handling their affairs.) If the person did not give clear instructions on how such matters should be handled, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let those who knew them decide, after all that's how a lot of other stuff is handled albeit with various laws and courts able to help when there are disputes. But if it's simply a case where someone has found the obituary of someone else they're sure is a Wikipedian, that does seem more problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Possibly If you're confident, you may want to let stewards know so they can lock the account. CUPIDICAE💕 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If anyone at the admin or higher level wants the account name, email me. Otherwise I think the discussion here shows it is best left alone. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A steward emailed me and I gave them the info, so this can be closed now. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 88.230.170.179 and 88.230.175.118

The IPs repeatedly make edits to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) without making any effort to resolve content dispute:

Old IP: [322] [323] [324] [325] [326]

New IP: [327] [328] [329] [330]

A source was added but the user continues making the same edit after being warned on both IPs and is unwilling to discuss the changes. Soapwort (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I warned 88.230.170.179 (talk · contribs) who has recently been edit warring. 88.230.175.118 (talk · contribs) last edited on 21 February 2021 and can be ignored for the moment. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

PA

this edit summary [[331]] needs to be struck, and a very severe warning isued.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And just saw this [[332]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And this [[333]], I think now a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it's a sock of an LTA, the account is now globally locked. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I have never encountered "globally locked" before, so was not sure what is was. But the PA's are sill in the edit summery. which was my main issue. All their edits shousl be struck.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I've done a bit of tidying up. Global locks are performed by stewards to prevent cross-wiki abuse, they prevent the user logging into the account. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Having twice been collateral damage in global IP blocks (one by a steward who didn't respond to an email; one by a steward whose email was closed), I trust can be forgiven for wondering whether the stewards' procedures are always as surgically precise as might be desired. Narky Blert (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

New User:11Anonymous1122 and disruptive editing

11Anonymous1122 (talk · contribs) has been trying to remove cited and referenced text and insert poorly supported claims in Suhungmung ([334], [335], [336], [337])and Borpatrogohain ([338], [339], [340]). It is possible that these edits also constitute WP:EDITWAR. They have been pointed to using WP:RS and following WP:RULES (here) and the response has been a list of social media links [341]. I am requesting intervention to deal with this disruption. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give 11Anonymous1122 a final warning, since on his talkpage he seems to at least realize he'll need to change his editing patterns. If it continues after that, a block would be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP hopper

I've been weeding their edits out for a while, and the ip user in question hasn't seemed to stop at all. They mainly focus on editing hate and anti-hate groups, adding false information and changing ip's over time. Here are some of the articles they've edited:

• Hate Group
• Life After Hate
• Traditional Britain Group
• Christiian Piccolinni
• Clark Martel
• Political Correctness

Eridian314 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected any page that was not already protected. IP is using multiple subnets to blocking won't help much. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee

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

---

For the past 4 months me and this user have been engaging in some adversarial altercations. While you can recall retrospect by checking our talk page in Vito Rizzuto. And others. Where I continuously was editing and removing terms incurring violations of MOSCONTEXTBOI. Yesterday I edited Nicolo Rizzuto's page. And a new user Simsmacked with no new edits supported my side of the bargain. Considering the enmity between us. The user made false accusations against me and reported me for Sockpuppetry. Which turned out to be false. I left Vito Rizzuto's page and after 4 months got on Nicolo Rizzuto. And you can check my edits. Under which guidelines I operated. While the other user just kept on editing on basis of his perception. I believe this bad blood is going too far. And considering my inferior stature. I'd rather an administrator take this into his hands.Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying by Vaselineeeeeeee and archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327#Concerning behaviour. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jack Morales Garcia, what is it that you're actually asking for here? You were implicated in an SPI, which clearly had merit because it caught a whole bunch of socks. Your account was not found to be part of the socking, but there was obviously something funny going on, and I'm sure Vaselineeeeeeee raised the report in good faith. He hasn't reverted you at Nicolo Rizzuto, or at any of the other articles you've edited in the last few days, so I'm not clear on what is it that you're actually reporting here, or what it is you want to happen. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can't keep up, keep trying to tag and fix the report and notify, etc. But yes, what Girth said, what exactly is the complaint here? What is going on that is beyond the capacity of you to handle and requires an admin get involved? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unless I'm misreading the outcome of that SPI, two socks of Jack Morales Garcia were confirmed by the checkuser (Simsmackerel and Simon Niclas Miller), in addition to the separate group of unrelated socks. Number 57 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Number 57, correct, I just reviewed it and blocked the OP for two weeks, and the socks indefinitely. Jack Morales Garcia if you do something like that again, your next block will likely be indefinite. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Apologies for the itchy head moment Floquenbeam - on a cursory look, I saw that a bunch of socks had been blocked, but not the OP, so assumed they hadn't been socking. On closer inspection (i.e. actually reading it), I saw that they were confirmed and just awaiting administration, which I've now done. Sorry for the goof, it's been a long day of teaching kids over Zoom, I should get away from the screen. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian Vandal-Sockpuppet Admin KansasBear and Каракорум

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

---

Kansas Bear User ID 2731577 and his other account Каракорум User ID 34432312 are Russian Sockpuppet and spy and delete the "Ottoman victory Ottoman captured Chyhyryn" and the 15 sources and evidence from 1676-1681 Russo-Turkish War. Ottoman captured Chyhyryn and won the (last) 1678 Campaign. Russia lost Chyhyryn. They write always Indecisive or Disputed They don't know even how to cite the course of the war and takes any battle for result although in the end of this book what they cite, is written for result Ottoman Victory because the war location was captured.

He must look at final at last page number 172 and not any page battle for result

For further reading

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Russo-Turkish-wars

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CH%5CChyhyryncampaigns1677hD78.htm

Notes

1. ^ Despite the loss of Chyhyryn the war aims of greatest importance to Moscow were therefore achieved. Khan Murat Girei was compelled to negotiate at Bakhchisarai a twenty-year armistice with Muscovy formally acknowledging Kiev and the Left Bank as Muscovite possessions. Murat Girei played a crucial role in subsequently inducing Sultan Mehmet IV to ratify these same terms. For Mehmet IV and Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa the destruction of Chyhyryn was thereby rendered a Pyrrhic victory. Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, (Routledge, 2007), 172.

2. ^ In the decades preceding the Ottomans’ attempted siege of Vienna in 1683 Ottoman armies had successfully prosecuted single-front wars in Hungary (the sieges of Varad [Oradea] in 1660 and Uyvar [N. Zamky] in 1663), Crete (the siege of Candia [Heraklion] between 1667 and 1669], Poland (the siege of Kamanice [Kamanetz-Podolsk] in 1672 and Russia (the siege of Çehrin [Chyhyryn] in 1678). Rhoads Murphy, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, (UCL Press 1999), 9.

3. [^] Given Romodanovskii’s insistence the year before on the strategic necessity of holding Chyhyryn, this had the appearance of a major defeat, and it led many Ukrainians to blame Romodanovskii for incompetence or even treason. Actually Moscow had issued Romodanovskii secret orders to do everything to avoid battle with the Turks, to seek peace talks with them and to be prepared to sacrifice Chyhyryn rather than his army so as not to leave Kiev and the left bank under-defended. Chyhyryn was of greater importance to Samoilovich than to Moscow, which placed higher priority on defending Kiev and the left bank. The Russo-Turkish war of 1676–81 is usually seen as a stalemate or even as a Russian defeat because Chyhyryn had to be destroyed and the right bank was thereby lost to the Turks and Iurii Khmel’nyts’kyi

Sources

• Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, Routledge, 2007.
• Rhoads Murphey Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, UCL Press 1999.
• Brian Davies, Empire and Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
• Maureen Perrie "The Cambridge History of Russia from early Rus to 1689", Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• History of the Ottoman Turks,1288-1918, The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868.
• Davies, B. ‘The Second Chigirin Campaign (1678): Late Muscovite Power in Transition,’ in The Military and Society in Russia, 1450–1917, ed E. Lohr and M. Poe (Leiden 2002)
• Dimitrie Cantemir, History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire Volume IIIJ. J., and P. Knapton., 1734.
• Geschichte des Osmanischen Reich 1840.
• Danishmend, Kronoloji, Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972.
• C. Heywood, Kara Mustafa Paşa, In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Leiden, 1954-2004.
• John Paxton and John Traynor, Leaders of Russia and the Soviet Union, Taylor & Francis Books Inc, 2004.
• Hasan Karaköse, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Merzifon Vakfı, Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001.
• Blochet, Catalogue, Suppl., Paris,1909.
• The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenHorde55 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Give mine regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenHorde55 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected. A quick look seems like some boomerang blocks are incoming but I'm about to be AFK for a while so I'll let the next admin deal with those. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• @GoldenHorde55:, I suggest you hold off on tweaking your report. You started off with "Kansas Bear User ID 2731577 and his other account Каракорум User ID 34432312 are Russian Sockpuppet and spy", which is so stupid on its face that no one is going to bother reading beyond the first sentence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  A Russian Vandal Sockpuppet Admin? Sorry, totally implausible - "sockpuppet" has the wrong number of syllables for making a proper trochee pattern - try "Russian Vandal Socking Admin". ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Support boomerang block: DE, BATTLEGROUND [342], SPA, NOTHERE [343].  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24 will make it more clear what is going on. All accounts that are still unblocked pass the duck test. I'm not an SPI regular, but I'll block them in a few minutes if someone else with an SPI-script that makes it easier doesn't do it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

• Shirley, Floquenbeam, you mean "if no one else with an SPI-script that makes it easier does it first". Apparently they no longer teach symbolic logic in the schools, and this is the result. Shocking. EEng 19:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: I only went to a state school, while I think you went to one of them rich/fancy/snooty ones, but... doesn't your fix suffer from the same problem? "No one else with an SPI-script" (emphasis mine) should be just "no one with an SPI-script", no? What's the name of that Law that says any post correcting someone else's grammar is guaranteed to have a grammar error in it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  for posterity: Muphry's law. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  (Sneer if you must but at least I didn't go to Yale.) A better link is WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. Meanwhile, the else underlines our faith that your native shrewdness, that innate cunning which is the delight of your friends, would surely prevent you from using a script to do the job, and then pointlessly it all over again. EEng 00:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Large-scale unsourced "Muslims" category additions

84.238.156.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding "Muslims" categories to BLPs without any mentions of a religious belief. A block and a rollback of the changes is necessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I previously brought up the same issue in December 2020 for 79.100.19.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [344]. Nobody responded and most of their BLP violations are still live. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sports vandal

Can we please get a WP:NOTHERE block for Vrayar? Almost every single one of this user's edits were minor vandalism and have been reverted: Special:Contributions/Vrayar SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m just editing for fun SportingFlyer. Then I let Wikipedia revert it to the way it was. Don’t need to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrayar (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. As I note in your block log, "just editing for fun" doesn't cut it. You're fucking around, making work for other people, and haven't agreed to stop, so I've blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think that is a defining example of WP:NOTHERE... --Jack Frost (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Userfication and Impersonation.

Hello Admins. Can any admin look into these two requests:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hello,_Few_questions.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Impersonation

Warm Regards.

Abhayesports (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, I came to the talk page of Cancel culture in good faith looking at some dubious sourcing at the article, User:Crossroads asked me to not make vague complaints [345], so I came back to discuss the overall quyality of sourcing, making it clear I was happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner. Then Crossroads just launched into a personal attack:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACancel_culture&type=revision&diff=1010567513&oldid=1010539306

I feel like this is completely out of line and nothing more than a full blown personal attack. They do not own the page. I'm not seeking sanctions, I just want the personal attacks to removed, for the personal attacks to cease and for content discussion to be civil going forward. Bacondrum 04:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly did I say that is a personal attack?

Readers of this thread should see the two previous ANI threads about this topic and involving Bacondrum. At the first, from June 2019, Bacondrum was reported for tendentious editing and related misbehavior and a topic ban was requested; it was closed with a statement saying, Bacondrum has admitted to making mistakes. I am of the opinion that they should have another chance — I'm a big believer in second chances. They are taking a break from the article. If and/or when they return to it, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that's both collegial and collaborative. Sanctions at this point would be a bit harsh. At any rate, I feel hopeful. At the second, from July 2020, Bacondrum opened the original ANI thread (scroll up), and I, a previously uninvolved editor, added a subsection about Bacondrum's misbehavior. As a result, he was blocked from Online shaming and its talk page for 3 months (at that time, all the "cancel culture" material resided on that page). SlimVirgin also commented on his misbehavior. He promised at that ANI after the partial block, I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further. Don't get to worked up about it. That didn't last. Now he's back at the topic and has been so for some time, and as before is wasting time WP:SEALIONing by tendentiously arguing that various WP:Reliable sources are not reliable, using WP:UNDUE as a POV cudgel, and demanding I WP:SATISFY him. [346] He is also again engaging in soapboxing on the talk page. [347] This report is frivolous, retaliatory, and an expression of the years-long misbehavior and POV pushing on this topic. I have therefore made a proposal below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Bacondrum from cancel culture

• Support, to end the years of time-wasting tendentious editing on this topic, per above. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)