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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy

BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Des Vallee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

TL;DR on BunnyyHop's soap-boxing behavior

BunnyyHop is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He constantly posts fringe theories. Denies the Uyghur genocide is real instead believing it to be created by by Adrian Zenz, denies that the Crimear Tatar genocide or deportation is real, constantly tries to get around consensus, edit wars when he doesn't get his way, misuses quotes to give a soapbox to whoever Marxist-Leninists, adds "accuse" to proven atrocities by Stalin and Mao, tags edit as minor that removes entire sections, removes images he dislikes when leaders like Stalin show up, removes any information he dislikes, as wel as removing sourced content numerous times, doesn't read citations, and has wanted to post text like "The liquidation of exploiters" and "Success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades" to articles. In short BunnyyHop clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and to spread his POV, other users have also realized this from him being here. He in short is a committed POV pusher.

BunnyyHop is a single use account meaning he only edits relating to Marxism-Leninism and only posts his pro Marxist-Leninist, pro-Stalinist POV. The proposal details topic banning BunnyyHop from all articles relating to Marxism-Leninism and politics, due to disruption on said articles. Des Vallee (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop has never edited anything outside his narrow field of interest (Marxist-Leninism,) and Bunnyyhop never goes against his own ideology, adding POV pushing sections, removing criticisms, using biased wording etc... The editors account always edits with something do with Marxist-Leninism and it all extremely positively. Please excuse this extremely long list, it is extremely long because of how disruptive he has been.

He is clearly here only to spread a pro-ML POV, in his entire time on Wikipedia he hasn't edited a single article outside Marxist-Leninism. He has already been blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia 3 times and on English Wikipedia once, he was warned over five times on Portuguese Wiki, and warned over 10 on English Wiki. Despite all these warnings from numerous other editors and operators he is still using Wikipedia as a soapbox, posting POV edits to push Marxist-Leninism.

Here is a list of some of his disruptive POV pushing edits:

Removal of properly sourced content:

Example 1 BunnyyHop removal of a section in which details Vladimir Lenin lost the popular elections and called for a multi-party democracy system. It was removed simply only due to his admiration of Lenin and his ML POV. The fact that Lenin lost . All information is correctly sourced Citation: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2492782.pdf

Page 3: "The party of Lenin had not received the mandate of the people to govern them." "The Bolsheviks, who had usurped power in the name of the soviets (people) three weeks prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote"

Page 5: Following the defeat of the Bolsheviks in the general election: "Lenin, issued the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, the dream of Russian political reformers for many years, was swept aside as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarian"

Example 2:

Removes section that states: "in practice Marxist-Leninist states have been described as anti-democratic" is a "fringe theory." Despite almost all agree ML states were extremely undemocratic. Most Marxist-Leninist states are considered academically considered anti democratic, he removes this as it doesn't fit with him ML POV.

Example 3 Removes of sourced content, due to the fact it mentions North Korea as "Stalinist." A label this user doesn't like.

Example 4 Removes of cited text that states China's execution rate (A Marxist-Leninist state) removed for no good reason.

Example 5 Removal of cited information detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities and criticisms of Marxist-Leninism:

Example 6 Removal of scholarly cited information as to how Marxist-Leninist states are considered state capitalist. As a Marxist-Leninist that directly goes against his POV so he removes it. Did this before twice: 6

Example 7 Removal of section that states the Gulag (in Marxist-Leninist USSR) system as a form of Slavery. BunnyyHop removes the section and tags the edit as minor, despite removing a sizeable chunk of the article.

Example 9 Removed correctly cited information dealing with Anti Stalinst left and Red Fascism. Red fascism is a term used by other leftists to denote Stalinists, or Marxist-Leninists. BunnyyHop who supports Marxist-Leninism removes it, due to his POV.

Example 10 10 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders that are Marxist-Leninist, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edit as minor.

Example 11 Removal of sections detailing China's use of Uyghur minority in forced labour camps. Replaces correctly cited information, with a Chinese backed conspiracy theory that the mistreatment of the Uyghur population by China is a false narrative created by Adrian Zenz. Something which has been completely nonsense. This user was blocked for posting this conspiracy theory as well, however more bluntly.

Examples of POV pushing text or text that reads out of Marxist-Leninist manifesto or argumentative ML essay:

Example 1 2: Adds POV text replacing the rise of Bolshevik rule with a Marxist-Leninist position that being: "Establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the rise of the Bolshevik soviet democracy in Russia proper, most of Ukraine, Belarus, Middle Asia and Transcaucasia"

Example 2: This entire section of a goldmine of POV text. It at times tries to convince the reader into being a Marxist-Leninist, and it makes extremely bold statements with the only citations being Karl Marx quotes. It is far to long to pull out any specific section.

"It is true that labor and nature become means of capital exploitation, but the capitalist mode of production systematically corrodes the foundations of wealth" (This is cited not using any actual papers but instead literally Karl Marxs das Kapital)."

Example 4 Text that would read out of a Marxist-Leninist handbook, it's also completely unsourced.

Example 5: Marxist-Leninism

Adds text on how Marxist-Leninism is a "theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends." and also states nonsense as facts such as that it is a form of "science."^[a]

Example 6 This was supposed to be a single line detailing certain ML achievements, which was agreed upon, he then added 5 additional lines, none of which were well cited that painted Marxist-Leninist states as wonderful.

Example 6: BunnyyHop here takes quotes directly from the PCP manifesto on their website and copy pastes them onto the Wikipedia article, he posted text soap-boxing the PCP position. 1/3 of the entire lead is dedicated giving a microphone to PCP on the PCP article. Keep in mind BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP as stated on his Portuguese talk page.

Example 7: Uses a single Portuguese source to try to jam in the title "Democratic dictatorship of the proletariat" he got banned on Portugese Wiki for this.

Example 8: Removes the criticisms section on Guevarism a Marxist-Leninist ideology. Removed "(Marxist-Leninist states) for trying to impose a dictatorship instead of self-management."

Example 9 Removal of sections critical of Marxist-Leninism "Guevarism as also been criticized for purges, torture and massacres enacted on political dissidents" was removed.

Misuse of quotes to give a soapbox to Marxist-Leninists

Example 1: Marxist-Leninism

"Conducting a socialist revolution led by the vanguard of the proletariat, that is, the party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, was hailed to be a historical necessity. Moreover, the introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated."

Proposed changes to Marxist-Leninism by BunnyyHop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BunnyyHop/sandbox

BunnyyHop uses his sandbox to propose additions to articles, this is a fraction of a fraction of pure POV text on his Sandbox. He often replaces text with as an example "Suppression of dissidents" to the '"Removal of exploiters and opportunists"

"As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism."

"Lenin's leadership transformed the Bolsheviks into the party's political vanguard which was composed of professional revolutionaries who practiced democratic centralism to elect leaders and officers as well as to determine policy through free discussion, then decisively realized through united action."

Example 10 More Soapboxing for the PCP:

Edit Warring

On Russian Revolution Wants to insert "Establishment of Dictatorship of Proletariat and the rise of Bolshevik democracy"

On Marxist-Leninism, Various reasons mostly POV pushing sections

(Diffs of the user's reverts)

(Prev version reverted to) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Removing valuable large information, tagging an edit as "minor" that removes entire sections:

Example 1 The reason this was removed because it states the Gulag system as a form of Slavery. He removes it due to his pro-Soviet POV, tags it as minor despite removing a sizeable chunk of the article. It's hard to assume good faith on this.

Example 2 Removes this section detailing Soviet citizens didn't lives in a democracy, due to it not fitting his pro-Soviet stance. Tags it as minor.

Example 3 4 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edits as minor.

This is only a fraction of his diffs I missed a massive amount of other disruptive POV pushing edits, or his disruptive edits on talk pages. I and other users have tried to work with BunnyyHop but he clearly is only here to advocate for Marxist-Leninism. This user has only been on Wikipedia for four months and in that four months, despite being warned multiple times, BunnyyHop keeps using Wikipedia as a place to soapbox Marxist-Leninism.

He only edits relating to Marxist-Leninism and he has never edited anything outside of his extremely specific field of interest that being articles relating to Marxist-Leninism. In that time he has not been neutral while editing only adding positive sections for his ideology, and removing sections that detail atrocities or anything negative of it. He is only here to spread his ML POV not to build an encyclopedia.

While on Wikipedia he has been warned multiple times by other editors to stop removing sections he disagrees with, stop posting POV sections, stop edit warring and to stop soap boxing this can be seen on his talk page and the sections he archived. He has removed correctly sourced information, with the only explanation being that he dislikes Marxist-Leninist's having anything stated against them in any negative way. BunnyyHop has never once posted anything but glowing praise of his ideology. He clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia but instead to try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to espouse Marxist-Leninist positions. While attempting to use the text "Establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and rise of Soviet Democracy" users like TimothyBlue stated to BunnyyHop, "You're POV pushing has continued, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. A topic ban is rapidly approaching" he hasn't listened he still is posting POV text. I don't think that behavior will ever change because BunnyyHop is clear only here for advocacy, not to build an encyclopedia. Des Vallee (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism." (This was actually attempted to be put into the article)

WP:TLDR. You need to be far more concise. Giant Snowman 11:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is in my opinion a content dispute. BunnyHop and some other editors think that the article should be about Marxist-Leninist ideology, while Des Vallee thinks it should be about actions taken by ML governments. Hence BunnyHop removed the text about Lenin's election results as being off topic.

BunnyHop was blocked for edit-warring on 30 November. If they continue this, you can always go to the 3RR noticeboard again. The administrators who follow that noticeboard are much better qualified to investigate edit-warring and to determine what action is required up to indefinite blocks.

The ideological views of editors is wholly irrelevant to whether they can contribute in a neutral way. You intrerpreted an attempt to define the scope of the article as whitewashing Stalinist crimes.

You might also take the advice of TLDR. I suggest you close this discussion thread and properly prepare your charges should you wish to pursue them.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces I agree that an editors ideological views should be irrelevant, assuming they are making contributions in good faith. However all of the contributions all independently in vacuum violate Wikipedia's neutrality, or advocacy policies. Its hard to see this editors actions as anything other then complete obvious soap-boxing. As an example would you genuinely state this is constructive editing removing an entire section and tagging it as minor so it won't be reviewed?

I mean there is no perspective you could state this was done in good faith. I think that can be proven, I mean do you genuinely think a good faith contributor would add text to articles that states "The liquidation of the hostile classes?" which is a whitewashed term that means "The massacre of any dissidents?" This really isn't about the page Marxism-Leninism, but instead BunnyyHop clearly using Wikipedia to post Marxist-Leninist propaganda adding an immense amount of POV sections. He removed the image on Totalitarianism because he didn't like Stalin and Mao were present in the picture.

I completely agree BunnyyHop's position is irrelevant, but as stated with the copious amounts of diffs if we look at this editors contributions it is all soap boxing for either Marxist-Leninist regimes or removal of sections critical of Marxist-Leninism. BunnyyHop also did this, in which he takes the Chinese backed conspiracy theory, that the Uyghur genocide is western propaganda formulated by a single person, also removing correct information?

What about when he copied and pasted multiple paragraphs of text from different pro Marxist-Leninist authors and copy pasted them into articles? What about all the times he simply deletes any information critical of Marxist-Leninism? Or tried to change the outcome section in Russian Revolution to state "Establishment of Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Soviet democracy?" The fact that he is a Marxist-Leninist is irrelevant if he has been making good faith contributions, however he hasn't since he joined Wikipedia and started editing he only has edited for soap-boxing. It's extremely clear he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for his positions, he has even edited the article on his own party the PCP. This has to do with his overall behavior on most subjects which is fairly plain to see. Other users @Crossroads:, can attest to this most users BunnyyHop has interacted with can attest to this. Des Vallee (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Based on their edits, such as this (also note edit summary), BunnyHop might be User:Jacob Peters or at least someone with a very similar POV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)~~ Apparently, not Jacob Peters, but someone else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with these one by one.

This is repeated a lot, «he was blocked three times». From the start, I have only been blocked twice on ptwiki (link. One might ask? What was the reason of those blocks? Is he an uncontrollable madman unable to do proper edits on Wikipedia?

Once we click the link - we see we have two blocks on days 18 and 22 of November. One of them was due to me wanting to include democratic dictatorship of the proletariat instead of dictatorship of the proletariat in an article. This was supported by another admin at first, but then backed down. The other user disputing this, another admin, explained quickly afterwards that arbitrarily choosing one over the other might constitute POV editing. We ended in good terms, since those synonyms (dictatorship of the proletariat as various synonyms) were added to the main article. [diff (I then added it to the enwiki)

1- This states «Previously Lenin had called for multi-party system of democracy». However, this is nowhere to be seen in that source, despite me asking multiple times. The fact that the Bolsheviks lost the election for the constituent assembly is an undisputable fact, and I never put this into question. And when I did ask you to provide a source, you manipulate it by inserting things in parenthesis. Diff. Me asking specifically for this «multi-party system of democracy» claim in the diffs, attempt to get verification of all in the talk page diff (and this colleague's respective response) - diff diff diff.

Interesting bits - diff the colleague claims there's no such thing in the source.

2- The constitution of the GDR and a work called «Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival» are used to back this point. Not only is this insufficient to present as fact or «academic consensus», it's not even related to Marxism-Leninism.

3- Again, I checked the sources and even though BBC (link) is not a reliable source for this type of academic oriented article, it's NOT referred to as «the government is still sometimes referred to as Marxist–Leninist, or more commonly as a Stalinist, due to its political and economic structure», anyone can check it for themselves. The other claim, «Juche has been described as a version of Korean ethnic ultranationalism» is also not backed by the source - if you check the link, Juche is referred to as Korean ultranationalism, not ethnic ultranationalism. If you check the diff, you'll see I removed ethnic and added proper attribution.

4- You'll really just have to see the diff, I don't understand how one can claim that «cited text ... removed for no good reason» and link to a diff that shows it has not been removed. I had to include more text because this user specifically wanted to include the death rate of China despite being told it was not in the scope of the article. diff to current version

5- Got me blocked for edit warring when I thought consensus had been achieved (since there were 3 in favour of removing it and 2 in favour of including it)

6- Not backed by source after verification

7- Didn't have citations, there's already an unfree labour article and this article is already giant in size. This is honestly something I need help with because I lost my pacience. diff edit was removed because of «Ok BunnyyHop you are now posting Chinese backed conspiracy theories that the Uyghur genocide is pushed by Adrian Zenz» (What the hell is this?) and diff this was removed because «BunnyyHop you don't even mention the Gulag system», which is completely absurd to anyone who sees this diff. There's also been the change of the US being the country with the highest prision population to «one of the highest», while the US has the highest prision population. See List of countries by incarceration rate.

Honestly, I won't even bother to reply to the rest, unless asked to. For the «removing an entire section and tagging it as minor», see how new to editing on Wikipedia I was «https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BunnyyHop&offset=20201201142824&limit=500&target=BunnyyHop». Minor edits showed on my watchlist anyway and plus there was no citation, I didn't think it was a big deal. I was warned and it never happened again.

«Uyghur genocide is western propaganda formulated by a single person» I honestly don't understand what this user is talking about. Slavery, as you can see right now, has a report stated as a fact without any attribution whatsoever, «the Chinese government was found to be using the Uyghur minority for forced labour», even though the source says «In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report Uyghurs for sale: ‘Re-education’, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang, which identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies as allegedly directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labour transfer programs.». I included proper attribution, but it was reverted. diff.

As for the Exploitation of labour article, it was a translation from the German article which was visibly much more complete. It's a shame half of the quotes were Marx's - but well - we gotta learn one way or the other.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from politics or block indefinitely. Bunnyyhop is an WP:SPA who engages in tendentious editing. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to advocate for the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist POV (compare WP:NONAZIS to see how I and many other editors feel about pushers of another totalitarian ideology). TFD/The Four Deuces, who downplays the problem above, has been heavily active for a long time at Talk:Marxism–Leninism and is not an unbiased observer. I have only stepped into the topic very recently and saw right off the problem of Bunnyyhop's editing. That Des Vallee's report is not perfect does not matter (and getting the length of these right is very hard anyway - too short and people say there's not enough evidence to take action). I will add this diff [1] as a representative example of their tendentiousness and POV pushing. They changed "As the only legal vanguard party it decided almost all policies" to "the vanguard party that guided the establishment and development of socialism"; "Tiananmen Square massacre that stopped the revolts by force" to "Tiananmen Square protests that stopped the revolts by force" (which is not only POV but also makes no sense - the protests were the revolts); and removed "anti-religious". What TimothyBlue testified regarding this user's editing [2] is also highly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this has gotten more traction, so I'll reply to some other claims.

«Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire». This is a pretty serious claim, I'd like a diff for this hogwash. Anyone who opens the diff sees how this «because he doesn't like» is not true. And, those were my 8th and 9th edits on the site, something important you might've missed to mention. After engaging with another user, I added to the description «Leaders often accused of ruling totalitarian regimes».

As for the Russian revolution, it's literally stated on the lead «reorganizing the former empire into the world's first socialist state, to practice soviet democracy on a national and international scale»

But it should also be worth mentioning diff that you're including books by this publisher as reliable sources.

As for the sandbox, the text you inserted here is literally the terms stated in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, be it «Russia’s independence from foreign domination», as well as «introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated». As for «Removal of exploiters and opportunists», I'd like a diff. I do remember including exploiters since it was the term used by a primary source - opportunists? not so much.

«Keep in mind BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP as stated on his Portuguese talk page». I can assure that this is false, me being a member (which wouldn't matter) or me stating in the talk page that I am.

I like how you add every content dispute to frame me as an irracional communist, but for instance, one might look at the talk page and see that in Guevarism you used "blackrosefederation" to verify the claim of «Guevarism as also been criticized for purges, torture and massacres enacted on political dissidents. In Cuba anarchists and other leftist revolutionaries were often massacred after the revolution.». «This oppression and inability for anarchists to organize into an effective resistance movement in Cuba would lead to the development of anarchism without adjectives, by Cuban exiles.» One might simply look at the anarchism without adjectives and see that it was developed in the 1880s(!!!!) while the Cuban Revolution occured in 1953-1959. Davide King can testify that your anarchist POV in your edits shows, especially in Marxism-Leninism

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, The Four Deuces did engage in Talk:Marxism-Leninism but that does not invalidade his position.

I wouldn't use «unbiased observer», but rather «outside perspective», but even then, one wouldn't use the cold war ideological concept of totalitarianism to equiparate Marxism-Leninism with Nazism. «As the vanguard party that guided the establishment and development of socialism» simply does not turn into «As the only legal vanguard party it decided almost all policies». Did the party decide «almost all policies»? In which time period? Is the Congress of Soviets powerless then? Did Soviet Democracy evaporate? - see - this is not what's told to us in the source. It might need to be rewritten, yes, but not like this. I didn't change it, I reverted the edit. Also, the title of the article is Tiananmen Square protests, hence the edit. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I don't think that being "heavily active for a long time" in the discussion page makes me biased. In fact I only joined the discussion in October. Incidentally, I notice you were canvassed to join this discussion.[3] When other editors have improperly canvassed me to join I discussion, I have always recused myself. I suggest that editors ignore your comments on the basis that you were improperly canvassed. TFD (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [4] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE. How did you find this discussion? Your accusation is baseless and does not help your case.

In case anyone missed it above, further investigation as to whether the user is a sock of User:Jacob Peters, as suggested by My very best wishes is warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the definition of improper canvassing. See Wikipedia:Canvassing: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive): Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." WP:APPNOTE only allows individual notification to "uninvolved editors." FYI I found this thread because I follow ANI. Unlike you, I was not notified by Des Vallee. TFD (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking "uninvolved" out of context. "Prior statement" is listed along with userboxes; it means not selecting an editor based on their personal POV as revealed in comments. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying Editors who have asked to be kept informed. And you are far more "involved" in this topic than me regardless of how you landed here. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things relevant to ANI without restating what is above and on talk pages:
- I generally agree with Crossroads comments.
- I believe BunnyHop is here to push a POV and at times this spills over into blantent propaganda. They ignore DUEWEIGHT and plain scholarly consensus and plow ahead with cherry picked sources into BATTLEGROUND TE, across multiple articles. Based on this exchange, I do not believe this pattern is accidental or simply misguided.
- I believe their edits show a willingness to conflate terms when they are used in different senses, such as technical, propaganda, and popular forms or in theoretical and actual senses, to breed confusion rather than clarity. This is most apparent in the discussion regarding Soviet "democracy". What a scholar, a propagandist, and a lay reader might mean/understand by "democracy" will be very different. I believe this is being done to drive the lay reader into a particular POV.
- Their ignoring the implications of the Red Terror and Cheka on "Soviet democracy" as well as the broader repression/terrorism by the Bolsheviks during the Civil War, I believe is nothing more than Bolsheviks apologetics; as with other similar topics, this should not be tolerated.
- Their walls of text and article hoping is an enourmous timesink.

// Timothy :: talk 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, the point is, you misinterpreted the journal, I don't understand what this exchange is supposed to represent. Check this. This exchange was based on an objection to include soviet democracy in the outcomes of the infobox, and I just linked to a paper and this document by David Priestland to show that Soviet democracy existed as an outcome. «Individuals parroting statements from a dictatorship and "voting" with the Cheka holding guns to the heads of their families while the Red Terror raged is not democracy». The Red Terror happened during the period of the Civil War, and so did Cheka (before being reorganized into the RPU). The «outcome» is after the Russian Revolution. Multiple All-Russian Congress of Soviets occurred during the Civil War - but this doesn't matter because the point of the question is the outcome. I'm not «ignoring the broader repression/terrorism by the Bolsheviks during the Civil War», this is not a type of thing I have to do - if the Civil War had an impact on Soviet Democracy - which it most likely did - it's up to scholars to determine that, not us, but it's up to us to include it in the respective article. I honestly don't understand what cherry-picking means here, is it because I'm using sources that back up my point? The western anti-Communism, which goes as far as to equate it with Nazism, blocks any type of rational discussion. Being so convict that the Soviet democracy article should me censored wouldn't consist of non-neutral editing? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above reply from Bunnyhop should remove any doubt about the veracity of my conclusions about their editing and the need for a topic ban, if not based on my previous points, based on WP:CIR. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? You're saying we shouldn't include the establishment of Soviet Democracy as one of the outcomes in the lead because of repression during the Russian Civil War. If you don't think the sources are reliable, you should've made that clear. But let this be clarified - I did settle down with «Establishment of Bolshevik-led Soviet Socialist Republics across the Russian Empire» after seeing a reviewer's comment in the thread I opened on the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Restated_2. I don't understand why this was brough up in the first place, this is perfectly normal dispute. As a side note: Please, to whoever is reviewing this, quickly check the pages' edit log and their respective talk pages. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, seems like there's explaining to do. When I come across that template, this was the version [5] up on the website. There was no mention of «genocide» on the lead, except from the Ukrainian Parliament, and I thought the guy on the talk page had made a fair point when he mentioned the deportation of the Japanese Americans during WW2. Keep in mind that this was my 6th edit, I had come across WP:NPOV and WP:V but not WP:NOTTRUTH for instance. That's something I would never do today due to the knowledge I picked up about how Wikipedia works - hence why the discussion is now mostly about my edits as a completely new editor. Despite what some editors accuse me of, I have no sympathies with Stalin and I have no interest in editing things related to him. But it got me by surprise the way some editors use the ideological concept of Totalitarism to equate Communism and thereby me to f#%#$#% WP:NAZIS. This is just fantastic. When the Russian Revolution article had one party dictatorship as one of its outcomes it was completely acceptable. One challenges this POV (with academic sources, 0 WP:OR) and is instantly apologizing for Cheka, «totalitarian tendencies», and so on. Some here seem to forget enwiki is not exclusive to Americans, due to english being a lingua-franca. This «freak out» equating Marxism-Leninism or Communism, whose states today hold a high percentage of the world population, to Nazism, is completely absurd. Neutrality requires stating all significantly view points to each article, not just anticommunist ones. Also, I urge again to check the talk pages and edit summaries of each page, and keep in mind what the recent edits are, and what the old edits are. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very clear about this:

Bolshevism (Old or Stalinist) is the moral equivalent of Nazism.
Sino Soviet Communism is the moral equivalent of Fascism.
Both are colonialist, genocidal, anti-democratic, bureaucratic oligarchies headed by megalomaniac rulers who directed the enslavement of millions.

You are attempting to whitewash what is indisputably evil. A siteban should be added to topic ban sanctions. // Timothy :: talk 05:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Marxist-Leninist is fine, Gorbachev as an example was a Marxist-Leninist. Assuming an editor is not an apologist for Stalinist genocides which BunnyyHop by his actions very clearly denies that the Crimean genocide by the USSR never happens or was exaggerated and believes the Holodomor famine is western propaganda.

I want to make this clear there are many hard working Marxist-Leninist editors who don't add POV to articles and edit neutrally. This editor however is very clearly here only to spread their agenda and Marxist-Leninist POV, removes sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities, adds POV text into the article and after viewing this editor clearly not here to not here to build an Encylopedia.

BunnyyHop I really, really don't believe you didn't know what you were doing was violating NPOV, you clearly knew this was a violation of NPOV as you state the NPOV policy, and while you remove this massive section you tag it as "minor". You stated previously in an edit summary mentioning NPOV so you clearly knew it and two because you were showed what NPOV is. So you clearly knew what you did was a violation, you also tag the edit as "minor" how anyone could state this was in good faith, or how you thought removing a category from a discussion was a minor edit. You were given multiple chances to edit neutrally but it seems clear your just here to spread an agenda. If you want to soap-box that's fine, start a blog. Don't bring it to Wikipedia, it's not the place for it. Des Vallee (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. That explains the disregard for academic sources and the need to get me banned asap. Anyone who has not been indoctrinated by the HUAC school will understand what this is really about now. I'm not gonna go further than this, since I don't think I'm allowed and it wouldn't matter, to debate is not really the point. But colonialism, slavery, imperialism, exploration, wars, nazifascism, military dictatorships - were all justified by liberal ideology. There's no need to display such Chauvinism here. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop Screaming "WESTERN PROPAGANDA" to any citation you dislike. Going off on random tangents on how all western citations are some type of indoctrination scheme by the HUAC isn't helping you. Moreover going off stating that Liberalism is "colonialism, slavery, imperialism, exploration, wars, and nazifascism" really makes it really clear you aren't here to build an encyclopedia and just pushing fringe theories. Des Vallee (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

«Screaming "WESTERN PROPAGANDA" to any citation you dislike» What? When did that happen?

This is great. I reply to a guy who claims that Bolshevism is the "moral equivalent" of Nazism and you interpret it as me saying all Western citations are part a HUAC scheme. This is madness. Fringe theories? Pick up a history book for god's sake. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee Don't you think you're starting to cross the line? One thing is to misdescribe diffs, but accusing one of such absurdities? BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop You do this in which you go state attempt to defend well known Soviet pseudo intellectual who denies Soviet atrocities. Groven Furr is a known conspiracy theorist who think the Holodomor is a myth, states that Stalin never implemented mass terror upon his civilians, defends the use of the KGB by Stalin, states that the Uyghur genocide is a myth created by Western Media, that the Crimean Tatars allied with Nazi Germany and deserved to deported, that Peasants in Russia specifically burned down their crops instead of giving it the poor. This completely shows you not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to push your agenda and Marxist-Leninist fringe theories. Des Vallee (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read anything written by Grover Furr, so I can't even check if those are true or not, but one thing is certain - none of those are in the article, so my two cents would be that he is a known «conspiracy theorist» in your social circle (etc.). I have only heard about «Khrushchev Lied», and that's what made me check this article out. As for the diff, well, anyone simply has to look at the diff history. And the real diff (from insertion to removal) here. Remember, this is a WP:BLP --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly false, as you knew who Groven Furr was enough to feel confident to edit on him, if you haven't "read anything on Groven Furr" you state add sections to a person you supposedly know nothing about? This clearly fits your pattern of attempting to remove sections detailing anything critical of Marxism-Leninism. You added sections in which you added "accuse" to proven Marxist-Leninist atrocities, and soap-boxing Marxist-Leninist positions. After being here for four months, it's clear your not here to create an encyclopedia, if you need any more evidence you also replace "Stalinist" to Marxist here, despite it being referred to as Stalinist ideology. It's extremely clear your just here to try to spread Marxist-Leninism. Des Vallee (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just checked the source, which referred to him as a revisionist historian, contrary to what was stated in the article (which seemed fishy to me), as a denialist [historian], and I didn't add any sections. Again, that edit is from July and that paragraph has been removed for undue weight and non neutral editing. Once again, Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism, persistently trying to conflate the two even after you were warned might constitute POV pushing. BunnyyHop (^talk) 12:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

BunnyHope should receive a topic ban from History, Politics, and Philosophy related to Communism, Anarchy, and Socialism broadly construed based on POV TE editing.

This should not be a suprise to Bunnyhop, based on what I have said] and I believe others have also said. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: as proposed. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly per the evidence and reasoning above. A complete net negative to the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This editor is a determined POV pusher. The topic ban should be indefinite and broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, especially Crossroad's comments. — Czello 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - based numerous edits like that [6], [7], [8], discussions like here and persistent edit warring and disruption to keep "his versions". This subject area already has a number of leftist pro-Communist pro-Soviet POV-pushers. We do not need more. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment: I missed this and am glad My very best wishes pointed it out. I had been struggling to AGF regarding their attitude towards the Red Terror and Cheka, and that pushes my good faith past the breaking point. This inexcusable edit combined with the other issues here merits adding a site ban. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just a minor illustration that almost every single edit by this contributor was damaging for the content. But I must say that page Soviet democracy is a joke, a propaganda stunt, just as some other pages. This is an oxymoron. There wwas no any free elections in the Soviet Union or democracy in any meaningful sense such as "a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislators". As Robert Conquest said, that was "a set of phantom institutions and arrangements which put a human face on the hideous realities: a model constitution adopted in a worst period of terror and guaranteeing human rights, elections in which there was only one candidate, and in which 99 percent voted; a parliament at which no hand was ever raised in opposition or abstention." My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the reason for removal of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars from "Genocide of Indigenous peoples" is that it doesn't meet the definition of genocide according to most experts. See for example ""Related Atrocities" in Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century] (Leo Kuper, Yale University Press, 1981), which explains among other things why the deportation of the Crimean Tatars is not considered to be a genocide. TFD (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are genuinely denying that the Crimean Tatar Genocide isn't real? Irregardless removing a template and tagging it as minor against consensus is still clearly against the rules. There is universal consensus, from the UN, almost all scholars, Soviet archives, and even the Russian Government as recognizing it as a genocide. You can point to a single book but that doesn't prove your point. I have had fascists essentially state the same thing "The holocaust doesn't fit the technical definition of genocide", genuinely do you think the things you are typing are correct? Des Vallee (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. TFD demonstrates that the experts tell us the Deportation of Crimean Tatars is not considered a genocide, and a completely unrelated scarecrow is immediately used to «refute» his point. «Are you saying X genocide isn't real? Fascists also state the same according to the Holocaust, [implied that thereby you're doing the same as fascists]». «There is universal consensus, from the UN, almost all scholars, Soviet archives, and even the Russian Government as recognizing it as a genocide». You claim literally everyone recognises this as genocide. However, anyone simply has to look it up and see that this is not true. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Deportation of Crimean Tatars was described as a genocide in scholarly sources (consider book "Stalin's genocides" by Norman Naimark) and it was recognized as a genocide by at least three governemnts [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support This editor however is very clearly here only to spread their agenda and Marxist-Leninist POV, using Wikipedia as a battleground to try to advocate for themselves, their party or ideology. I really, really don't believe BunnyyHop didn't know what you were doing was violating NPOV, you clearly knew this was a violation of NPOV as you state the NPOV policy, and while you remove this massive section you tag it as "minor" so you clearly knew the policy on checking minor edits. If you want to soap-box that's fine, start a blog or a petition. Don't bring it to Wikipedia, it's not the place for it. Des Vallee (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Date: 5 October. I don't think anyone is willing to go through the gigantic talk page on Marxism-Leninism (which is almost coming to a closure [as in what should be done next]: there's consensus the scope of the article is not right, and must be changed. Check the last topic by a fantastic colleague willing to help us sort this out). Anyone who sees this must be aware of that talk page. Vallee, some of your edits are marked by anti-communism coupled with original research. The one about Lenin calling for multi-party democracy is just one of them. I'm here to give due weight on stuff I know that is verifiable by academic sources, that's my aim. Our disputes are sometimes particularly marked by personal attacks by your part, one just has to look through the talk pages and edit logs to see a pattern. I find it hard to argue about content when disputes turn to this. BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way, BunnyyHop? You don't appear to realize I extensively edited the page Soviet Union creating the section detailing the legacy and I was accused of being pro-communist. You can read it what about stating that there is large support for the former Soviet Union, as well on detailing leftist opposition against the USSR. As a leftist libertarian involved in multiple leftist organizations this genuinely hurts my brain. Is me reverting your edits on removal of sections a "synthesis" as you state? Irregardless bringing up useless personal attacks really isn't showing you are editing in good faith. You consistently remove sections of text that details atrocities, you have synthesized statements, you tag edits as minor that removes entire sections, edited warred extensively with other editors and was blocked for it. You ignored an immense amount of warnings on your behavior as well as wanting to put text into the article that details the "Removal of exploiters and opportunists" the hypocrisy of this statement. Des Vallee (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you did in Soviet Union little matters to me, I'm talking about the disputes. You have reverted edits for the most absurd reasons, claimed using quotes is forbidden, thinks Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, that atrocities should occupy a large portion of the lead, and so on. I have never replied like I did now - but you keep rambling on about the same thing in every revert, I'm actually running out of patience. You literally removed a section saying «Marxism-Leninism appeared in Soviet discourse as...» because it would be a "soapbox". Just check the talk page. This is the level of anti-communist POV pushing present in that page. And once again, there's no removal of "atrocities". Can we imagine inserting a whole paragraph into the lead of Liberalism detailing colonialism, slavery, etc. etc.? Your point to has been extensively argued against. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made by point. Des Vallee (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The walls-of-text discussion above is difficult to get through (which seems to me to be a deliberate choice by BH in order to deflect editors from evaluating their edits), but I was able to do so, at least enough to determine that BunnyyHop edits with their personal political biases and does not even try to adhere to NPOV. This seems to me to be totally unnecessary, as there are sufficient Marxist-oriented academic sources out there to counter any "Western" non-Marxist biases that may have worked their way into our articles -- but they must be countered and not eliminated, which seems to be BH's modus operandi. I am cognizant of the need for us to represent all viewpoints, but also of the need to differentiate between mainstream consensus and fringe points of view, which BH does not appear to recognize. I believe that BunnyyHop is indeed a disruptive editor, and that a topic ban as proposed above is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I would rather waste my time doing something else. What did I eliminate that is causing such distress? BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your replies, one additional colon for each new indent. No indentations makes a discussion very hard to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I'm sorry, I didn't see the indentation of the previous response BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said above, this appears to me to be a content dispute and I don't see any difference between the editing of the complainant and the respondent. In fact Des Vallee received 3 blocks in November including one for biased editing on U.S. politics and a block on editing an anarchism related article.[10] Also, I would reject it because of improper canvassing. Crossroads wrote above, "That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [11] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE." [12][20:44, 31 December 2020] In fact APPNOTE allows the notification of "uninvolved" editors. CANVASS clearly prohibits selective notification of editors based on how they are likely to vote. Since this article comes under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, I recommend that we post the notification to the article and follow up any disruption through Arbitration Enforcement. TFD (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, TFD is taking "uninvolved" out of context. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying Editors who have asked to be kept informed. If this isn't a case of that, then what is? I would have just watched Bunnyyhop's talk page anyway. And TFD is far more "involved" in this topic than me, as is Davide King who posts below. TFD's whataboutism and irrelevant "poisoning the well" about Des Vallee is completely irrelevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I encourage anyone reading your reply to read WP:APPNOTE and determine what it means. One of the reasons for sanctions on Eastern European related articles is canvassing: "While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive." (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Final Decision. ~~You were IIRC~~My very best wishes was one of the parties to the case.) In particular, editors had worked together to get editors blocked when they had content disputes. It is clear that if informed of this discussion that you would vote for sanctions against Bunnyyhop. TFD (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What!? I wasn't even editing at the time of that case! Stop trying to discredit me with nonsensical arguments and falsehoods. APPNOTE is very clear about the ping I requested and I would have made sure I knew about this report no matter what. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I recalled incorrectly. It was My Very Best Wishes under one of their previous names. In any case you read the case to see why canvassing other editors to get another editor blocked is disruptive. (Incidentally, in cases where it is appropriate to contact other editors, it is still considered canvassing, but not inappropriate canvassing. So let's stop with the arguments about whether it was canvassing and concentrate on whether it was appropriate.) TFD (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TFD. However, before I go to explain my reasoning, as I wrote here, I suggest that BunnyyHop refrain from editing these political-related articles, as a sign of good faith, and write drafts, sandboxs and discuss on the talk page their proposed changes and edits, gaining consensus for them. If they are a sockpuppett, that can be investigated. However, I agree that this is a content dispute. I would note that Des Vallee also engaged in violations of due weight, original research and synthesis to push their anarchist POVs; I do not think either should be banned because with more experience and time they are going to better understand our policies and guidelines. Finally, context is important. Communist-related articles are one of the most controversial and indeed the academic field is one of the most conflictual, controversial and politicised fields in academia.
- There is indeed a double standard, which take as fact that Communism was equal or even worse than Nazism, something that is not actually supported by the vast majority of experts. It is simply assumed and taken for granted that sources and scholars agree that ideology alone, not just Bolshevism but communism itself of which Bolshevism was the natural and inevitable result, was to blame. This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism, so they are not in their articles because they fail weight, and there is nothing I can do about it, although an article about a link between capitalism/liberalism and the events could be made. Going back to Marxism–Leninism, I would argue they also fail weight for this article; as written here by Czar, it is supposed to be about the ideology, not anything that Communist leaders and states did. We already have a bunch of other articles, perhaps too many and coatracked, for that.
- In conclusion, if Crossroads rightly warning me about canvassing, I do not see how this was not canvassing, so I agree with TFD on this point too and also of applying the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. For the record, I am pro-European Union, anti-Putin, anti-Trump, anti-Stalinism. I simply believe one can oppose Communist leaders without being an anti-communist or adopting anti-communism, which is not any opposition to communism but an extreme opposition to communism, which usually conflates communism and Stalinism; the same way anti-fascist does not just mean anyone who is not a fascist but one who is actively opposed to it. I do not see how any of these are extreme views.
- If you are curious about my views of Communist states, I think the following comment by TFD here is what I hold too. "I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise." I do not hold the view Communism and Nazism were equal, nor I believe in the double genocide theory. I think Nazism was the worst and Communism had more in common with 19th-century capitalism and liberalism. In other ways, both Communism and 19th-century liberalism had similarities with Nazism. 19th-century Western racism and white supremacism was a precursor of Nazi racism, but Nazism was still the greatest evil. I always found curious how those who hold Communism and Nazism as equal do not hold the theory of red fascism, or that both were fascism, but that they were totalitarian. If everything the anti-communist scholars about Communist states is true, I do not see how they can even be considered communists, as if they are right, they were much more similar to fascists and Nazis. Yet, instead of coming to this obvious conclusion, they both group and separate the two, so as to blame small-communism, socialism and the broad left, for Communism and Nazism were the inevitable results of them. Whatever one think of this, these are not exactly my views, since I simply came to held these from reading on the topics and what legitimate academics and scholars have written, the same way I usually but not always take the academic and scholarly consensus on other issues and topics. I do not see any of these views of mine as extreme or fringe. If they are, it should be very easy to prove.
Davide King (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism - yes, that is exactly why. Glad to see it admitted. Davide King is also heavily involved in the controversy at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it admitted there is indeed a double standard, even if held by reliable sources; that is not what I disputed, so I do not get what your point was. As for being "heavily involved in the controversy", I do not see that is relevant any more than you and others, when I have agreed and disagreed with both users on some issues and others. In addition, I believe a good solution to the controversy, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, has been settled here by Czar. Davide King (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you before, sources about Marxism-Leninism, just like books about liberalism, fascism and other ideologies, concentrate on the ideology. TFD (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while it appears that BH is pushing a POV, Des Vallee too appears to have equally participated. I suggest that both spend time on the talk pages and find a way forward. Perhaps a senior admin can help mediate. Vikram Vincent 21:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter even if a majority call for a ban. Before a ban all options need to be invoked. Vikram Vincent 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason to oppose anything being done about Bunnyyhop. That editor's behavior is a timesink for everyone. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at least one attempt should be made to follow Vincentvikram's suggestion and my suggestion that they for some time refrain themselves from editing such articles, only discussing on the talk page, propose their edits there and gain consensus, which would essentially already be a mini topic ban from editing. By all means, if all of this fails, they may be topic-banned but at least an attempt should be made. Remember that such bans or blocking are supposed to be reformative and preventive, not punitive ("Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals)" from Wikipedia:Blocking policy). If Bunnyyhop are topic-banned, a similar discussion should be raised for Des Vallee, since now at least two users noticed this and Des Valee was indeed already temporarily blocked a few times for POV pushing and edits at anarchist-related articles. I do not think either should be blocked but both need to calm down and find a way forward with a mediator, as suggested by Vikram Vincent. Davide King (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already have collectively sunk enormous amounts of time into addressing the editor's tendentiousness on talk pages. More time-wasting is not the answer. WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE address this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a waste of time, when we can make them learn and improve. I agree with Czar that any user lost is a loss because, if reformed, they could have been one more good contributor. They also highlighted some issues which were true, namely that a given ref did not actually say what was in text and several cases where the source was not about the ideology and/or did not even mention Marxism–Leninism. Surely that is synthesis? Disagreeing about the main topic (they want it about the ideology) and other users about whatever Communist leaders and states did, which in my view caused several misunderstanding, warrants a further discussion, not a topic ban. Davide King (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban is most assuredly not for merely "disagreeing about the main topic". Crossroads ^-talk- 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Vincentvikram gave the better solution, i.e. "thrash out the issues on the respective article talk pages." The dispute between the two users involved seems to because they hold two different leftist perspectives that clash with each other. Davide King (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can go through my edit history, and I rarely edit articles relating to anarchism. And if you want to point out sections in which I remove sections on genocides, remove sections on atrocities of anarchists, add text that states anarchism requires the liberation of humanity. Or you can try to find sections in which I remove entire paragraphs I dislike and tag them as "minor", state Anarchist fringe theories. Point out multiple warnings I have had for POV pushing sections on anarchist articles. Or point out if I ever added text that states the "Liquidation of the hostile classes". If you can find those edits please point them out. I mean I really do have a single use account like BunnyyHop. I mostly edit pages now relating to Biology and as seen of my edits on Mycelium, I was clearly trying to get people towards the ideology of anarchist-myceliumism. Des Vallee (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whether we acknowledge it or not, a lot of us have very strong opinions one way or another w.r.t. certain topics and this is one of them. Without exhausting WP:DR, going in for a ban of any sort would not really be prudent since I gather the issue is more content than anything else. This complaint itself was a major time sink and I felt it was meant to overwhelm than resolve. Having seen a few other contentious ANI reports I think this one can be resolved better. Have some tea(or your favourite drink) and thrash out the issues on the respective article talk pages. Vikram Vincent 03:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, I agree. While still authoritarian, Marxism–Leninism is not Stalinism; and contrary to what has been stated below, "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." Citing an article (Mass killings under communist regimes), which has been such a controversial article and that many of the issues has not been yet solved as clearly showed by the many discussion, is not a good reason.

I think No Nazis is enough and we need not to push an equivalency or double genocide theory between Communism and Nazism as fact; indeed, following the logic of these who advocate for ban due to mass killings (even though "most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"), we might have to ban those who push an equivalency between Communism and Nazism as Holocaust relativisation, obfuscation and denial. If "anyone unapoligicically POV pushing an ideology that has resulted in mass killings ought to be banned", I guess all liberals and conservatives must go, too, as "[g]overnments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings." Colonialism, imperialism, racism and slavery have all been justified on conservative and/or liberal principles. Do we ban all conservatives and liberals, too?

"I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology." This applies equally well to conservatives, liberals, nationalists and pretty much any ideology. No ideology but fascism is without its bad apples and sheeps. As I stated, I think No Nazis is enough. We need not to ban people on their political views without exhausting dispute resolution. Davide King (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Marxism–Leninism is not Stalinism"? Oh, no. Exactly as our page tells, "As an ideology, it was [further] developed by Joseph Stalin in the 1920s based on his understanding and synthesis of orthodox Marxism and Leninism". My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If what you stated was accurate, then Marxism–Leninism ought to be deleted as content fork of Stalinism, yet that is not what you advocated. As written here by Czar, "ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. [...] Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole." It cannot be reduced to Stalin and Stalinism. Stalin's formulation is called Marxism–Leninism but so was Khrushchev, Gorbachev and other Communist leaders'. Our page also distinguishes "the political philosophy and state ideology of several self-professed socialist states" from "the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin", so why cherrypicking only that? Either way, all of this is irrelevant and your comment is better discussed at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. My point is, you are free to think Communism and Nazism were equal or that totalitarianism is an undisputed fact rather than a concept not supported by all scholars but these should not be used to ban a user, when Vincentvikram's suggestion is better. Davide King (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to clear this up, further below, in the Definition and terminology section, it's stated «[...] Marxism–Leninism, namely the interpretation of Marxism by Vladimir Lenin and his successors» «From the very beginning, Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. In the 1920s, it was first defined and formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism». The contradiction between the lead and the body is an example of the conflation and confusion of the current state of the article. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not only Stalin who developed further the Marxist-Leninist "theory" and practice. As our page correctly tells, With the death of Stalin and de-Stalinisation, Marxism–Leninism underwent several revisions and adaptations such as Guevarism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, Hoxhaism, Maoism, socialism with Chinese characteristics and Titoism.. This is all well sourced on the page. This is not my view. And the page is in good condition. There are no contradictions. However, based on your comments, I can see that you guys are not familiar with the subject. This is fine. None of us is an expert in this. Unless, you POV-push the subject, as you apparently do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment here and please reply me there, so as not to go off topic. Davide King (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Leninism-Stalinism is a pseudoscience (ref) and an ideology used to justify mass murder. And no, liberalism does not incite violence. But the Intensification of the class struggle under socialism does. This is a political slogan (not science), which is only notable as a "justification" of Great Purge. Same with other parts of this "teaching". Same can be said about Nazi "theory" and ideology. The similarity is actually striking, including common antisemitism, as many scholars (such as Hannah Arendt) described in depth in their books. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Since this entire thread is more about content than behaviour and all feel so strongly about their "beliefs" I would like to point out that the USA has killed more people both directly and indirectly in the name of setting up "democracies" in different parts of the world and there is enough of data to show that. Does that make democracy a problematic concept? No. The point I am trying to make is that if you have a problem with the content then go to the content talk page and hash it out till the cows come home. WP:ANI is about behaviour and the editor in question cannot be penalised for holding a different view point even if dont like it for very stoeng reasons. Vikram Vincent 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my longer comment here. Going back to the topic of this thread, the bottom line is that the user in question is not a Stalinist and they do not advocate or support the "Intensification of the class struggle under socialism" theory, so I think the point is moot. There is not a single ideology that is without atrocities and violence in practice, and the user in question has not advocated or supported the extermination of races or classes. They can be redirected to read scholarly books that reflect consensus on a given topic, so that they understand what the consensus is and whether their proposed edits goes against it; and if so, is it a minority or fringe view? In general, let us make them better understand our policies and guidelines; they have shown they have learned from some guidelines they did not know about it. At Talk:Slavery, they have shown there can be a respectful discussion with them. I see a permanent ban as far too punitive for the time being. Davide King (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you posted a typical revisionist rant with ridiculous claims like liberal philosopher John Locke being just as bad as Lenin and Stalin (who personally ordered extrajudicial killing of nearly a million of people during Great Purge), that dictator Augusto Pinochet was a liberal, that mass killings by Communist states are not a fact and other things like that. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, anyone unapoligicically POV pushing an ideology that has resulted in mass killings ought to be banned. --Nug (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure this is not the spirit of an ANI discussion even for a call for ban. Vikram Vincent 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, that's definitely not grounds for a ban. You can try an RfC for a new policy if you want. MarioGom (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nug. There are several specific ideologies that justify discrimination and extermination of people just because they have different ethnicity (Nazism, racism) or belong to a different social group (Soviet and old Chinese versions of "communism"), which all resulted in millions victims. That is why the European Parliament declared Black Ribbon Day. Claim by David King that liberalism , for example, advocates the same is absurd and shows that he does not understand this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment here and please reply me there, so as not to go off topic. Davide King (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check page hate crime. It does not matter if the perpetrators target victims because of their membership of a certain social group or race. This is basically the argument by Stéphane Courtois. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my longer comment here, where you can reply me there. Going back to the topic of this thread, which is what I would like for you to respond here, I still think RandomGnome made a good observation here. In addition, here, Bunnyyhopp made a good analysis of a source that was original research; and at Talk:Slavery they had a normal discussion with both you and Das Vallee that avoided personal attacks, showing that both users can improve and there is no need to permanently ban either; they may both, or one of the two, be banned for some time due to disruptive behavior (and use the time off to calm down and restart in a better, more cordial way from both sides) but otherwise they should not be permanently banned and should strive to always have a respectful discussion as it was the case at Talk:Slavery. Davide King (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment: This [13] and the follow up here [14], plus this and this elevate the seriousness of these POV edits. This is going down a very bad path. // Timothy :: talk 18:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A new topic was opened in Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour. For the last diff, one has to look at TFD's comment. After looking at the «cultural genocide» citation on the current article, I opened a new topic on the Talk:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#Cultural_Genocide. The removal of a journalist's opinion from a WP:BLP stated as fact is POV pushing? BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support BunnyHop is clearly here to push a POV, and isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as demonstrated by the vast amount of diffs provided by Des Vallee. Also, I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology, but either way, POV pushing cannot be tolerated no matter what the POV is. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just another political content dispute. I see, however, that this ANI report crosses the line on political discrimination. First, a supposed (and unproven) political affiliation is used as a one of the points justifying a block (note this is not a COI dispute). A supposed (and unproven) political affiliation to a party that is legal and with parliamentary representation in Portugal and the European Union. Not that this matter for the main jurisdiction of Wikipedia, since discrimination against communists is codified in US law, but a lot of us are used to live in countries where this kind of discrimination is illegal (not a legal threat: I know this has no standing in the US). --MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom, I did not think about this but you are right. Apparently, just because Communism is held as equal as Nazism, even though scholars disagree on this and the few who support it are "revisionists", political discrimination against real and alleged communists is perfectly fine. This is false equivalency and Holocaust trivialisation and obfuscation at worse. This really is a political content dispute, which has been magnified by the fact these are controversial articles; we all hold "strong opinions one way or another w.r.t. certain topics and this is one of them." Let these two users solve their issues with a mediator through the respective talk page of the disputed articles in question. Davide King (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom This user has denied mass killings by the NKVD, denied the Crimean Tatar Genocide, denied the Uyghur genocide, pushes fringe theories on Stalin, denies the Holodomor even happened, constantly adds POV sections, removes any section he dislikes and tags those edits as minor, promotes known Stalinist fringe theorists, and is constantly warned on his behavior. This user clearly isn't here to build an Encyclopedia, has been constantly been warned but he still keeps up his disruptive edits. These edits constantly break rules regarding towards towards fringe theories, original research, genocidal denial. Genocidal denial and creating an open encyclopedia are impossible. Des Vallee (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are all strong claims, which from what I have seen do not actually represents reality. They never edited Holodomor and the only comment they made was here, where they stated "[p]lease read the guidelines. WP:Criticism; There's an open discussing on the Holodomor, since there's no academic consensus whether it was intentional or not. Cold war research backs the former, more modern ones generally backs the latter. Your attitude shows really well you aren't here to have a WP:NPV. This isn't discussable, you have to follow the guidelines." I do not see how that is denialism. In addition, you really need to stop falsely accusing users of genocide denial as you did here. As we write at List of genocides by death toll, "[t]he term genocide is contentious and as a result its academic definition varies." There is also a difference between the many definitions of genocide and its legal definition as outlined by the Genocide Convention. Not thinking an event, for which there is no clear consensus among scholars, fits the genocide definition is not denialism; denialism is denying the events happened in the first place; and not considering something a genocide may constitute denialism only for these events for which there is overwhelming consensus they were genocide such as the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, among others. Genocide requires intentional action and genocidal intent. Davide King (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee, This user has denied mass killings by the NKVD, denied the Crimean Tatar Genocide, denied the Uyghur genocide What were the diffs for these ones again? Because it looks like a mischaracterization of some of the diffs you posted. For example, the usage of the term genocide beyond its original usage (physical elimination of a group of population) is a matter of debate, specially when expanded to areas like cultural genocide. Deportation of the Crimean Tatars#Genocide question and recognition gives good account of that. Discussing the characterization of an event is not the same as denying the event itself. I think that's a content dispute that can use some third opinion or other forms or mediation, rather than sanctions.

Also, regarding the stuff about PCP, I would suggest striking that from the report. Since you have already been told that the user did not claim PCP membership as you said, and I verified that your statement on that was wrong. As I said, I don't think it would matter anyway, but that doesn't mean that should stand uncorrected. --MarioGom (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davide King He clearly denies the Tatar genocide here and tags that edit as "minor" something which is a clear violation, he denies the Holodomor and mass atrocities never happened here as you wouldn't add "accused" to proven killings. He goes and supports Chinese backed conspiracy theories that, Adrian Zen created a narrative of genocide of the Uyghur minority. Users have tried to work with him but he keeps his disruptive editing behavior, he isn't going to change because he clearly isn't here for any other reason then to spread his POV. Des Vallee (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a proof of denial; they explained this above and I believe they removed it because on the talk page there was a discussion, which was not about whether it was a genocide, but whether they were indigenous people; again, that does not prove they denied it never happened and that is actually the right wording since there is no consensus it was a genocide (see the Holodomor genocide question) and it also misses the main issue of contention, namely that the article is supposed to be about the ideology but it has become a coatrack for anything Communist leaders and states did, which is, or should be, already covered elsewhere (see these comments by Czar); and finally, I do not see how that supports what you claim, they simply attribute it to Zenz, so I do not get how following Wikipedia:Attribution suddenly means they "support[ed] Chinese backed conspiracy theories" or that "Adrian Zen created a narrative of genocide of the Uyghur minority." Davide King (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee: I think it should have had a better summary and not tagged as minor, but I think this edit is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Listing Deportation of the Crimean Tatars in a template without context as a "documented instance of genocide" in Wikipedia voice actually contradicts the bulk content of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars article itself. The edit is not a denial of deportations or deaths (what you seem to imply), it seems to be a refusal to characterize it as genocide in Wikipedia voice, which is in line with the current content of the main article. MarioGom (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this: He clearly denies the Tatar genocide here and tags that edit as "minor" something which is a clear violation, he denies the Holodomor and mass atrocities never happened here as you wouldn't add "accused" to proven killings. He goes and supports Chinese backed conspiracy theories that, Adrian Zen created a narrative of genocide of the Uyghur minority, something which is false as reports prior detail extreme abuse. It was a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and was warned for it, that template is based around consensus something which was clearly for calling it a genocide. The decision was to keep it as a genocide. The removal of the template was quickly reverted, and the decision was to keep it as a genocide. BunnyyHop also denies it as cultural genocide as well, a complete fringe theory so he both denies both the Tatar genocide as both a genocide or a cultural genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the first edit, I challenge you to find a misused minor edit after this warning. On the second one, the source is only related to the Holodomor, but China and Poland were also there, so I changed it to accuse (due to this and the fact that modern scholarship leans to not-genocide). However, this was before I had come across MOS. Accuse was added to «Totalitarianism» due to it being a category which is becoming defunct within academia. On China, literally, who wrote this article? This is literally basic attribution to comply with WP:NPOV, although I assume the other articles are a little out of touch there. Not even the sources report it as true, the BBC, which quotes an article where Zenz states stuff, has the title «Xinjiang cotton sparks concern over 'forced labour' claims». On the Tatar, one simply has to look at the source. The article is about Ukraine, yet there's not even a single mention of Tatar populations. And even then - cultural genocide is used only in the title and in «Western misperceptions of Ukraine in the past have had grave policy consequences by actually legitimating the repression, Russification, semanticide and cultural genocide of non-Russian peoples with an ensuing loss of millions of lives...». Apparently the OCR of the article is not the best, Tatars are mentioned twice - «In 1223,the Tatars attacked Russia» and «[...] waves of Celts, Huns, Goths, Arabs, Vikings and Tatars who created the political and cultural map of Europe. The year 988 AD marked the [...]». Furthermore, the Crimean peninsula was part of the Russian Empire since 1783, and when the USSR was founded it became an autonomous republic within the RSFSR. Only in 1954 it was given to the UkSSR BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to note that a large number of votes calling for a ban are directly linked to content (again) rather than behaviour. I feel Des Vallee has made their point and is in fact repeating it multiple times and hence is requested to step back. I feel WP:Boomerang might be necessary in this case since DV is equally guilty of the issues they accuse BH of. Vikram Vincent 05:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other peoples' "votes". And no whataboutism here nor baseless accusations of "the OP is just as bad". The evidence above is clear and can be evaluated by uninvolved editors just fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am looking at the reasons being given and it is a fair observation. Also there is no whataboutism involved but another observation that both editors are equally involved which is why WP:DR is a better alternative than the drama board. Vikram Vincent 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't a dispute for DR, this is a report about one editor's behavior across numerous articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram Fair enough, I glad we can agree at least that BunnyyHop is a disruptive editor. If you want to provide diffs of me doing the same thing as BunnyyHop that's fair, please provide them. Wikipedia also isn't a democracy and it's hard to see BunnyyHop's actions as other then apologia for Stalinist massacres, and trying to push their POV. All edits provided have been reverted because they all break Wikipedia's rules, BunnyyHop simply has a long pattern of them. BunnyyHop has been warned about this and most people here can agree he clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Des Vallee (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about finding healthy solutions to a problem. Des Vallee Your huge amount of text in this entire thread is problematic which is why I have requested to stop. Vikram Vincent 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram He won't change. Other administrators have tried to change BunnyyHop's behavior, it won't stop because BunnyyHop has been warned so many times. He was given so many opportunities to change his behavior. He isn't going to stop making these disruptive edits because he clearly is aware his edits have been disruptive, pretty much every editor who has ever edited with BunnyyHop can attest to him being a POV pusher. Des Vallee (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BunnyyHop's personal views are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm always disturbed to see editors proposing that another editor should be sanctioned simply for holding, or being perceived to hold, a certain 'distasteful' political viewpoint. If Bunnyyhop refuses to adhere to policy as reflected directly through his edits, despite repeated warnings, then sanctions are most definitely appropriate and needed for the good of the encyclopedia. Attempts to amplify an editor's alleged misdeeds by applying moral guilt by association because they're aligned with a particular ideology or political figure, is nothing but a slippery slope that encourages disturbing political and moral purity tests among editors. RandomGnome (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is precedent for extreme political views leading to a ban: WP:NONAZIS. Nonetheless, the evidence above is clear that the ban is warranted regardless of the editor's personal views. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I am sympathetic to the spirit of WP:NONAZIS because I think it's a genuine effort to combat blatant racism, it's an essay and not official policy. The essay itself points to the enormity of the 'gray area' over claims of extremism, by carefully including the caveat that claims of racism should not be made lightly or misused as a trump card to sanction editors over content disputes. Applying NONAZIS to BunnyyHop by attempting to create a moral equivalency to his 'extreme political views' and using that argument as a cudgel is inappropriate, and equates to the slippery slope I mentioned earlier. RandomGnome (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the user is clearly NOTHERE (at least partially)~~, and banish to Uncyclopedia, per Des Vallee~~. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Des Vallee logs to the top of the page as they have already been blocked on three occassions for edit warring on other pages and the complaint has to be taken with that in mind. Vikram Vincent 06:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Des Vallee part in this wall of text drama should be reviewed by the closing admins. // Timothy :: talk 07:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose admin action against Des Vallee (although admins can look at their contribs of course; not real clear what's being "voted" on here). "Walls of text" is not a real offense or at all equal to Bunnyyhop's disruption, and prejudging someone or their report at all based on their past failings is just wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue I am fine can review my edits by admins, so I support it in that sense. If you would like to go through my contributions and find disruptive edits by all means go ahead.
Crossroads It is a review, not an action. If you can find any disruptive edits like BunnyyHop please go ahead. I am perfectly fine with being reviewed. Des Vallee (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee Two editors have now put that up now. please do not remove your log link from above. We can discuss your approach within this thread itself. No need to start another thread with so much text again. Vikram Vincent 07:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram It seems like you are the one pushing this. However could you provide diffs to this? You keep stating this with no actual examples. Provide examples or even an example or stop stating something without diffs. Des Vallee (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that Des Vallee is trying to brow beat me by going though my edit history and questioning me on my talk page and an article page. Vikram Vincent 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram No, great in assuming bad faith however. I like going through users history and saw you had a near identical name to article in question that's it. As stated I don't know anything on that article and as stated just I simply asked a question. Des Vallee (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee Who are the other editors from this thread you have questioned about their edit? Vikram Vincent 08:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram Ok then please provide a diff. You keep stating this without a diff, provide some evidence or an example. Des Vallee (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee if I am the only editor, who opposed your proposal, whose edit history you checked out and then commented, then cease your behaviour at once! Vikram Vincent 08:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Des Vallee your conduct in the articles can be examined, and so can your conduct here. You have been a disruption in this thread, and you have helped BunnyHop obscure the central issue of this thread - their POV and fringe pushing - in endless walls of text. You've more than earned a topic ban from ANI for DE; others can examine your contributions to pages related to this issue and will see the same type of behavior, endless walls of text that amount to DE because they hinder conversations, not help them.

This back and forth, tit for tat, wall of text needs to stop. // Timothy :: talk 08:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue Can you provide a diff towards this? I rarely edit on pages relating to Marxism-Leninism. Can you provide a diff towards the disruptive editing? I won't post much here anymore. I also have a solution for walls of text. Des Vallee (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Des Vallee, listen to Timothy. Even reporters have no immunity, regardless an editor spotted you and a few who is opposing sanctions agains Bunnyhoop are supporting, just let it go. The reviewing admin likely will check everything, so you don't have to be afraid or desperately prove your innocence, do not feed anyone to draw away the attention of the real issue of this thread. For every neutral reviewer is clear there have been serious problems with Bunnyhoop since his/her appearance in WP, and of course you do not even approach such problems like the reported user. I think Timothy has been a bit harsh with you in his previous comment, but if he wanted to scare you :), the earlier the better. Just drop the stick, and let admins wo work, they have already enough information. I can assure/reinforce anyway, shall anything you did in the past and anyone blame for you that for now, I consider you are recently a decent, collaborative editor, at least this is my experience in the recent months. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Des Vallee, I will double back by saying listen to KIENGIR. I was harsh in my tone, and I apologize. I agree with KIENGIR, you are a good, collaborative editor. One thing I have learned at ANI and on talk is use the minimum number of words possible to make your point; once made let the quality of your arguement, not your tenacity and word count, make the point. // Timothy :: talk 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and also support restriction for anyone engaged with the BunnyHop in any similar conduct, should it exist. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: See [15] regarding the removal of information regarding the genocide of the Crimean Tartars. I have reverted the edit and added refs. // Timothy :: talk 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, the edit you reverted was by me, and not by any of the editors being discussed here. My contribution is explained in the talk page and I haven't warred over it. If you think my contributions should be subject to examination at WP:ANI, please, feel free to report me. In any case, please, I would ask you to avoid referring to my contributions at any WP:ANI without properly notifying me at my talk page. MarioGom (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom, I did not reference you, I specifically referenced the discussion section on the talk page, which Bunnyhop is involved in. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's difficult to support sanctions on one editor in a dispute when others are behaving just as badly, and it should be unacceptable to discriminate based on political viewpoint, however unpopular. Like TFD, I think that any further disruption in this area would be better handled at AE. (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, we don't know about "others are behaving just as badly", and noone is "discriminated based on political viewpoint", the edits have been clearly problematic, even regarded like that at occasions by those who do not even support sanctions here.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Reply: This is not about viewpoints or content; it is about conduct in discussions and editing behavior. The walls of text about the content dispute have obscured this. If others deserve sanctions, they should be pursued, but this is irrelevant to addressing the subject of this proposal. // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue here is not holding a political view (that is OK, unless the views are too extreme which might be the case), but POV pushing these views in WP. The POV-pushing is obvious from their edits, such as this where Bunnyhop removes not only all criticism of Marxism-Leninism as an ideology, but also any metions of the real life accomplishments of this ideology, i.e. "high degree of centralised control by the state and communist party, political repression, state atheism, collectivisation" and so on. This is not just a content disagreement, but a civil POV-pushing at worst, and a significant sink of time for everyone involved in these discussions. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, I find it to be bad-faith to link to a diff and not mention that it was made within the context of a twelfth break discussion in Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Furthermore, one also has to read that discussion to see that I was always tried to be open to constructive criticism, and I found Davide King's replies in the talk page particularly friendly and welcoming to a relatively new user. On this extremely delicated topic, one cannot expect flawless editing from a beginner, but when the usage of the sandbox, for instance, was recommended to me, I imediately began using it. When Davide explained why my edits did not fit the page, something on the lines of «it might be their POV on the ideology, but it isn't the POV of scholars», I immediately understood the problem and backed down. On the «POV pushing» you describe here - the problem is that those things are not on the scope of the article, which there's currently consensus on, after a long debate and the intervention of editors certainly more experienced than me.

At one point, long after that revert, I pointed out «in the article, 39% of the total is analysis and 61% is ideology. However, in the lead, 30% is ideology and 70% is analysis. The roles are completely reverted». It would be the same to include in most of the lead of the Liberalism article its long history of slavery, colonialism, support for military dictatorships, and so on. One might now point out «Even though it's a big percentage of the lead solely dedicated to criticism, the article is about liberalism, not its history!» and you'd be right. The next step is for it to be rewritten - and to say this was a huge sink of time - maybe for you it was, but not for those who insisted in reaching a more neutral, informative and verifiable article. BunnyyHop (^talk) 15:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit (diff above) you removed all criticism and everything about well sourced practices/implementations of this ideology. Instead, you included essentially an advertisment/propaganda like "As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality", "it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation", etc. "Science"? I am sorry, but Leninism is a pseudoscience [16] just like Lysenkoism, in addition to being an ideology and practices. Consider someone removing two last paragraphs from the lead of page Nazism and replacing it by an advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was not correct, but it has already been adressed a long, long time ago, it does not make sense to bring it up. The only paragraph removed was the massive criticism on the lead - the biggest paragraph out of 3 in fact - which was the object of discussion. I did not know what consensus was nor how to properly use the talk page. Again - one has to look at the complicacy of this topic to see how one can't ask flawlessness from a beginner. As for that edit, I was properly sentenced to 3 days for warring iirc. Also, the opinion of one scholar - which is apparently not very cited per Google Scholar, is not equivalent to academic consensus, you can't just state it's a pseudoscience - and this is something I also learned from that discussion with more experienced editors. BunnyyHop (^talk) 16:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya-8974, again

Indeffed by Rosguill. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I hate that I have to be back here again regarding Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs), but his conduct at RfD is still deep in the "net negative" territory. To catch you up, he was topic banned from creating redirects in March 2020. In September, there was broad consensus for a strengthening of his topic ban, but unfortunately the thread was archived without action. Since then, Soumya's behavior has frankly gotten even worse. Today, Soumya submitted a flood of 24 separate RfD nominations for simple retarget requests (Thankfully CycloneYoris cleaned up his mess). Some of them have no rationale, like a simple Retarget to Kashmir. with no explanation why. Another, Cassimere, Soumya falsely claims that it's "not a valid spelling", which a simple WP:BEFORE would show otherwise. Note that Soumya is not banned from retargeting and he knows this; for example he boldly but incorrectly retargeted Canadien just last month, so it's unclear why he would flood RfD with these requests instead of boldly doing it himself. Going back to yesterday, we find a simple vote with no explanation at the RfD for Bahmin, and some misleading rationale editing at the RfD for National capital territory, that required a discussion at his talk page from Thryduulf. Going back one more day (still in 2021), there was a questionable nomination of English nation. There was a telling reply from Mutt Lunker there: Typical of the slapdash, uncomprehending approach of this editor, I have come to appreciate. I'll stop at 2021, but there are many, many more examples I can bring up if necessary. I've been saying this since last March, but the only way this behavior will stop is with an indefinite topic ban on redirects, broadly construed, and I hope you will agree. This isn't my wheelhouse, but it may also be worth examining a topic ban from ethnic groups (especially Kashmir) since I've noticed others have been frustrated with his efforts there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is highly prolific, doubtless well-intentioned and quite possibly making many positive contributons to this project but my heart sinks whenever I register an edit of theirs on my watchlist. My overwhelmingly experience of their editing is that of hasty, bold and sweeping changes or proposals, made with neither care nor understanding. If they slowed down, did some research or just stuck to what they knew, matters might be different but after months of observing the considerable collateral damage of their activities, they seem to be pursuing quantity, not quality, in a bull-in-a-china-shop fashion. This can not continue. I too can give multiple examples if required. I will say that they do seem to be receptive to constructive criticism on individual isssues but the amount of work they are generating in having to clear up after them and explain their errors is an overall drain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban from redirects, broadly interpreted. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to correct basic errors in procedure, basic errors in understanding of policies, guidelines, essays, etc. that indicate that if they've even taken the time to read them they haven't been understood. Soumya has been here for over three years and has been contributing to RfD for months - we shouldn't have to be repeatedly explaining basic concepts (like don't edit your comments after others have replied to them) that most editors grasp either intuitively or within a matter of days of editing. I will look up the link if desired, but yesterday was at least the second time I've had to comment about misleading edits to their RfD comments. I have not looked in detail at their contributions regarding Kashmir, but the comment on their user talk page from M Imtiaz suggests that competence is lacking there too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding competence on Kashmir pages, I have had limited interaction with this editor but I have nonetheless been left frustrated. Breaking edits to templates have been made with no attempt to clean it up and attempts to elicit a rationale behind the edits have been met with silence. The editor seems more preoccupied with the userboxen on their user page than with addressing concerns on their talk page; this has been the case with many editors' questions there. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Corrected 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but yeah, Sdrqaz hits the nail on the head, and I don't think I have anything to add other than that a WP:ENGAGE block might also be worth considering at least in the short term, given their refusal to even participate in this ANI discussion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I find it concerning that some of the editor's contributions to userboxen have been to create User:UBX/Sinophobia and User:UBX/CCP virus, the former of which is displayed on their user page. That seems ... problematic. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they're not wrong about that first one, though, are they... ^[FBDB] M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC) edited 02:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha I find it highly unusual that an editor will be so explicit about their prejudices. It's possibly one of the most blatant violations of userbox/user page guidelines I've seen. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He created Wikipedia:Userboxes/COVID-19 and most of the templates listed there, including this, this, and this. Nardog (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog, I did see that too, but I thought the Sinophobia/CCP virus ones were the worst so only listed them here! I've nominated the CCP one for speedy deletion. I gave the editor the benefit of the doubt for the North Korean one and the WWIII one, believing them to be possibly tongue-in-cheek. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I created the Sinophobia userbox on the right place, under a user page, since the userbox was controversial. See WP:Userbox migration. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya, the issue isn't where you created the userbox. The issue is that you created the userbox in the first place. I know that many editors ignore WP:UBCR, but that userbox was not just simply controversial. It was inflammatory or divisive. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now that we have evidence of disruption in at least three separate topics (I agree those are some concerning userboxes), along with a failure to engage or even acknowledge his shortcomings (he has been editing elsewhere despite a nudge from Liz on his talk page to participate here), I think it's in the best interest to upgrade my recommendation to a full ban. If we topic ban him from everywhere there is disruption, we'll end up topic banning him from all of his interests... -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indefinite block is in order. The competence issues are bad enough, but the anti-Chinese comments are honestly enough to merit a block by themselves, and his response to that issue being raised has been severely lacking. We should not be bending over backwards to teach a self-declared bigot to edit constructively. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. This gives me further doubt the user is here to build an encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my latency, but I want to say that I wanted to do the right thing to improve the encyclopedia. However, the users above has have shown in this section that much of my contributions are ended up being problematic. I acknowledge this but I can't realise why it is occuring. Maybe Gosh don't let me to improve an encyclopedia that aims to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's the typical outcome when it's felt that someone is causing more harm than benefit to said encyclopaedia, and I appreciate you recognising that. That said, I'd suggest the other editors in this thread not think much of this user's "semi-retirement", given the likelihood that they'll return quietly sometime after the discussion once the scrutiny has reduced a bit. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having now seen the userboxes, the comments regarding China and the opinions of those familiar with the Kashmir topic I unfortunately cannot object to a full ban. The only alternative would be a topic ban from Kashmir, China and redirects, all broadly interpreted but that would likely either be the same as a full ban or move the disruption to some other area. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to implement an indefinite, broad topic ban alongside a full ban for a defined period, say a month, to allow the user to have a wee word with themself? If they can't direct their efforts constructively to matters outisde the topic ban thereafter, no slack, short shrift and a full ban imposed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: If there is consensus for it then that is entirely possible. I don't know off the top of my head whether I support it or not, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that suggestion. Either they are likely to be a net negative in all areas, in which case a full ban is warranted, or they can contribute constructively in other areas, thereby requiring only a TBAN (or set thereof). I don't know what combining the two would accomplish, and in the past such sanctions have often been criticised as being WP:PUNITIVE. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to be preventative, rather than punitive, banning them from areas they have proven themself - charitably - to be incapable of operating competently but give them a cooling-off period to allow them to return to engage in work in which they may be capable. I can see though that they may already have proven themself too much of a risk to be allowed to work even away from the areas of a topic ban and, if that is the general feeling, am happy with an indef. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure

In the interest of preventing lowercase signmabot III automatically archiving this section after hitting the 72-hour mark, I would like to request for an admin to close the discussion and make whatever actions necessary. There seems to be a consensus (as far as I can see) for either topic ban(s) or a ~~full~~ site ban. Alternatively, if there is anyone who wishes to advocate for one type of ban over another, you're obviously free to do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Changed 16:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and implemented an indef block, am fine with being overruled if there's editors who want to make a stronger case for another round of topic bans. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing from 97.80.113.37

97.80.113.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The Reason (Hoobastank song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:97.80.113.37 has been disruptively editing The Reason (Hoobastank song) by adding music charts on which the song did not appear or charts in violation of WP:USCHARTS. I have warned them multiple times to stop, but they simply will not listen. They had previously been blocked because of genre warring in August 2020. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 22:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they have stopped the disruption - if it resumes please re-report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975

Kire1975 is indefinitely topic banned from Dwid Hellion and the band Integrity, including all articles, talk pages, and discussion boards. Kire1975 is also subject to a one-way interaction ban, to not interact with Guy Macon. Kire1975 is formally warned to respect WP:BLP policy at all times, including on talk pages and discussion boards, and to not cast aspersions about other editors. Reasoning: it can be difficult to handle COI editing by article subjects, but Kire1975's editing and comments amount to a campaign against the subject, with no sign of de-escalation once it was brought here. This WP:BATTLEGROUND approach extends to how Kire1975 discusses the reporting user, Guy Macon, inappropriately linking to irrelevant commentary on an essay and by disgruntled blocked users in an attempt to discredit him. Kire1975 is not a new editor. The dismissal of previous BLP warnings is concerning and further such breaches of BLP policy will lead to additional sanctions. Fences&Windows 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Note: because of personal issues, It may be several days days before I am able to access wikipedia, so feel free to deal with this without my involvement)

Background:
Dwid hellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), lead singer of
Integrity (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a typical newbie who is the subject of a BLP. Previously Hellion edited the page of his own band, and got into multiple fights over inaccuracies on the band's page. Example: the page said the band is in Cleveland despite it having moved to Belgium in 2013. I was the first person to actually do a Google search and find a reliable source instead of blindly reverting Hellion's attempts to correct this error.

As sometimes happens, all Hellion needed was for someone to treat him like a human being and explain why Wikipedia editors do the things we do. Since I talked with him he has limited himself to talk page comments.[17] The page still needs a lot of work, but Hellion's COI editing stopped on 16 December 2020, right after I calmly explained our policy on editing your own page.[18]

Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a personal animosity against Hellion and has, in my opinion, violated WP:BLP. In my opinion Kire1975 should be topic banned from the areas of Dwid Hellion and his band.

Examples of problem edits:

[19], 18:39, 17 December 2020: Added [redacted] (Wikilinks not in source; they were added by Kire1975 -- a dubious practice in the case of direct quotes).

The source is not a WP:BLPRS for such a negative editorial opinion.

[20], 06:15, 17 December 2020: Tagged the exact same Cleveland Scene source with "non-primary source needed" when it was used to say something positive about Hellion.
[21], 21:10, 16 December 2020: Tagged one of Integrity's albums with "The neutrality of this article is disputed" after Hellion corrected some errors.[22], Yes Hellion should not have done that (and stopped doing it once I explained it to him) but the tag is an overreaction; the factual corrections did not affect the neutrality of the page.
[23], 01:24, 16 December 2020‎ : Overtagging to the point where is is getting close to being vandalism. (and since when is "monthly magazine" overly detailed? Note that in his zeal to stuff as many tags as possible into the article, Kire1975 actually reinserted the word "monthly" himself while at the same time tagging it as being overly detailed![24])

Hellion has complained about Kire1975 multiple times, the most recent being today.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] While Hellion hasn't quite gotten the message that this isn't Twitter and that being aggressive won't get you far here, he does have a point. It took me roughly three minutes of searching to confirm Hellion's claim that the band is currently based in Belgium. It shouldn't be this hard for the subject of a BLP to correct errors in his page.

Kire1975's Response

"The Cleveland Scene is an alternative weekly newspaper" that has been published since the 1970s. Noting becomes not WP:BLPRS by being labeled so. State your reasons.

Why don't you just remove the wikilinks not in source? Seems reasonable to me.Though I do notice that you didn't cite any Wikipedia rules addressing that question to support your complaint.

The primary source in this edit refers to a positive quote by artist Derek Hess who is a colleague of Hellion's, having done artwork for an album that Integrity was on according to Hellion. The reliability and verifiability of the source is not in question. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a press-release service for positive stories only.

Which "factual corrections" made by the connected contributor are you referring to exactly? Please elaborate on how you know they did not affect the neutrality of the page? If I had to do it again, I would have put a WP:COI tag on it, expecting a consensus to be reached in a normal fashion. Kire1975 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon is WP:GASLIGHTING when he speaks about overtagging. The word monthly was removed by me a minute after I had reverted his edit and five minutes before the first time he accused me of reinserting the word monthly, which he has done many times.

There were a lot of tags on the page because the page has been relentlessly edited since 2007 by a [redacted] The first edit on Hellions' account was to wipe out the prose on the page in question entirely. As Guy Macon states, the only reason he is posting here is because Hellion is able to enlist Guy Macon on his war against reasonable standards by once again falsely accusing me of tricks, disinformation and lies.

Guy Macon has been asked twice to leave my talk page alone because I am legitimately afraid of his gaslighting ways. As you can see from the title of his complaint, Guy's complaint is not about my actions, it's just about me. I spent two nights around Christmastime last month literally trembling. He has posted on it multiple times and now the trembles have started again after he he has posted an ANI notice on my talk page that if I don't meet his contradictory and intentionally confusing standards I am going to be banned from editing a page I have had no interactions with for three weeks and for no legitimate reason.

As a counter-request, I would request that Guy Macon be banned from interacting with me for three years, or however long the consensus decides (hopefully not less than six months), and that User:Dwid_hellion be banned from Wikipedia entirely for the same reasons that user:Cullen banned hardcore guitarist Vic DiCara on December 1, 2020.

Kire1975 my understanding of the idea of wiki is that it portrays the publics perception and opinion on a band or individual, your deliberate choice to solely source negative content from a cleve scene article from 14 years ago is rather suspect. You have decided that your personal perception of my band shall take precedence over that of the wiki community itself. You have deliberately sought out the most slanderous article of my band with the intention of painting a negative portrayal. Your personal decision to only site one cleveland scene journalists opinion as fact over and over while ignoring all of the other articles about my band is biased ( 32 years of articles about my band and you can only source one article from 14 years ago). Your counter research is also flawed, your statement that Derek Hess designed a few of my album covers is untrue, please cite your source for this information. Hess has not designed any album covers for me at all. He did design a various artists compilation album of which my band has one track on that record (a motorhead tribute album), but he has not once designed any of my album covers. Your actions on wiki continue to confirm that you have a personal vendetta against me and my band. The intention of your wiki edits on my band's wiki page is malicious in nature and has not been done with preserving the quality of the wiki community in mind, but done solely for your own personal vendetta against me and my band. You cherry-pick negative quotes and insert snarky language to discredit any positive remarks about me or my music. You are intentionally abusing your role on wiki. I recommend that you consider this when you defend your intentions as being for the wiki community and not for your own self-serving purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwid hellion (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dwid hellion - You are a connected contributer. The band has been filled with nothing but "positive" articles since you started editing it since 2007. See WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Your contribution history shows that you have aggressively attacked anyone posting anything that you don't like long before I showed up. Your reputation as a [redacted] is well documented in a reliable, independent, secondary source. That this source is 14, 15 or 500 years old is neither here nor there. If you want to post nothing but positive articles about your band, hire a publicist or open a free blogspot page. Derek Hess is your colleague. Talking positive things about you benefits the reputation and sales of the album you and he both worked on. This is MOS:PUFFERY. Why do you go on and on about a personal vendetta? [redacted] You have enlisted Guy in your quest to tarnish my reputation with completely false allegations is plain for the whole world to see. This incident report here on ANI is evidence that you are the ones out to get me. You have influence around the world, as is evident with how you convinced Guy to gaslight me like this for weeks. I am legitimately frightened at the lengths you will go to retaliate against me for trying to make your bands Wikipedia conform to basic standards. I am very much aware that I am WP:NOTPERFECT and I am also aware that I don't need to be. You have been encouraged to suggest edits in the talk page, but you have done way more than that. With every comment, you are intimidating people. Why Vic DiCara has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia after making just two edits and you are allowed to intimidate good faith editors for almost 14 years is beyond my comprehension. Please leave us alone. Kire1975 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to Kire1975 the rules about posting an ANI notice to a talk page after being asked not to post on it?[32] Thanks.

I note the irony of Kire1975 doing the following:

Told Hellion "[redacted]"
Accused both Hellion and me with "you are the ones out to get me", and "gaslighting".
Engaged in off-wiki "opposition research" by searching [redacted] until he found someone who criticized me.
Claiming that he is trembling in fear because I posted this report.

Again, Hellion's COI editing stopped on 16 December 2020, right after I calmly explained our policy on editing pages about yourself. That issue appears to have been resolved, whether or not Kire1975 wants to keep criticizing Hellion for it.

If given a bit of time, I am pretty sure that further calm discussion with Hellion will result in him being less aggressive in his comments, and perhaps even learning the ropes and becoming a productive Wikipedia editor. From his standpoint it is understandable; it is difficult to have someone post false information about where you live and who created the cover art for your albums while calling you a divisive, brooding, shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue. As Hellion wrote to me on December 18th: "Thanks for taking the time to explain wiki. I had a different understanding of this website before this conversation."

Personal attacks such as the following are not acceptable behavior:

[redacted]
[redacted]

Accusing Hellion of [redacted] is crossing the line. It's admittedly a clever play on words. but it is still a personal attack and a sign that Kire1975 lacks the objectivity ("his account is about to be blocked forever any minute now"[33]) needed to edit Hellion's BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellion's COI issue is one that should have been dealt with years ago but got lost in the shuffle based on his talk page. And since, wikipedia is forward looking, I concur that nothing further needs to be done now that a Guy has properly explained the issue.

Kire, on the other hand, may have started with good intentions of fully covering the band's highs and lows but at this point seems to have lost all objectivity and is only concerned with adding a negative item to a BLP article. WP:BLP stipulates we should be conservative when editing BLP article and further that multiple sources should be used for documenting incidents or allegations. Quite simply, if they can not drop the stick then it is time for the community to encourage them to move on from this article and be a productive member of the community elsewhere. Slywriter (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stick was dropped three weeks ago. Delete the "negative" properly sourced statement if that's the consensus. I am not concerned with it on a personal level at all. Guy's mind is made up. I went looking for sources to support a normal history section, or sources confirming the long list of membership, anything to make it not WP:PROMO but all there is out there is non-primary interviews with people being positive about this connected contributor. Hellion won't even let anyone say the band is from Cleveland, which has been confirmed through sources, or similar basic edits without completely WP:PAGEBLANKING the prose over and over and over.

[redacted] --Kire1975 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Macon's allegation of BLP violations, see WP:BLPBALANCE. Criticism can be included if it can be sourced to reliable secondary source. The Cleveland Scene is both. If only praise is allowed on the page, disproportionate space would be given to a particular viewpoint, see WP:UNDUE. Kire1975 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irony noting is not a valid reason for topic ban. The existence of this discussion is evidence that Guy Macon is trying to get me topic banned for dubious reason. That he cites the fact that I used the phrase "out to get me" to illustrate a point and that I stated that he is causing me fear and trembling as a justification for punishing me for being a good faith editor is WP:GASLIGHTING. The ANI discussion itself is unmerited and is only a pretext for him to continue bothering me on my talk page despite being asked multiple times to not do so (see above). Kire1975 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted]]. 16:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks such as [redacted] and [redacted] (both in Kire1975's comment above) are clear BLP violations. They show that Kire1975 has lost objectivity and should not be allowed to edit Hellions' BLP. The fact that Kire1975 continues to edit the Integrity (band) talk page (the most recent edit was three hours ago) is inconsistent with the above "The stick was dropped three weeks ago" claim. I do not see any viable solution to these behavioral issues other than a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to spell your name correctly, which I assure you was a complete accident that I was wholly unaware of until you pointed it out, then when I complied, you are now using the fact that I made an edit without explaining to anyone here what the purpose of the edit was to try to get me banned. More WP:GASLIGHTING. Kire1975 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I referred to was this one:[34] I am not stupid. I would not have commented about you still editing on the Integrity (band) talk page after claiming to have dropped the stick if all you had done is correct a typo. I believe that I have identified the reason why you use the word "gaslighting" so often. I suggest that you stop paying attention to what I say and start paying attention to what others on this page are saying. What are the odds that everyone is wrong about your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something disruptive about this edit? You accused me of "reinserting a word" by reverting an edit multiple times, while ignoring that the word Monthly was removed 5 minutes before the first time you accused me of reinserting a word. I became so afraid of your relentless personal attacks (for example, "I am not stupid" above) and your relentless accusations that I dropped the stick so much that I didn't even look for that edit that made your attacks unnecessary until you brought it up here after three weeks of inactivity. That edit had a legitimate purpose. It was an answer to your question. I point to WP:GASLIGHTING so much because your mind is made up about me, though. You are trying to get me banned for simply editing, regardless of the purpose of the edit. You have never assumed WP:GOODFAITH, I am WP:NOTPERFECT but you never cared about explaining what I don't know without treating me like a human.

Hellion should have known better thirteen years ago. [redacted] It's not a BLP violation to post criticism, even if Hellion calls is slander with no evidence of a court case or anything. But hey, I type too much. I talk about my feelings. The alternative press article used profanity so, you can come here, clutch your pearls and enlist more and more people to "support" you and parrot your non-reasons. You could have just deleted the material and stated your reasons for it. I would have not objected. The page will be WP:PROMO if that's the consensus. Kire1975 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again I say, there are FOUR people who have commented on your behavior on this page. You keep going on and on about why you refuse to listen to what Guy Macon and Dwid Hellion are telling you (I thought Hellion's "your statement that Derek Hess designed a few of my album covers is untrue, please cite your source for this information" comment was quite reasonable). Fine. Ignore us both. What about the other two people who have commented on your behavior? Are they also delusional and paranoid? You are violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. You just did it again by calling another editor -- who is also the the subject of a BLP page that you keep editing -- "[redacted]". How many people have to tell you this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Derek Hess designed a few of his album covers or one, the question is whether or not Hess is a connected party/primary source. Hellion has confirmed that Hess did the artwork for an album coverm, therefore his WP:PROMO statement still on the page that "They were ahead of the curve. Integrity started incorporating art and illustrations, and I think that was a real right-on thing that broke away from the pack. When you say the name Dwid throughout the industry, they know who you're talking about. He's infamous." is WP:PUFFERY and should be removed, but meanwhile it won't be because you've got me here pinned down scared I'm going to be banned because of spelling errors and posting criticism and anything else you can think of to play gotcha with me. Instead of using bold and making threats, assume good faith and all will be well. [redacted] This is not an ad hominem attack against him. These are facts. If Dwid doesn't want them to be reported in reliable, independent, secondary and verifiable sources, there are things he can do to develop a different reputation. Threatening good faith redditors with false accusations and potential bannings is not one of them. Nothing becomes slanderous by being labeled so. You may silence me, but you will not be making Wikipedia a better, safer place. See WP:NOTHERE Kire1975 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dwid writes lyrics about mental illness according to the lede. I didn't put that there. There's nothing wrong with being paranoid and delusional, per se. Check out my own userboxes. Threatening good faith editors with banning on the other hand.... --Kire1975 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked (not banned) User: Vic DiCara as a standard procedure to protect against possible impersonation, with simple remedies available to the user. See User talk:Vic DiCara. This is a completely different type of situation. This thread is filled with BLP violations by Kire1975. I support a topic ban for Kire1975 regarding Dwid hellion and the band called Integrity. Kire1975 is engaged in axe grinding and an ugly vendetta. It needs to stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Vic DiCara followed Cullen328's instructions, verified his identity, and was unblocked now that we know he is not an impersonator. I have given Vic DiCara the same advice I gave Dwid Hellion about not editing pages that are about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Thanks for finally explaining that. Your edit on User talk:Vic DiCara looked like it was some kind of template but I could not figure out where it was from or any precedents for that kind of block no matter how long I looked. There was also nothing there about the remedies having been taken. I am sorry for getting confused. Kire1975 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the COI tag from that album page. Thank you Guy for pointing out that Dwid's contributions on that page were not as major as they appeared. Speaking of overreactions, you could have pointed all this out on the talk page like a reasonable person or just removed it yourself and stated the reasons in the edit summary instead of trying to play gotcha with me here at ANI. Kire1975 (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for close

Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate this thread and ether close it with a conclusion of no action required or close it with a topic ban? I am about to once again be in a situation with weeks of no Internet access and will be unable to monitor the BLP page for continued violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the editor's conduct is well-documented in their own words above. Slywriter (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third, but please read WP:CRYBLP first, especially the part about the chilling effect, remember that I have asked for WP:IBAN with Guy Macon and Dwid hellion because of well documented WP:GASLIGHTING. Please remember that Guy Macon [redacted] And please be precise about the reasons and clear about which "topic" I am to be banned from. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if the closing administrator would also opine on the oft-repeated charge of gaslighting. If I actually am guilty of "history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord." as Kire1975 claims, I should be informed by an admin as to what I have done that I should no longer do. If, on the other hand, I am not guilty, Kire1975 should be told to stop accusing me of it.

I would also appreciate it if the closing administrator would address the CRYBLP claim above. Fortunately, Kire1975 has indicated exactly which part of CRYBLP he is claiming applies: "Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion". Multiple editors have told Kire1975 that he has violated WP:BLP. If, as Kire1975 claims, we are all wrong, we should be told so in order to avoid making the same mistake elsewhere.

Finally, may we please have a comment on whether quoting some random flamer on [redacted] is appropriate?

In other words, a too-brief closing summary will leave Kire1975 convinced that his behavior is acceptable, so he should be told clearly and unambiguously what behavior is expected of him. And of course, if Kire1975 didn't do anything wrong, the rest of us need to be educated on where we went wrong in our assessment. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There you go posting a link to WP:BLP without stating your reasons again. Multiple people saying the same unjustified thing does not merit a ban, see WP:SATISFY. Nobody's accusing me of anything on [redacted] or anywhere else. [redacted] Kire1975 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted] Kire1975 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question

In the following, I am asking an honest question without indicating what I think the answer should be. I really am not sure what the best course here is, and I don't trust myself to be unbiased in this matter.

Given the behavior we are seeing when Kire1975 is in the middle of an ANI discussion and presumably at his best behavior, is a topic ban from this particular musician enough? Should it be a full ban? Like I said, I can see good arguments either way. What do the other editors reading this think we should do? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken. You're definitely not out to get me. Wow. [redacted] – Kire1975 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personally, i would prefer that all quotes from the clevescene article to be removed from wiki whether positive OR negative. they are a decade and a half old, not remotely up-to-date. The fact that kire1974 specifically chose to solely use that ancient article and the biaased journalists personal opinion in a quot that I am "mercurial shit-talker" (please prove that this opinion is a fact) and that I have "ruined my band's reputation" (again thi is one journalists personal opinion, - not a fact) shows that kire1974 has no interest in being objective, it is simply kire1974 being malicious for his own personal vendetta. We see yet again in the above conversation, kire1974 proudly boasts that he has deliberately targeted another musician that kire1974 does not like, vic dicara and kire1974 proudly boasts about how he targeted this musician and used his knowledge of wiki protocol against vic dicara and got him banned. Vic Dicaro is completely unrelated to my band, I met Vic once, I am not certain why kire1974 has mentioned Vic dozens of times in these conversations? Obviously to kire1974 his targeting of vic dicaro is yet another notch in his belt showing others that kire1974 has "power". The main problem with kire1974 is that he makes all of this about himself. It's never about the facts, it's only about kire1974 wanting to hurt others and abuses his knowledge of wiki protocol to accomplish his personal attacks. Kire1974 appears as a Trump-like, power-mad, megalomaniac who wants to take revenge on people whom he personally dislikes, and uses wiki as his means to achieve these vendettas. When kire1974 is caught red-handed breaking the same rules he uses as a weapon against others (usually those less educated on the rules of wiki), Kire1974 throws a temper tantrum, calls everyone "conspirators" against him, and then demands to be praised as a hero of truth. kire1974 is not remotely objective, even in his own explanations where he tries to justify his actions, he again shows how biased his intentions are. His disdain for me and my band is clear and kire1974 has personal ill intentions against the subjects of these wiki pages. Dwid hellion (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)dwid hellion[reply]

He Who Shall Not Be Named has been topic banned from talking about you, me, Integrity, or any of your music. anywhere on Wikipedia. All of the things he accused you of in the ANI case above have been replaced with "[redacted]". Basic fairness as well as Wikipedia policy says that nether of us should say anything about He Who Shall Not Be Named from now on. Just forget that he exists.

Any discussion of whether to use Cleveland Scene as a source should take place on Talk:Integrity (band). I would advise that you delete the above comment, delete this reply (you have my permission), and write about what changes you would like to the Integrity (band) page at Talk:Integrity (band) without any mention of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

I have some more advice of your talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle vandalism

Special:Contributions/85.211.1.8 has made 6 edits adding "Zak Mahiz " to articles on various media, giving him roles in Roy, You, Me and the Apocalypse and other media. This has happened before with a similar IP Special:Contributions/85.211.14.18 a couple of months ago and yet another one Special:Contributions/89.242.25.60 here. Caius G. (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 3 months. Caius G., are there repeated target articles that could be protected? Do they always add the same text (for an edit filter)? You can also check about a rangeblock on 85.211.xx. xx with an admin familiar with this. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WatanWatan2020

WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I just closed this SPI report, where WatanWatan2020 made bad-faith and baseless accusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry against Ahunt and The Bushranger (as well as some IP addresses). Looking at WatanWatan2020's user talk page, this user has a history of edit warring and other problems involving articles about airlines and similar article subjects. WatanWatan2020 has been talked to on more than one occasion regarding the addition of unreferenced or poorly referenced content, disruptive editing, and was recently blocked for making legal threats (although, after a discussion, he was unblocked after the presumption of good faith with what the user was trying to say). After declining the SPI report that WatanWatan2020 filed, and after looking through this user's talk page, I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that this user is just here to spam certain organizations on Wikipedia, as is evidenced by his edit history. As you can see, when his spamming is thwarted he resorts to accusing the long-term editors who revert him as "sockpuppets". I was accused of being the "puppet master" of an admin, User:The Bushranger who had previously blocked him for "outing" and making legal threats??? Even a cursory read through User talk:WatanWatan2020, show that is clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be quickly indef blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although this user may have been spamming, he’s not here for only that purpose. I came across him in two articles in recent months (Lebanon and Saudi Arabia). He wasn’t spamming on either - but he was heavy-duty POV pushing with some edit-warring. Not great, but I got the feeling it’s mostly new user naivety - there’s plenty of new users that are as bad/worse. Not a great defence (!) but I think that the main issue is not yet getting policy rather than NOTHERE. I suspects (in time) some blocks plus reprimand in this thread will put him straight. I could be wrong though... DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are considered to be personal attacks, and move on with my editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by that baseless SPI report, because I specifically explained to WatanWatan2020 that making sockpuppetry accusations without evidence violates multiple guidelines [35]. I have no idea what's going on with the airline stuff, but WatanWatan2020 came to my attention when I noticed some very disturbing edits: [36], [37], and several similar ones around that date. I left a discretionary sanctions alert regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Since then I haven't seen anything else like that... but still. --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by User:Saflieni

In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Saflieni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HouseOfChange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous (very long) ANI

Saflieni is disruptive.

He is recently back from a one week block for PAs. He spent that week posting attacks on other users, meditating how he could accuse people of "lies" without getting blocked again, and planning an ArbCom request, where he again attacked other editors.

Today, Saflieni is trying to restore a sentence he regards as "my deleted edit." Both Buidhe and I explained WP:OR on the talk page, that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Salfieni ignores our policy concerns, responding I have explained several times that I fairly summarized what is in the book. Repeating a false OR accusation many times while ignoring my answer each time is not respectful and not helpful.

Saflieni is defensive about "his" edits and contemptuous of criticism. Consider, for example, this discussion of whether the article should include the phrase "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert". Buidhe, Drmies, and I all agreed that this comment was not representative. Saflieni continued to argue that his own opinion should override our consensus:

This is like two or three people claiming the Eiffel Tower is in Madrid
that remark you've removed is not only true but also very relevant, whether the "unschooled in matters Rwandan" disagree and form consensus or not
You're an editor on Wikipedia, not equipped to pass judgments about analyses in journal articles you don't understand.

The book's subtitle is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front," and reviewers typically say the book is about RPF "crimes," mostly during the 1990s. But Saflieni does not want the article to mention RPF crimes. He insists that The main topic of the book is double genocide. When, after fruitless debate, I created a section on the Talk page to show examples of what RS say the book is "about", he chose to provide no evidence for his opinion but instead attacked me for requesting evidence.

Saflieni is WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. His BATTLEGROUND attitude wastes the time of other editors. Please block him from further disruption, at the very least from Rwanda-related articles, where he considers himself an expert. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the serious issues with their behavior, I would support a topic ban in Rwanda-related articles or from the topic of this book more specifically. Saflieni unfortunately doesn't seem to have learned the appropriate lesson from being blocked, i.e. that personal attacks are unacceptable. (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These repeated attempts to paint me into a corner are pure harrassment. HoC and Buidhe have taken turns to delete and revert my edit, one of the last remaining, to dodge 3RR. Digging up old diffs and quoting me out of context? Please. Saflieni (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saflieni: If you repeatedly insert an inflammatory and misleading claim into a Wikipedia page, one governed by BLP, then 3RR doesn't even apply to taking that claim out again. As for "old diffs," some diffs from Jan 7 of PAs and failure to AGF:

The resumption by HoC and Buidhe of edit warring to get rid of my edits, even the old ones, and the continued posting of insults against scholars and me personally ...the posting of suggestive edit summaries accusing me of dishonesty, etc. I'm curious to learn what else the arbitrators expected would happen after handing them a free pass[38]
They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule.[39]
Please feel free to look at my edit summaries to see which ones are "suggestive" or accuse Saflieni of dishonesty. And feel free to compare Saflieni's edit summaries.HouseOfChange (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First it was "inaccurate" and now suddenly it's "inflammatory and misleading" and "governed by BLP". Sure, keep putting on that show and the sooner the folks over here will get wise to what's going on here. For the record: I haven't seen so many untruthful statements in my life as I have over the past couple of months during this case on Wikipedia. I can't be the only one noticing this, I'm sure. Saflieni (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:TBAN per HouseOfChange. Having been a part of the previous thread this is my vote. Vikram Vincent 05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Saflieni is still finding it difficult to differentiate between criticism and a personal attack and is still indulging in personal attacks during discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed response by Saflieni:

Trying to punish me twice for the same offenses without clear and convincing new evidence is against Wikipedia policy. WP:HA says: Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. And: It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user. WP:IUC lists ill-considered accusations of impropriety as an example of rudeness, and lying and quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say as examples of uncivil behaviour.
HoC says:Please block him from further disruption, at the very least from Rwanda-related articles, where he considers himself an expert. This sums up what this ANI complaint is all about: I'm knowledgeable about the subject and that's bothering the other two contributors because I keep confronting them with real and verifiable evidence from the literature which contradicts their POV.
This dispute is about content and should be decided on valid arguments, not by posting untruths in ANI complaints. Let me give a few examples of this:

HoC says: Salfieni ignores our policy concerns. However, I followed the WP:NPOV guidelines. HoC doesn't agree with a brief content summary I made according to RS and the author herself. HoC and Buidhe for some reason only known to them do not want to give the aspects I mentioned a place in the article. Because they can't argue with RS, they either dismiss them as "anti-Rever militants" or worse [40], or they accuse me of biased editing and start dissecting every phrase, demanding that an exact match of the phrase must be somewhere in the book. So this is not about a "new analysis" or "synthesis" or ignoring a policy at all. My only "sin" here is to fairly represent the book's content based on ... carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
HoC says: Saflieni is defensive about "his" edits and contemptuous of criticism. This refers to an old dispute where they falsely accused me of deliberately misquoting the literature. I have explained the truth of the matter several times in a civil tone, such as here: [41] and have invited others to check for themselves. However, this behaviour is more contemptuous: When HoC realizes they can't "win" a debate they respond by attacking scholars and dismissing my patient and careful explanations as: you've explained your reasons for not caring, so perhaps we are done here. [42]
HoC says: But Saflieni does not want the article to mention RPF crimes. This is the type of framing they use all the time. The truth is that I have asked HoC several times to note that nobody contests RPF crimes, not the scholars I cite, nor me personally.[43][44] However, there's a difference between acknowledging the fact that criminal acts happened and quoting "guilty" verdicts against individuals or groups who have not been convicted by a court of law.
HoC says: He insists that The main topic of the book is double genocide. More framing. Most subject matter experts regard the book as an indictment intended to prove a second genocide (making it a double genocide theory). It doesn't matter what I think about it. According to WP:DUE We have to represent the majority view of RS in this matter: ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
HoC says: he chose to provide no evidence for his opinion but instead attacked me for requesting evidence. But I did provide evidence, here for instance: [45]. HoC responded to it so he knows. Besides, RS listed by HoC support my argument, not his. I have shown this by quoting directly from one of the articles on HoC's short list (Claudine Vidal) which, by the way, is titled "Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide", but if that's not clear enough I can do the same thing with other RS.
I could make a list of personal attacks and expressions of sarcasm by HoC and Buidhe on the Talk page as well as in the edit summaries, but just look at tendentious section titles like this one: Caplan's "little doubt that the RPF under President Kagame is indeed guilty of war crimes" is more relevant to this article than disputes about funerary arrangements. Completely disrespectful. They themselves deserve a ban. Saflieni (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban from Rwanda-related articles, if only because maybe then we won't have to come back here again and face these Walls of Text. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies should disclose their personal feelings in this case and on the subject of the book. For awhile I couldn't understand their uncivil outbursts that follow me wherever I go, their false accusations, using words like bullshit while providing diffs that actually contradict their argument [46], until I saw their description of my careful efforts to explain the scholarly literature and improve the article: To see someone shit on that in that way, that's more than a bit hurtful. [47]. Besides incredibly rude, they're not leading by example WP:ADMINCOND, and it's definitely not a neutral approach of the subject.Saflieni (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Saflieni:: Clearly DrMies was upset that, instead of recognizing his efforts to inform himself and provide helpful input, you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources, eg Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification. Also, please re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - My personal feelings? It's a ridiculous amount of butter, but these are the best scones I ever made. I also have strong feelings about Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, and I wish you did. And your "careful edits to explain the scholarly literature"? Pshaw. And now I am here again, explaining for the third time to the ANI audience that you are the problem.
      a. My strong language was prompted by your dismissive and untruthful statement in that ridiculous arbitration case you filed, one of your many time sinks; again I'll say that you dismissed the good-faith effort I made for In Praise of Blood at a time when I disagreed with your opponents' claims, not yours. b. The actual edit in that diff contains yet another misrepresentation: my assessment of your misconduct was based on someone else's comment? Hell no--you did that all by yourself, on In Praise of Blood. c. You managed to upset a whole bunch of even-keeled people along the way, including EdJohnston, with your wikilawyering and your incessant complaints. d. Your fishing for my "opinion" on the book is just another example of bad faith. I'll give you my opinion: it is published, on paper and printed with ink, by a reputable publisher and got positive and negative reviews, and spawned an extensive discussion. There. Finally, "incredibly rude"--I bite my tongue every time I type yet another response to some wordy and false accusation by you. I'll change my mind about the topic ban I supported: you are NOTHERE to improve the project, and your very actions are toxic and destroy any desire to collaborate in order to improve articles. Do not ping me again, not even to notify me next time you pull an ANI or ArbCom stunt. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term disruptive and tendentious editing by Mikola22

I'm filing this report because Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing and persistent POV-pushing on Balkan-related articles, more specifically on articles related to Serbs and Serbia, and has previously been blocked several times for POV edit-warring, promoting fringe theories and generally WP:NOTHERE behavior.

As a baseline, it's important to note that Mikola22 has expressed views supportive of the fascist WW2 Ustaše movement on meta.wiki:

Backing Holocaust denier Roman Leljak : Diff
Supporting the idea that "probably" 1,654 people died at the Jasenovac concentration camp (the academic consensus is that at least 83,000 were killed ) : Diff
Saying: "Imagine that Yugoslavian history was based on historical documents about Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia, today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia" Diff
Calling "'Yugoslav(Serbian) historiography" "a fairy tale based on nothing": Diff
Supporting far-right hr.wiki admins: Diff
Opposing the block of a LTA far-right hr.wiki admin, which received near unanimous support from established users: Diff

This matters because it explains Mikola22's editing behavior. The Croatian Wikipedia has unfortunately become notorious for its blatant promotion of fascist ideology, far-right historical revisionism and anti-Serb sentiment. [48] The problem has gotten so bad that the Wikimedia Foundation has recently had to post a job listing for someone to evaluate and identify all the disinformation on Croatian Wikipedia. [49] These far-right sentiments have bled into the Balkan topic area of English Wikipedia. This is the context in which Mikola22's compulsive editing on Serbs and Serbia articles is occurring, as seen by his contributions. I believe that just based on the sentiments expressed by Mikola22, WP:NONAZIS should have been applied to him a long time ago.

Mikola22 has referenced works by Krunoslav Draganović, an Ustaše official who organized the ratlines to smuggle Croatian fascist war criminals out of Europe after WW2, across multiple articles. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Mikola22 has also attempted to pass off the Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church as a legitimate religious organization, rather than as merely a tool of ethnic assimilation during their genocide against Serbs, which is what scholars agree it was. Diff Context on the Croatian Orthodox Church: [50]

Mikola22 has promoted the "Serbs are Vlachs" hypothesis, Diff 1 Diff 2 which is not only discredited by scholars but is also a common Ustaše trope whose entire point is to justify the erasure of Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia, see here and here. The existence of Serbs in these countries is precisely what Mikola was lamenting in his above-mentioned comment that "today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia". Accordingly, Mikola22 has also, through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Furthermore, since his last block, Mikola22 has advanced the theory that the word "Serb" is derived from "slaves" or "servants" on multiple articles, despite it being explained by multiple editors that this theory is fringe, Diff 1, Diff 2 and thread. This is clearly a form of ethno-nationalist trolling.

Mikola22 has been reported several times for tendentious behavior. Diff 1 Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4.

Several Balkan and non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Diff 5 The latest example is an editor who was previously never involved but has expressed the same concerns on this talk page here. Mikola22's response is typical; hostile, disregard for other editors' concerns/views and persistent stubbornness. Diff 2 This attitude is also exemplified by his response to an earlier comment from another editor. Diff 3

According to this, a 1RR was indefinitely imposed on him as well. But he's violated it since at least once. Diff 1 Diff 2

In short, I believe Mikola22 is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for POV-pushing on articles related to Serbs and Serbia. He is interested in one topic and only for a single purpose. I'm certain that if some administrative action isn't taken, this tendentious editing will continue and will only create further disruption in an already contentious area sanctioned by WP:ARBCOM.

--Griboski (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Backing Holocaust denier Roman Leljak This is response from 17 December 2019 (edit) when I didn’t know the rules of Wikipedia, meaning of RS, fringe theory etc. In that debate, none of the 100 participants exposed RS which refutes some books etc of Roman Leljak and sources which say that he is "Holocaust denier". How should I know that?
Supporting the idea that "probably" 1,654 people died at the Jasenovac concentration camp (the academic consensus is that at least 83,000 were killed. In diff I do not support this, see diff. Roman Leljak claims this based on the Communist archival documents from Belgrade.
Saying: "Imagine that Yugoslavian history was based on historical documents about Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia, today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia" The academic Noel Malcolm claim this "To call someone a Serb today is to use a term created in the 19th and 20th centuries based on a common religion, language, history, and personal sense of national belonging. Today's Bosnian Serbs are free to present themselves as Serbs, regardless of their Vlach status origin", (Malcom, Noel (1995). Povijest Bosne : kratki pregled. p. 109; Erasmus Gilda : Novi Liber. ISBN 953-6045-03-6)
Calling "'Yugoslav(Serbian) historiography" "a fairy tale based on nothing". Considering that I found a lot of forgeries in articles, this is my opinion, and these forgeries are also confirmed by Croatian historians in sources. Mikola22 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Supporting far-right hr.wiki admins What should I tell you, whether write on his forehead that he is far-right???
Opposing the block of a LTA far-right hr.wiki admin, which received near unanimous support from established users Yes and, as if I supported a mass murderer??? Mikola22 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply II

You repeat( Krunoslav Draganović) source every time you write reports against me. That was in the first days of Wikipedia edits and I never heard that he had something to do with Fascists and Nazis. What I knew was that he was respected today in the Croatian Catholic Church and that his books were in every library and school system where he is exposed as source in various works(thesis etc). His one work was published by Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, his sources use and Yugoslav sources (Зборник радова Етнографског института, (Ethnographic Institute) in Serbian, (1950) [51] Hrvatski baranjski mjestopisi: povijest hrvatskih imena (1996), Francis Dvornik use his source[52], Ernst Christoph Suttner[53] Klaus Buchenau · 2004[54] Historian Zlatko Kudelić Marčanska biskupija, Noel Malcolm etc etc.
Mikola22 has also attempted to pass off the Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church There are Orthodox Croats in Croatian history and today, and what I should be ashamed for that. Why not know something about them too. My article in the debate for deleting of that article (Orthodox Croats) is proposed by majority of neutral editors for merge with article Croatian Orthodox Church. Which means that my informationn's and sources had no problems with "Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church".
Mikola22 has promoted the "Serbs are Vlachs" hypothesis. I said I followed an academic Noel Malcolm, Ilona Czamańska and her claim that "Majority of Serbs from the Republika Srpska of modern Bosnia is of Vlach origin", claim of historian Ivo Banac in best North American book for 1984 "Orthodox Slavicized Vlachs gradually acquired Serb national consciousness because most of South Slavic Orthodox Christians belonged to Serbian Patriarchate of Peć with whom these Vlachs assimilated" etc..
Mikola22 has also, through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible This means to you and to me means that every information must be in NPOV, see my edit summaries where everithing is explaned. If historians state this information in the same context, I see no reason why only one context should remain in the article from the primary source and information that Serbs inhabit the large part of Roman Dalmatia?
Furthermore, since his last block, Mikola22 has advanced the theory that the word "Serb" is derived from "slaves" or "servants" on multiple articles, despite it being explained by multiple editors that this theory is fringe That has not been determined as fringe information (FTN), I have exposed three quality sources as evidence, Italian, Serbian and British. British source said that half scholars claim this.
Mikola22 has been reported several times for tendentious behavior Yes.
Several Balkan and non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing Yes, we editing articles, this was also the case in previous reports. I haven't seen those editors in a long time and there have been problems before.
According to this, a 1RR was indefinitely imposed on him as well. But he's violated it since at least once. Because I was a good editor this restriction is withdrawn. And so far I have not broken that rule.
In short, I believe Mikola22 is only here In short this is probably a joint report against me. Every report I read the same accusations(I started dreaming of Krunoslav Draganović). Last time editor Sadko was much more imaginative because I was accused of putting links and edits which I didn’t do. What can I say, finally there is someone here (me) on Wikipedia who checks all the sources, puts countless new information's, reads the literature, edit article in NPOV etc.. although I am alone against them 5 or 6. Again insinuations and false accusations out of context. Mikola22 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Griboski When you mentioned the "latest example" and editor PajaBG, can you please tell him not to return a map that has no sources as evidence and on which is big part of the Balkans where Serbs allegedly coming in 7th century. It's called WP: OR. Explaned here [55] Article edit summaries [56]. Thanks in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What should I tell you, whether write on his forehead that he is far-right??? Um, if there are serious and credible allegations, including press coverage, of administrators peddling a Pro-Fascist worldview on an encyclopedia, then this would be obvious and should be looked at carefully. They shouldn't be given blind and enthusiastic support.

Yes and, as if I supported a mass murderer??? No. Just a far-right/neo-Nazi admin. In any case, these responses are telling. If you can't grasp what constitutes holocaust/historical revisionism and far-right ideology, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

In diff I do not support this, see diff. Roman Leljak claims this In the diff you clearly state: "Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct." And you clearly insinuate in your response that since no one has been able to challenge his "original document" then he must be right.

That has not been determined as fringe information (FTN), I have exposed three quality sources as evidence.. You provided three non-experts on the subject and it's been explained to you that it has been discounted in scholarship. Continuing to push it and deny it here doesn't help you.

What can I say, finally there is someone here (me) on Wikipedia who checks all the sources, puts countless new information's, reads the literature, edit article in NPOV etc.. Wow. Describing yourself as some kind of Great Wikipedian.. I don't even know where to begin with this. But it just demonstrates the arrogance you habitually exhibit and WP:NOTHERE attitude.

I compiled this report myself and only I am responsible for it. I've never reported anyone and I don't like to. But it comes to the point where prolonged tendentious editing shouldn't be tolerated. What others have said about you in past reports is not on me but it is concerning how many times you have been reported, by several different editors and for good reason. You are clearly here only to push a particular POV that is negative across Serbia and Serbs related articles and it's obvious. Aside from the fact that this sort of mentality isn't healthy, it's also not good-faith editing and you're not fooling anyone when you use edit summaries like "NPOV" each time. At some point this disruptive pattern and editing behavior has to be addressed. --Griboski (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply III

Um, if there are serious and credible allegations, including press coverage I don't know who that administrator is and many others supported him. I had never heard of him before and I suport administrator from Croatian Wikipedia not far-right/neo-Nazi admin.
No. Just a far-right/neo-Nazi admin If you construct and accuse me out of context then you have to prove that I know at that point that he is far-right/neo-Nazi pro Fascistic etc admin. I now hear for the first time that he is far-right/neo-Nazi admin.
" Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct... If someone writes a book and presents information about something, RS should tell us weather it is all fringe, propaganda, etc. Also there should be some procedure RSN and FTN and after that we know that his source is fringe or nor reliable. I can't at that moment(2019) when I don't know exactly what fringe theory term means or not reliable source to know that something is wrong. None of the 100 editors did expose this information's(fringe, not reliable etc) from RS. Also at that point I thought that his source passed all the checks on the Croatian Wikipedia. I didn't know how Croatian Wikipedia works.
And you clearly insinuate in your response that since no one has been able to challenge his "original document" then he must be right. This source(book) is probably on the Croatian Wikipedia at that time, I at the same time do not know the rules of Croatian or the English Wikipedia completely. If that source was on Croatian Wikipedia then I guess they checked it out. The only way to get some source refuted is find some RS which refute this source or on FTN and RSN. After that we know that this source is fringe etc. I told you that none of the 100 participants exposed those sources or clarification from FTN or RSN. I have not read his book nor follow his work, maybe he present other numbers in the book. I don't think it was a problem to put that topic on FTN or RSN and then everything would be known.
You provided three non-experts on the subject and it's been explained to you that it has been discounted in scholarship. Continuing to push it and deny it here doesn't help you. This information was part of article Serbia for several months, editor Sadko accepted it and he never said it was fringe information. Main source for this information is Colin Wells (historian) (2007, Sailing from Byzantium p. 211; Bantam Dell; ISBN 055338273X) and information that this is theory of half scholars, other half talks about the Iranian theory of the Serbian name. In addition I added two confirmatory sources. None of the editors addressed the issue on FTN to determine whether that theory is fringe. How would I know it was a fringe theory when this is theory of half scholars? That's what the Wikipedia procedure tells us.
Wow. Describing yourself as some kind of Great Wikipedian... In each report always the same or mostly the same accusation. Next time when some of you again reports me I will know 80% of report without reading. For Krunoslav Draganović I had been report the first time(2019) and no one had told me anything. Now you are trying to go in the direction of editor Sadko and "Nazi" fact. You go for the impression again and out of context only you were more careful than editor Sadko. As we say in the Balkans, this is "hunting in muddy water". I hope the administrators see that as they have seen it before. Mikola22 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

has previously been blocked several times for POV edit-warring, promoting fringe theories and generally WP:NOTHERE behavior. (First block is for disruptive editing, second for abuse of editing privileges, third for abuse of editing privileges, fourth inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked, fifth you're blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong, and for edit warring ie edit warring is disruptive whether or not you are right regarding the content.) Revert rules are in question, at the same time, the editors in that dispute were also punished. Promoting fringe theories and POV editing are not mentioned as the reason for the blocks nor was this the real reason for blocks. Mikola22 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also there should be some procedure RSN and FTN and after that we know that his source is fringe or nor reaible.. None of the 100 editors did expose this information's(fringe, not reliable etc) from RS. Obvious holocaust deniers are to be dismissed at hand. You were told here by two different editors. Diff 1 Diff 2 Yet you continued to challenge it and stated that the Croatian Wikipedia did the right thing by keeping him as a source for the concentration camp death toll. Diff 3

The far-right bias and historical denial/negation promulgated by the CW is well presented here in the same thread where you expressed your "strong support". Acting like you're oblivious to all of this just doesn't fly. In that case, you're just saying you will give unwavering support to the admins responsible no matter the evidence proposed. That's even more concerning.

The sentiments expressed on meta.wiki are deeply concerning and they can't be taken in isolation because those views don't exist in a vacuum. Those views are directly correlated to your editing activity on Wikipedia. You are here as a SPA and using the encyclopedia to solely edit Serb and Serbian topics to push your POV. Your tenure here has been marred by tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to right great wrongs in an already sensitive area. Everything has been laid out. It's up to the admins to decide if any action should be taken. --Griboski (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply IIII

Obvious holocaust deniers are to be dismissed at hand. You were told here by two different editors. I ask then for RS where book is refuted etc, and there was no such evidence, see diff. Editors are not RS in some anti-Croatian Wikipedia discussion. As for the English or Croatian Wikipedia and this source, this is the time of my entry into Wikipedia(2019), at that moment I thought that Croatian Wikipedia uses Croatian sources, English use English, etc. At that moment, I thought that book of Roman Ljeljak had passed Cro Wiki procedure and that everithing is clean.
The far-right bias and historical denial/negation promulgated by the CW is well presented here in the same thread where you expressed your "strong support I haven't read that precisely since it was the removal of the leading admins and I gave my support to the old admins like many others. What should I get block because I supported someone?
In that case, you're just saying you will give unwavering support to the admins responsible no matter the evidence proposed. There were a lot of editors who gave support. That he is Nazi and Fascistic administrator I for the first time hear that.
The sentiments expressed on meta.wiki are deeply concerning and they can't be taken in isolation because those views don't exist in a vacuum Yes, deeply concerning. I'm connected with Nazi-Fascistic administrator, perhaps the Ustasha Nazi underground, Croatian Nazi Wikipedia? Who also conspired against you and 6 "Serbian" oriented editors. Everything is clean.
Those views are directly correlated to your editing activity on Wikipedia. Yes, my Nazi worldview has invented hundreds of reliable sources which are foundation of many information's entered into articles. Also lot of information's ended up outside the articles because of my Nazi worldview and the ability to detect fringe and original research information's.
You are here as a SPA and using the encyclopedia to solely edit Serb and Serbian topics to push your POV Yes, we will have to delete everything which I enter in the articles because this information's are all Nazi propaganda. But the sources I put in the articles are too strong(RS) and it will be difficult but I believe you will succeed. Good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Peacemaker67

This report diffs comments on meta from over a year ago, and appears to be another in a series of reports from Serbian POV editors against Croatian POV editors, all while both sides claim they are being NPOV... It is as weak as the others, and adds to a disturbing trend of Serbian POV editors trying to get rid of Croatian POV editors from en WP. With a little digging, I could provide a dozen diffs of the OP being disruptive and POV-pushing, and a boomerang is going to be needed here shortly. All involved editors need to be reminded that discretionary sanctions apply in this space. While Mikola22 appears to have expressed some concerning views regarding some sensitive issues early on, English is obviously not their first language, and their meaning is sometimes not clear. I haven't seen recent evidence of anything of concern regarding Mikola22 on my Balkans watchlist, ie they appear to be getting the message that en WP is very different from hr WP, and far higher standards of sourcing and behaviour are required. Their editing behaviour isn't perfect, but neither is that of the Serbian POV editors. If there is evidence of current problems, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, this should be dismissed out of hand as stale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that while there is no prohibition on posting these sorts of issues here, it is far better to post at WP:AE, which is better structured, word limited, and far better suited to this sort of discussion of editor behaviour in an area subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This report diffs comments on meta from over a year ago, and appears to be another in a series of reports from Serbian POV editors against Croatian POV editors At that point I see atack on Croatian Wikipedia and some editors from English Wikipedia(Sadko, Antidiskriminator) which were against Croatian Wikipedia. Some editor start talk about Roman Ljeljak who is the source of information on that Wikipedia, at that point I think that all sources are RS and that this source went through some sort of procedure but at that time I didn’t know in detail that Cro Wiki doesn’t have the rules which has Eng Wiki(OR, FT, etc). I don’t know at that point and what exactly fringe information or theory and original research is. Today that Roman Ljeljak comes to Eng Wiki as source he go on FTN and RSN and in two days we know everything and we have the end of the story. Based on my not knowing procedures and rules and defending the Croatian Wikipedia, they are creating my Nazi profile which is related to the current editing and all in bad faith and with the intention of removing me because they can't do that in normal editing (because I do everything in good faith and by the rules). Certainly there are mistakes, but even then everything was done in good faith and with the background of quality sources. "Latest example" and editor PajaBG, he as editor saw that some map has no sources as evidence and it is explained to him with links and edit summary that this map is WP:OR but he returns that map to the article. Why? Because he knows that he has support of his editors, and therefore he does not follow the rules of Wikipedia. They can do anything here but I am the problem and they never go against each other. None of them 6 would do revert of editor PajaBG even though they know that this map is OR. A couple of days ago I invited these editors to submit evidence for some information, and no one submitted it, now I'm ask and @Griboski as well [57] Mikola22 (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good that you finally maybe realize what constitutes a RS, so you won't have to cite fascists anymore. To say you do everything in good faith is simply not true. You've exhibited many of the signs of tendentious editing during your time here (i.e. "being blocked for edit-warring more than once", "repeating the same argument without convincing people", "assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject", "righting great wrongs", "crusading against a specific POV", "seeing editing as being about taking sides" as you infer that you are the good guy and there's a conspiracy of other editors working against you.) Do you go around to check that every Croatian medieval and middle ages map and information in an article is correct down to a tee? No. You have a single area of interest inclined towards one POV. I'm not an expert on the Middle Ages but if the map is inaccurate and not according to RS, then it should probably be removed. By the way, pinging several editors twice as you did here 1 2 after not getting the answer you want here 3 can be seen as compulsive and antagonizing others and is not helpful either. --Griboski (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect and value Peacemaker67's input, I can't say I completely agree with his assessment. Here he's making a false equivalency between me and other editors in the Balkans area who at some point have engaged in edit-warring and in heated discussions, which is naturally bound to happen if you edit in this area long enough, and an editor who has a narrow area of interest, single purpose and whose time here has been defined by tendentious editing. ~~Anyway, seeing as there isn't much participation or progress in the discussion, I'm OK with an admin closing this.~~ --Griboski (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WEBDuB

I'm deeply shocked by this comment. There is plenty of evidence here that could raise suspicions of discrediting anti-Serbian racist WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK, and this comment proves that it is not a coincidence or an isolated incident. In the last few months, he contributes practically exclusively to Serbs- and Serbia-related topics, emphasizing the negative sides, and currently, his main focus is on conspiracy theories that Serbs in Croatia and B&H are actually Vlachs or a degenerate nation of slaves.

He also cited the link to the site of the fascist organization Yugoslav National Movement. I have previously pointed out on the AE his obsession with the most sensitive Serb-related topics and personalities, but that extensive comment was ignored. Furthermore, he discusses with excessive posts and disrupts the clarity of the debate. (WP:BLUDGEON) I have to remind everyone that he has already been warned about that after the AE report.

I'm also deeply disappointed with Peacemaker67's comment and the attempt to equalize the participants. Especially because of the rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian, simultaneous pressure to change many articles, but also long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats... I have personally reported about five times (some example: [58] [59] [60]) for various forms of harassment, but without any response. Sometimes, I don't feel safe here, especially since the admins on Balkan topics show less and less impartiality and timeliness. I really hope that this time the admins will not turn a blind eye to the obvious racial and political prejudices, as well as tendentious editing. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You have become boring with your coming to each report. I don't know that I've communicated with you a couple of times. If you want to support your editors (Sadko, Amanuensis Balkanicus) then do it constructively on various talk page by finding evidence(sources) for some information's etc.

I'm deeply shocked by this comment. There is plenty of evidence here that could raise suspicions of discrediting anti-Serbian racist WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK, I am also shocked with the sources and information's of various Serbian historians(some other to) which exist in many articles which say that Croatian Vlachs are actually Serbs. But I have to respect that although the whole Catholic Dalmatia was called as Vlach in the sources. These are today's Croats, but they are not originally Serbs. I know you would like that, but unfortunately they are not Serbs because the Vlachs are not originally Serbs and that speak Noel Malcolm, Ilona Czamańska, Ivo Banac, Karl Kaser, indirectly and Traian Stoianovich, C. A. Macartney, Ferenc VÉGH, Pál Fodor, Géza Pálffy. However, in the articles we still have the fact that the Vlachs are actually Serbs.
his main focus is on conspiracy theories that Serbs in Croatia and B&H are actually Vlachs or a degenerate nation of slaves. Yes, Vlachs are actually Serbs. All these historians(cited above) and their information's should be removed from the articles. I urge administrators to do this to make information that Vlachs are actually Serbs be only fact in the articles.
He also cited the link to the site of the fascist organization Yugoslav National Movement. Yes, this is Serbian source which I find on some link and you told me that the link was from some Serb fascists. Where I could see that the Zbor.rs is Serbian fascist organisation? What matters is the book which is RS. I can't tell from the links if something is a Serbian fascist organisation because I'm not from Serbia and I don't know Serbian fascist organisations which exist there. What does the information from the book have to do with the link?
I really hope that this time the admins will not turn a blind eye to the obvious racial and political prejudices, as well as tendentious editing. Unfortunately, you, Sadko and the team are not checking for accuracy of Serbian articles or editing this articles in NPOV etc. You actually keep these irregularities together and report(or giving support in that report) anyone who starts fixing this articles, for Nazism etc. Therefore Serbian POV pushing are slowly breaking down and you are not choosing the means to remove everyone from your Wikipedia. Here's what I tell you on every report, so I tell you now, if you have a problem with my editing, write your report because I only see you on reports and occasional edits, so this way it's not in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is so inappropriate. There is no “my” editors or something like that. It’s sad that you made some clusters and groups of editors by ethnicity or something. There is no place for such prejudices on Wikipedia. You really should stop with WP:BLUDGEON and WP:ASPERSIONS.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply II

And you and your friends stop with false accusation, construct accusation, accusation out of context, giving support in such artificial accusations. Don't hide yours Serbian POV pushing with my alleged anti-Serb POV pushing. In one discussion you said that you are anti-fascist and you used a slogan "Death to fascism, freedom to the people"! While in the article about the author(Stjepan Filipović) of that slogan and who is from Serbia, you did not enter any information ie that he was captured by Serbian Chetniks, that he was killed by Serbian State Guard unit, and that he is ethnic Croat I had to enter this information's instead of you, also you as anti-fascist did not enter any information and in the article about Serbian fascist Milan Nedić and here until I came he was shown as Serbian flowers, also you as big anti-fascist do not want fascist Serbian Chetniks to be in the context of genocide against Bosniaks and Croats [61].Thank you God for such Serbian POV pusher anti-fascist. Mikola22 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of shameful insults and labels (WP:HARASS, WP:NPA), which has nothing to do with the primary topic and the report. --WEBDuB (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were an anti-fascist but you only edit Croatian articles to present information about Croatian fascists and crimes against Serbs or you are preventing the placing of genocide fact in the context of the Serbian Chetnik fascists? Anti-fascist editor have a lot work and with articles about Serbian fascism. Why are you not on other articles(Serbian) when you are declared as anti-fascist? I guess I didn't offend you because I call you anti-fascist? Mikola22 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Aca

Hello everyone! As a frequent editor on several Wikimedia projects (including sr.wiki, Wikidata, Meta, MediaWiki, and hr.wiki), I came across Mikola22's edits several times. I mostly observed his actions in a couple of Meta discussions, which undoubtedly got my full attention – and not for a good reason.

As you might know, Croatian Wikipedia (CW) has recently started to heal from the damage done by extreme right-wing administrators led by Kubura. It seems like Mikola22 has openly supported them on Meta: "Very good admins, Croatian Wikipedia with them is very high quality and accuracy. I want to give them full support and that they continue to do this quality work."

Mikola22 said that "If there exist any problems then it had to be solved on hr.wiki", and "If one administrator has support there, then we must respect the will of the majority" equating Wikipedia with democracy. While, at the same time, he's turning a blind eye to the long list of wrongdoings on CW. I'm not writing all of this in order to persecute him for his opinion. I think that it can serve the community and involved administrators as a way to show and further understand his thinking and viewpoints.

A few weeks ago, user Koreanovsky started a discussion on CW regarding the introduction of new rules and guidelines. One of the more bizarre suggestions given on that page was made by Mikola22, who took things further and decided to spice it up with "one extra rule". He thinks that every single source which conflicts with any information given in other reliable sources should be examined on the premises if it is "based on original sources". Examples that he presented are mostly from Serbian history. He claims that he wants to remove "forgeries" [from Serbian history]. [62][63][64] [65]

Mikola22 publishes information about controversial figures or notable Serbs from Croatia on Croatian Wikipedia, where he is making claims or pushing forward sources that claim they are only Croatian. [66] [67] This would be just another POV edit if not for the fact that Mikola22 was engaged in disputes and edit-warring on the same pages here. [68][69]

On September 8, 2020, administrator Lasta started a survey on CW on whether articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina should be categorized by historical and modern regions or cantons and entities as of until then. Lasta made a proposal to categorize articles only by cantons and entities, which is also per the state constitution and laws. Mikola22 voted against the proposal, joined by the globally blocked administrator Kubura, and took the opportunity to state that "borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are made artificially". [70][71]

Mikola22 made many weird edits, like this one. In this particular diff, he added that Ottoman politician of Serb origin Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was related to a village "Croats", based on a source from 1951. I didn't find this information in other sources.

On June 11, 2020, Mikola22 made an edit on CW calling Nazi collaborators from modern-day Serbia led by Dimitrije Ljotić, a small percentage of the total population of Serbia, who had heavy losses fighting with the occupiers, "their Serbian helpers", implying that the whole nation was helping the Nazis. [72]

More epic fringe content was added by Mikola22 about "Orthodox Croats", partially based on information from the 18th and 19th centuries. In several articles, he removed various information claiming that it was added based on WP:PRIMARY, while on CW, he uses sources dating back to 250 or more years. On the page about "Orthodox Croats", he added information about Serbian family "Pupovac", claiming that they were Orthodox Croats. This is very interesting because the Serb minority in Croatia is led by one Milorad Pupovac. I doubt that was done by accident. [73]

A quick look at his talk page suggests that he sees Wikipedia as a battleground. [74] @Theonewithreason:

Also, Mikola22 was warned "to be more concise and to avoid bludgeoning discussions". Comments given here (including Reply I, II, III, etc.) are proof that he still hasn't changed at all. The warning was filed at WP:AEL by administrator @El C:.

If you need help with the translation from Serbo-Croatian (GT should do it), ping me and I'll jump in. I think that a topic ban on Balkan history is needed. – Aca ^💬 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aca that you are not a WEBDuB her past name is Aca Srbin (in English it means Aca Serb) but he change to WEBDuB to disguise nationalism, [[75]]. You are talking about right-wing administrators in Croatian wikipedia and why don't you say something about the Serbian wikipedia what it says there .So if you are the editor of sr.wikipedia, why don't you write something about Chetnik crimes as it says here [[76]] there is no such thing in [[77]] there is nothing that has been killed: 50,000–68,000 Sandžak: over 5,000 people. It is nowhere in the Serbian wikipedia while in the Croatian wikipedia there is about Ustasha crimes. As for the user WEBDuB, he is also bothered by the pictures of Catholic churches in Croatia, and he tried to erase [[78]] so I have no comment for that editor, and the editor Sadko now put a Croatian woman of Croatian origin who went to live in Serbia and got married there, put it as a Serb woman of Serbian origin from Croatia [[79]] and it clearly says that she has Croatian origin on her page [[80]].These are your editors.

Reply

Examples that he presented are mostly from Serbian history. He claims that he wants to remove "forgeries" [from Serbian history] You have to read a little better, not Serbian history while frogeries of Serbian historiography, but this also applies to Croatian etc historiography. And if you want examples of Serbian forgeries, let me know and you will get additional answer, only for you.
claims or pushing forward sources that claim they are only Croatian. First diff is information from RS, second diff is also information from the source(RS) and this fact(Croat) is also part of Englesh Wiki.
in disputes and edit-warring on the same pages here. Go to the Croatian Wikipedia and put information wich you want, what is stopping you? What does my edit on Cro Wiki have to do with edit warning from Eng Wiki?
"borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are made artificially" I have my own opinion as editor. I don't know what you're interested? Borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are made artificially in war ie entities, and my opinion is that we cannot do geographical division of Bosnia and Herzegovina and use entities borders because entities are made in war. This is my opinion about artificial borders of entities. You will quote my opinions from every discusion?
he added that Ottoman politician of Serb origin Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was related to a village "Croats" There is no mention of any village here, information from book of Harold Lamb is that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is captured in Croats (Croatia). What should I write? I have to write what the source say.
This is very interesting because the Serb minority in Croatia is led by one Milorad Pupovac. I doubt that was done by accident. This is information from RS. Editors are there to decide if that or any other information can be part of the article. Milošević, Jovanović are also Croatian surnames and what that should mean? Because of Slobodan Milosević president of Serbia we doubt that it was done by accident if someone mentions some Milosević?
A quick look at his talk page suggests that he sees Wikipedia as a battleground. For related editors who edit articles concerning Serbian history, in my opinion it looks more like a playground, so I have to introduce them with to some things because we cannot promote fringe information's confirmed by a neutral editor on FTN.
I think that a topic ban on Balkan history is needed You have contributed with very high quality evidence that proves nothing. Thanks for the effort. Mikola22 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term maneuvering by User:Albertaont

Albertaont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This report is related to my WP:AN/EW report [81] of User:Albertaont.

As I've mentioned it above, this user is associated with the long-term maneuvering of the editing processes and policies, which can hardly be seen as WP:HTBAE. Instead of WP:PRESERVE, their behavior has the destructive effect of censoring significant information and points of view—if not certain points of view.

The deletions by them were done mostly in the name of WP:UNSOURCED, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCKSTRIKE, "awkward", or "fake news". This is especially true when it comes to geopolitics- and China-related topics and content. Note that many of their deletions can be easily sourced and verified using a simple Google search, but they rarely show any interest in doing so.

Here are some diffs of their edits to demonstrate what I mean:

[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144]

Hope this report can help the community become aware of this user's behavior. Normchou ^💬 06:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve observed the behavior you’re talking about with Albertaont, the seem to jump around the East Asia space to whichever topic is currently hot/controversial and then push a generally questionable line. From my personal experience back in December they reverted a number of edits I’d made at Tianwen-1 two weeks after I’d made them with the edit summaries "Undid revision 991794797 by AnomieBOT (talk)reverse vandalism”[145] "Undid revision 991791281 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) reverse vandalism where they have all been clearly cited”[146] and “Undid revision 991791144 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) reverting vandalism”[147]. They never did source the information they added back in. So a few days later I again removed the unsourced information as well as a few unreliable sources (we were using a Chinese space fan site as a WP:RS) I again was reverted with the edit summaries "→‎Scientific instruments: clearly cited and abundantly clear, even to you”[148], and "(Undid revision 994204852 by Horse Eye's Back (talk)reverting vandalism, clearly in body)"[149]. They also reverted AnomieBOT again without challenging/removing all the tags leaving undated tags [150]. I haven’t edited the page since, I honestly hadn’t even noticed the second set until I went back to grab the diffs for the first set. TLDR thats four accusations of vandalism against a single editor in three days with zero basis in reality, a clear violation of our NPA provisions around casting aspersions. This is just one part of the stuff I’ve seen this editor do, I see three options going forward: a topic ban from COVID, East Asia, and US politics (broadly construed), a significant change in editing behavior and comportment on the part of Albertaont, or an indeff as not here/disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered another particularly egregious one, another editor had to clean up the mess Albertaont made at Hostage diplomacy with this rather pointed series of edits [151][152][153][154]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Severe reprimand or topic ban

Reading [155] I cannot help but notice that one of the editors needs a severe reprimand or topic ban for playing fast and loose with the facts. You have to decide who.

Rationale: Kuang Min Wu (1997). On Chinese Body Thinking: A Cultural Hermeneutics. BRILL. p. 70. ISBN 90-04-10150-0. Universality is ironic. Seeing his two disciples in hot dispute, the master Said to One, "You are right," then, turning to the Other, Said, "You are also right." A third disciple responded, "But, Master, they cannot be both right; they are disputing." The master thought for a while, then said, "You are also right." Now the master's saying has two points: (a) "also" and (b) "right." "Also" exhibits the freedom to affirm everything; "right" indicates the affirmation everywhere that includes negation. This freedom of universal affirmation with a gentle touch of irony keeps itself steady and integral; the statement, "You are also right," applies everywhere. I will leave it at what the third disciple stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tgeorg needs a topic ban? You have claimed that William G. Dever is not a reliable source because he disagrees with Israel Finkelstein to prevent my edits (which eventually had to be conceded), you have redefined the term "United Monarchy" against the scholarly literature in order to prevent my edits (which, eventually, you conceded), you have launched a false fringe discussionboard to shut me down earlier which did not work, you have launched an administrators noticeboard discussion earlier to shut me down earlier and that also did not work, you tried to delete my essay on the United Monarchy which was immediately reverted. In addition, the proposition you give makes no sense. You suggest a topic ban because two people disagree on the reading of a paper. Evidently, I'm your target and you want me off for ensuring that Wikipedia represents the scholarship rather than the view of a single minority Levantine archaeologist (Finkelstein). I am in the process of an extensive description of the literature in my essay.Editshmedt (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just smell a rat. I don't know who the rat is, but surely we have a rat. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter (talk · contribs) Perhaps a 31h ban is needed for Tgeorg for calling me a rat?Editshmedt (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the three editors is lying through their teeth. I don't know who, let's find out the truth together. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now I'm a rat and lying through my teeth. Keep in mind the precedent here - Tgeorg has tried to shut me down with a fringe noticeboard discussion, and administrators noticeboard discussion, and tried to delete my whole essay on the basis that it was "disparaging" towards Israel Finkelstein. All three were dismissed or blocked by other editors. Concerning the deletion of my essay, it was marked by Maile66 as "Definitely not an attack page; should not have been tagged as such" (see here). One must consider Tgeorg's intentions in light of these facts and others which can be seen from our recent conversations.Editshmedt (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim it's you. All I said is: completely supports the United Monarchy and completely debunks the United Monarchy cannot be both true at the same time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even referring to now? BTW, you're clearly talking about me. Can't be Wdford whose the rat lying through their teeth, who you repeatedly have praised and cited against me, claiming he's on your side and thus using WP:1AM to support yourself.Editshmedt (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[156]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be you, it could be Wdford, it could be ImTheIP, one of you made a complete mockery of WP:V. I want to find out who. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that settles it, no? You've never suggested Wdford or ImTheIP made unverifiable claims, but have repeatedly done so for me. In addition, what you said was not verifiable turned out to be verifiable. Can you specify how WP:V was made a mockery out of? I'm a lying rat whose made a mockery of WP:V - what else?Editshmedt (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I do know is that the rat is one of the three editors. I do not know that the rat is Editshmedt. In other words, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to all three. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denotation: literal meaning of what one is saying

Connotation: implied meaning of what one is saying

What you are recorded as saying: Editshmedt made repeated unverifiable claims. Also, someone, who needs a topic ban or severe reprimand, made a mockery out of Wikipedia's policy on verifiable claims (WP:V). That person is also a "rat", "lying through their teeth".

The connotation is obvious enough. Can you explain how WP:V was made a mockery out of?Editshmedt (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that I was wrong. I cannot accept that all these three editors are right. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me and ImTheIP seem to have come to consensus with each other. Can you tell me how WP:V was made a mockery out of? Don't tell me who did it - tell me how a mockery was made out of it.Editshmedt (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying UM is the mainstream view; they are saying UM is a figment of imagination. You cannot be all right at the same time. You and Wdford even invoke the same paper in support of the two opposite claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you said another of my edits failed WP:V. Which you then conceded. I don't know why you're insisting it's not me. It is.

The rest of your comments show you do not understand the conversation. Me and ImTheIP have come into consensus concerning the edits I made.Editshmedt (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am prepared to accept I was wrong. I am not prepared to accept that the same paper advocates for both the existence and the nonexistence of the UM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 Garfinkel et al paper does not mention the UM, nor are me and Wdford discussing the UM. As for the mainstream view, I am doing no more than following a WP:RS from a leading archaeologist, William G. Dever who writes: "Finkelstein’s low chronology, never followed by a majority of mainstream scholars, is a house of cards. Yet it is the only reason for attributing our copious tenth-century-BCE archaeological evidence of a united monarchy to the ninth century" Editshmedt (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in the discussion at [157], you were disputing this:

Ergo, per the latest scholarship, the minor fortifications of Level V at Tel Lachish were the work of Rehoboam post the "United Monarchy". The "United Monarchy" itself was a "small territory" which "collapsed after a few decades". QED. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You cannot be both right about that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not. See the talk page for the ongoing discussion, which you tried to launch a topic ban for at the outset. Such a petty disagreement is has no relevance for a topic ban or severe reprimand.Editshmedt (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You replied to him with This paper is just as misrepresented as the earlier paper - and you admit you misrepresent it. You preface your discussion of the paper by saying you quote a "handful" of sentences to "support" [READ: prove] what you wrote.

Wdford replied to you with In other words, Garfinkel is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

Do you understand there is absolutely no reason to believe you both are telling the truth?

You even replied today with so I do not see how you can insist on this.

If you two cannot agree if Garfinkel's paper supports or opposes the existence of UM, then WP:V has been annihilated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You two disagree regarding a paper, therefore a severe reprimand or topic ban is needed and verifiability is no more." Great.Editshmedt (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't disagree in a minor way. You disagree in a big, all in-your-face way. One of you interprets the paper as debunking UM, the other as supporting UM.

The essence of Wikipedia is that despite all our worldviews and all our differences, we get to agree upon what WP:RS say. Your quarrel is denying this essence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You two disagree on a paper. Someone needs to get banned!" Editshmedt (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wdford's point is that Garfinkel's paper shatters your POV. You claim that that paper bolsters your POV. And you two are not prepared to reach WP:CONSENSUS upon such straightforward claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people begin discussing a paper. One day after the discussion began, a user posted an administrators noticeboard discussion demanding an immediate topic ban or severe reprimand because consensus was not reached instantaneously. Makes perfect sense.Editshmedt (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The morals is that admins have to force one of the three to come to their senses and stop talking nonsense. The shameless deforming of Garfinkel's view has to stop now. All I am saying is that the way you manage to interpret WP:RS has real consequences for your editing. One of the three has to stop lying through their teeth and retract with <s> and </s> their previous deformations of WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the above (which reads like an attempted punch-up in philosopher's kindergarten), since when are we in the business of hosting things like Wikipedia:Commentary on the United Monarchy debate? Looks like a good deal of scholarly work there, so kudos on that, but I can't see any explanation for having this sit in Wikipedia space... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was under the impression that I could write an essay on a topic like this; simply amassing the scholarship as it exists. I do not see why such a topic is necessarily an issue, and as you note, there's plenty of good work on it. If other users decide I cannot keep the essay, please do not immediately delete it - allow me to save it somewhere else first, and then I will remove it myself.Editshmedt (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Editshmedt: to be clear, I think this kind of material is perfectly fine in user space ("User:Editshmedt/"), but it shouldn't sit in project space ("Wikipedia:"). I'd suggest you just move it to your user space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made a user space for it. I think an administrator is needed to delete the project space.Editshmedt (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Editshmedt: I've taken the statement above as a request for G7 speedy deletion, so I've deleted the mainspace article. If I've misinterpreted you, let me know. Deor (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all good.Editshmedt (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Take it to the talk page(s) or dispute resolution, it doesn;t belong here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you might ask, what did Garfinkel say about the United Monarchy?

Garfinkel, Yosef; Streit, Katharina; Ganor, Saar; Reimer, Paula J (2015). "King David's City at Khirbet Qeiyafa: Results of the Second Radiocarbon Dating Project". Radiocarbon. 57 (5). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 881–890. doi:10.2458/azu_rc.57.17961. ISSN 0033-8222. For millennia, the biblical narrative about the kingdoms of Judah and Israel was considered a reliable historical account. According to this narrative, the United Monarchy, a golden age ruled by Kings David and Solomon, was established about 1000 BC. After two generations, this kingdom was divided to form the kingdoms of Israel in the north and Judah in the south (see e.g. Malamat 1979; Mazar 1990). However, over the last 30 yr, some scholars have argued that the biblical tradition does not confirm real historical data. These interpretations entirely eliminate the United Monarchy and place the rise of the Kingdom of Israel in the early 9th century BC and that of Judah in the late 8th century BC, some 300 yr later than the biblical narrative (Lemche 1988; Finkelstein 1996; Thompson 1999). A third view is that although the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition did not exist, a kingdom was established in Judah by King David (Garfinkel 2011).

Garfinkel, Yosef; Hasel, Michael G; Klingbeil, Martin G; Kang, Hoo-Goo; Choi, Gwanghyun; Chang, Sang-Yeup; Hong, Soonhwa; Ganor, Saar; Kreimerman, Igor; Ramsey, Christopher Bronk (30 April 2019). "Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings". Radiocarbon. 61 (03). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 695–712. doi:10.1017/rdc.2019.5. ISSN 0033-8222. The data unearthed in our regional project point to the following developments. In the very late 11th and early 10th century BCE, under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country, with the western Shephelah region being marked by Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra'i. This first stage, however, collapsed after a few decades, as indicated by the destruction of Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra'i at around 1020–970 BCE. These particular events are not mentioned in the biblical tradition, but wars with the Philistines in the time of David are frequently cited.

Seen these quotes which fulfill WP:V I ask a topic ban for those claiming that Garfinkel would support the existence of the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition. This is a serious WP:CIR issue: an editor who claims such a thing cannot be trusted to edit anything pertaining to the Ancient Levant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorg is now figmenting, out of complete imagination, that I have recently claimed that Garfinkel accepts a United Monarchy - the literal opposite of my most recent comment, where I state his position is in-between the United Monarchy and Finkelstein view. Tgeorg now also fully admits he was talking about me being the shameless deformer the whole time. No credibility, just Tgeorg's shameless attempts to ban users who have repeatedly refuted him in the past.Editshmedt (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is [158] and you were denying that

Ergo, per the latest scholarship, the minor fortifications of Level V at Tel Lachish were the work of Rehoboam post the "United Monarchy". The "United Monarchy" itself was a "small territory" which "collapsed after a few decades". QED. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now stating, literally the fourth time in a row, that Garfinkel has an in-between position, between the United Monarchy and Finkelstein's position. I refuted Wdford in impressive detail - that quote contains countless factual errors, including (1) that Garfinkel is talking about a United Monarchy (2) that the fortifications at Lachish were "minor" (3) that 930 BC is far after the alleged date of the United Monarchy (4) that the Kingdom of Judah (not the UM) "collapsed" after a few decades - in fact, the first expansion phase collapsed. As you can see, Wdford literally has no understanding of this paper. However, the United Monarchy has nothing to do with Wdford's repeated quote-mining and bad reading skills. What Tgeorg claims I said, I in fact contradicted no less than four separate times. Tgeorg was literally told straight up in my last response that I'm saying the opposite of what he says I'm saying and he still insists I believe it. It's like reality crashes for some people. For the FIFTH TIME: Garfinkel neither accepts a United Monarchy nor an archaeological situation as posited by Finkelstein. Editshmedt (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If, as the quotes show and you agree, Garfinkel is an oponent of the existence of the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition, then Wdford's conclusion makes perfect sense. Why were you then telling that Wdford has misrepresented the paper? That does not make sense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wdford makes 50 claim about the paper, 49 of which are wrong. Solve the puzzle.Editshmedt (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, why did you quarrel further if the main point was clear? There's no need of wild tangents if we already established that Garfinkel opposes the United Monarchy. That was being debated. So, Finkelstein in not the only advocate of the nonexistence of the United Monarchy. No need therefore to single out Finkelstein as minority/fringe, since most scholars anyway don't accept the United Monarchy. You always state your views as if you were WP:RS, but you almost never provide verifiable quotes in support of your claims. At least in that discussion it did not happen. You stated why you think Wdford is wrong, you have never made that case WP:Verifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Countless errors. (1) Never said Finkelstein is fringe (2) Your claim that Finkelstein is in the majority is false, contradicting the WP:RS given above by Dever - despite the fact that I have given billions of verifiable sources for all my claims, such as this one by Dever and my thorough refutation of Wdford, you continue figmenting that none exist (3) Clearly you don't understand why me and Wdford were discussing Lachish (4) This administrators noticeboard conversation is over, since your basis for it was imagination. If you want to reach me further, post it on the Davidic talk page. I will not be responding here anymore, as it was an abuse of the administrators noticeboard system on your part, plain and simple.Editshmedt (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why cite three papers by Garfinkel at User:Editshmedt/Commentary on the United Monarchy debate? Do you think the three papers would bolster the case for the United Monarchy, when you just stated above For the FIFTH TIME: Garfinkel neither accepts a United Monarchy nor an archaeological situation as posited by Finkelstein.? I get the feeling you want to eat your cake and still have it. Don't you think that it is dishonest to cite the three papers as if they were supporting the case for the United Monarchy?

Same applies to citing Coogan, who has actually stated in Coogan, Michael (October 2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

What Garfinkel and Coogan have in common is that they have lambasted Finkelstein, but, again, your essay is about the archaeological evidence for the existence of the United Monarchy, which neither Garfinkel nor Coogan are inclined to think it exists.

Citing them in such dispute is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a content dispute being debated by two editors on ANI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits by DealOrNo

BLOCKED

(non-admin closure) User has been blocked by The Bushranger for 24 hours. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

DealOrNo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

user:DealOrNo has in the past days been engaged in edit warring to get his version of evens across regarding the status of Gibraltar in the Schengen Area at those two pages. Unfortunately, despite multiple attempts to warn him (both templated and non templated) on his talk page he seems not to be willing to come to the talk page where discussions were starting regarding his proposed additions (Talk:Gibraltar#Schengen and Talk:Schengen Area#Gibraltar again (BRD discussion). After a pause the past days, he started editing again showing the same behaviour. I suppose a short block is needed to provide some stimulation to start the discussion process on the talk page, as we have exhausted all other options. L.tak (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're getting a 24-hour time-out for egreriously ignoring WP:3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive Behaviour on Hailee Steinfeld

Hailee Steinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unregistered user has been changing Hailee Steinfeld's height on Hailee Steinfeld from 5'6", which is what the source says. The obvious purpose is to disrupt, because the user sometimes changes her height to 5'8", sometimes to 5'7", and sometimes to 5'6.5". This has been going on for three days, but the tempo has been increasing this afternoon. Could the page be frozen for a few days until the editor loses interest and goes away? Instant Comma (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 days semiprotection applied to stop the vandalism. That said, you really should find a better source for that if at all possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP also blocked 2 weeks. (I didn't see Bush's page protection.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In October, the user was blocked for one month for doing the same thing (changing the height of various celebrities). Instant Comma (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be less the IP and more a new-ish editor named Paul Polimero. I found a People magazine article discussing Steinfeld's height specifically and giving it as 5' 8" and replaced the existing Youtube reference. I got this revert and this bizarre edit summary It's a joke? it's not a funny video ... He says it clearly: "This is where (I lie) and I say 5'7, when in reality I am 5'6", it refers to when he said 5'7 once (but that is actually 5'6) The reference you put, in addition to placing it wrong ... I don't see her say 5'8 ... That is putting false information again and it has a crime. There's both the general competence issue ("he"?) and the attempt at a pseudo-legal threat. --Calton | Talk 09:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton! I wrote that. You see, let me explain. Hailee Steinfeld claims to be 5'7 here: https://twitter.com/haileesteinfeld/status/978785185910026240 She here she says: that she is lying, saying that she is 5'7 when she is actually 5'6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSfjCG4V2GM

Her source from that magazine, she has taken 5'8 from sometime that they gave it to her somewhere, and from there it has become official ... It's that simple. What is it that she doesn't understand? But Hailee Steinfeld herself, both from her mouth and in writing, never claimed to be 5'8 ... It's 5'6 actually what she measures. You are publishing a false data by putting that 5'8 ... You don't know what she measures better than herself, it's her word against yours.

And that which says: "that I am the problem, not the IP" is wrong friend, as a Wikipedian you know perfectly that an official source can be quite wrong ... The IP changes version constantly, sometimes it says 5'8, other times 5'7 and other times 5'6.5 ... He has no idea, he just wants to disturb us and have us discuss among ourselves ... Okay, it's just the height, but if there are already lies in a biography with height, why shouldn't there be with other things? Friend, don't let the lie win. I mean it in a good way :)

Paul Polimero (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic terrorism

STATUS QUO ANTE PROTECTED

Protected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Domestic terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Domestic terrorism needs some immediate attention. I've made a request at RFPP, but brand-new accounts and IPs (and one admin) are engaged in a very fast edit war. I've tried to get back to the last stable version a couple of times, and encourage discussion on the talk page, but I think locking the article (in the status quo ante version) is needed. (I originally asked fer semi-protection, but I think now that full protection is needed). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Liz got to that (I was just about to). --Masem (t) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Thank you for the quick action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, one of the accounts there (sneedmaguire) is illustrative of something that should be a yellow flag in usernames: the phrase "sneed", which is related to a pretty common shitposting gimmick on sites like 4chan (see "E-I-E-I-(Annoyed Grunt)#Legacy"). Of course it's a part of many a different real name (see Sneed), but it's something to be aware of in the future if you see it in other disruptive accounts, edit summaries, etc. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

In the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic I have now twice been accused of sockpuppetry by two editors in their attempt to discredit another editor and promote their POV, and in doing so discredit my account as well. First by editor Alexbrn, followed two days later by editor Britishfinance. Please refer to my comments there. This behavior is totally unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have notified either Britishfinance or Alexbrn as required. I have corrected this oversight. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought that was already assumed when commenting on a page with sanctions and after notifying Alexbrn earlier in the same thread. It's kind of difficult to defend against multiple sockpuppet accusations without admin involved. Regardless, thank you! Dinglelingy (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinglelingy you didn't "notify" me. And I didn't "accuse" you of being a sockpuppet, but asked you (once) whether you were the same as another user[159] -- it just struck me as odd you appeared from nowhere in the middle of an exchange and seemed to be responding as if continuing that user's conversation. Sometimes new users don't understand that it's problematic having multiple accounts, and have a less thorough grasp of the WP:PAGs, when new, than you evidently did.[160] Anyway, I was happy to accept your response, which you already gave. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting about sockpuppetry accusations, but to discredit another editor and promote their POV considering how reliable sources treat the theory, I see it more as preventing the editor from promoting a view that is still considered WP:FRINGE by the scientific community. —Paleo Neonate – 05:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This post is about sockpuppetry accusations, not whether my view is WP:FRINGE. There are different reliable sources provided that present different views of the lab leak theory (some of the dated sources say it's an outright conspiracy and some new ones say it may be plausible and even credible). Regardless of which sources provided you think are or are not reliable, and whether or not the theory should be considered a conspiracy theory or misinformation, you must agree that personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry aren't good for this conversation and won't help us reach a consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.) There is a proper procedure to follow if you suspect someone of sockpuppetting. It is not asking someone "huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)?" in the middle of a discussion, for any reason. If you want to tell yourself that this was not a loaded/accusatory question and that you were only trying to help out a new user that you are in conflict with, be my guest. But let's not kid ourselves about the impact it has on my account and the position it puts me in. You were happy with my response? Well, did you apologize, withdraw the question, or just let it linger there for another editor to pick up and make the same allegation? As an experienced editor, you should know better.

2.) You are correct that I did not notify you by using Alexbrn. I responded to the question that you asked with, "I am not and I do not appreciate the completely unfounded and inaccurate accusation. Seems my suggestions were ignored. A reminder of the rules: Assume good faith, Be polite and avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming to newcomers. I suggest you follow them." on a page with sanctions in place. If you are claiming a notification technicality, I'll give it to you. But I also did not accuse you of doing this twice nor did I name you in the title of this complaint. My complaint is that this has now happened twice in the same thread and it needs to stop. You started it and Britishfinance ran with it despite my warning. Again, as experienced editors, you both should know better.

3.) PaleoNeonate I guess you are commenting on motive for violating Wikipedia policy and accusing me of sockpuppetting? Strange approach, not a good look. I suggest you 'can' it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I look at the contribution of Dinglelingy, it is pretty obvious to me that this is not a new user.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are claiming a notification technicality, I'll give it to you. Bruh. Read the bright orange banner with big, bold text in this page's editnotice every single time you try to post anything:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so.

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

Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful.

This is also in bright red at the top of this page. You didn't follow those instructions. There's no "technicality" when it comes to something that unequivocal. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

69.174.144.79 My bad Bruh, I thought notification referred to naming them as in Alexbrn which seemed like a lame excuse. Thanks again for taking care of it for me. My apologies for the oversight.Dinglelingy (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins/69.174.144.79, this just happened again at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#break

"Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)"

The [13] link sends you here if there is any doubt who he is referring to.

This is ridiculous.

I assume I don't need to put another notification on his talk page? Thanks.Dinglelingy (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Britishfinance

Given that my name is on the title of this ANI, I would like to note that:

I did not call Dinglelingy a sockpuppet or make a personal attack on them. The only edit I have made referring to Dinglelingy is here, where I said to ScrupulousScribe:

"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website [here] shows that NinjaRobotPirate's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks Dinglelingy, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory)."

Having read ScrupulousScribe on Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, I agree with NinjaRobotPirate's view that they are a strong case for a topic ban, for which their attempt to "shoehorn" an unproven allegation of a lab-leak, despite quality sources discounting it, into fact, is a single issue crusade. Despite established editors such as CowHouse, Thucydides411 and others, spending considerable amounts of time refuting ScrupulousScribe's "wall of text", the crusade carries on.
My reference to Dinglelingy in the above edit was that they were also involved in sustaining ScrupulousScribe's crusade (for which there can be material consequences). Whether they are a sock puppet of ScrupulousScribe (or other) was not my concern, nor was any personal aspect of their actions. It is purely that they are repeatedly trying to make a fringe theory, a fact on Wikipedia; and are prepared to repeat the same points/sources ad-infinitum to do it.

I hope Dinglelingy will now withdraw the false allegation and take my name off the title of this ANI. Britishfinance (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a topic ban for ScrupulousScribe

ScrupulousScribe has done almost nothing since their account creation in December except to push for the inclusion and crediblilty of the "Lab leak" origin for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, which has no evidence in favour and is not supported by virologists. ScrupulousScribe has relied on many non WP:MEDPOP reliable sources, including newspaper op-eds to push this theory, as well as "independentsciencenews.org" a website that publishes anti-Bill Gates conspiracy theories diff. They have also commited copyright infringement at their draft Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, copying directly from newspaper articles. At this point ScrupulusScribe's continued contributions on the matter fall under WP:IDHT. After ScrupulousScribe was blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring, NinjaRobotPirate declined their appeal, concluding "I am honestly surprised that you're not topic banned". I agree, and as such I propose a topic ban from the origins of SARS CoV 2 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, broadly construed under the community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedians start out on a topic which they know something about. In my case, I started out by creating a draft on Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory after reading an article earlier in September in the Boston Magazine titled Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?, and when I submitted it for approval, two reviewers declined it suggesting that I merge it instead with Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying also that I should take it up on the talk page there, which I did.

Since the Boston Magazine piece, the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario has been picked up by a number of other publications, including the the BBC, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, The Times, Bloomberg, Presadiretta and Le Monde, the New York Magazine, and a number of others which don't especially meet WP:RS, so I won't cite them here. There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page as to whether we should spin off the accidental leakage section of the Misinformation page into a new page (my draft, which is still a work in progress), and so far the discussion has been more focused on whether the above sources meet the criteria of WP:RS to do so, or whether WP:MEDRS should apply (which it does not, as the lab leak theory doesn't constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information). There is also a discussion taking place on the talk page of Wuhan Institute of Virology, where too the discussion has focused on WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and hasn't reached a consensus.

Instead of calling on me to get banned, it would be better for you to engage in the discussion, and explain your position on why the lab leak theory shouldn't be considered a plausible origin scenario, as the reliable sources I provided quite clearly indicate it is (including this Washington Post article which you claimed doesn't support the theory, which it does, unless you meant this one, and that one does too). The fact that this isn't your "first rodeo", as you said in the talk page of the article, and the manner in which you discount reliable sources, seems to indicate that you are more of an activist than I am, and you are obviously seeking to wield your power as a more experienced Wikipedian, without any basis in Wikipedia Policy. A number of other editors (in particular Britishfinance and Alexbrn) have been quite condescending in their manner of talking to me and other users (prompting this RFAA), and will require us to either request a dispute resolution on the NPOV noticeboard, or some other form of administrator intervention. As it stands now, I and a number of other users maintain the article on Misinformation or the Institute adhere to WP:NPOV, and the discussion will go on.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Support. This user has some other concerning behavioral issues, but a topic ban is a good start. If you take a look at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user has issues with responding to every comment, responding verbosely, and not respecting consensus. He is taking up a large amount of editor time and talk page space. I would also support a broader topic ban on all COVID-19 topics. I also support investigating this user's sockpuppet behavior. I also support a topic ban for Dinglelingy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and agree with Novem_Linguae on their extension to all COVID topics, and include Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this user appears to me to have followed the community guidelines and engaged in civil discussion. I fail to see how a topic ban is deserved in this case, since it should only be awarded on clear cases of disruptive behaviour. ScrupulousScribe behavior seems constructive, productive, and well intentioned, at least in my opinion. Forich (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As can be seen in their edit history, Forich's editing has also almost solely focused on the origins of SARS-CoV 2 over the past year. It doesn't matter that they are civil, their failure to back down after being told no by numerous people counts is disruptive and counts as Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ScrupulousScribe has been blocked indefinitely for copyvio by an admin. I wouldn't mind keeping this discussion going though, because of possible socks and other issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite might not be very long - it just means the duration is currently, well, not defined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On re-examination, I think the copyright block is likely to be short, and it would help if any passing admin feels like offering a second opinion and reviewing the unblock request and subsequent discussion at User talk:ScrupulousScribe#January 2021 copyright. Please? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this sanction on new user per WP:ROPE and WP:DONTBITE. The user clearly has a lot to learn, and is just as clearly working on it, has progressed in some areas, and has failed to progress in others. That said, there is an underlying lesson this user needs to absorb -- when you find opposition to something from a lot of different users, and little support, it's time to rethink. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ScrupulousScribe has tried to engage in a civil and meaningful manner throughout this episode. He's a new user, so it's unsurprising that his contributions so far have been related to a single topic. Why should that suggest a topic ban? The copyright issue is being addressed sensibly and productively right now, so again, why should this suggest a topic ban? It seems that ScrupulousScribe's only 'misdemeanour' is to hold some views that don't resonate with other editors. Arcturus (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arcturus has made clear that the reason that he opposes this is that he also supports ScrupulousScribe's fringe views, as can be seen at Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#break. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage! Arcturus (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I was just listening to a podcast with two biologists who ask 'is it safe to acknowledge the obvious yet?' about the 'Lab Leak Hypothesis'. Apparently the answer is still no. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is nothing wrong with an editor focusing on a specific topic or category of articles. Also, the editor seems to be working in good faith and clearly has found some WP:RS (Bloomberg for example is a Wikipedia perennial reliable source) despite this appearing like a fringe theory on its face. Stricter sourcing might be needed but this is not egregious enough to warrant a ban. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GenoV84

GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.97.77.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:1005:b020:b498:43a:745c:8998:3a25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(IPs are the same person, on different ends of the IP masking rollout; there are some previous IPs involved that appear to be a dynamic-IP situation)

I went to provide a WP:3O on the Antony Flew page and walked into an intractable edit war that seems to be wrapped up in GenoV84 taking a WP:RS issue personally. The issue, as discussed here, revolves around GenoV84 using a blog with a strong ideological alignment on the article's topic as a source; the IP editor notes that this source is unreliable, while GenoV84 replies by claiming the same information is available in reliable sources. This of course doesn't actually change the matter, because if information in an unreliable source is available in a reliable one, then established precedent is to preferentially use the reliable source.

GenoV84 appears to be working under the bad faith assumption that the IP's repeated removal of this source is vandalism, and has replied accordingly in talk pages (see here, here) and interactions with me (here). Notably, he claimed the IP editor to be block-evading in their interactions on the Antony Flew page, whereas my suspicion from prying into the situation is this isn't the matter at all -- rather, GenoV84 appears to be the sole person giving the IP vandalism template warnings (see here), and despite lack of adminship assuming the block level of these warnings constitutes an actual block (I may be reading this wrong; the issue was explained to me by only one party, and I've reconstructed it through talk page histories). He appears to be assuming a dynamic IP with an obviously good understanding of Wikipedia policy and who appears through all their interactions to be working in good faith (if getting heated on a heated topic) is a vandal.

I think the issue is getting wrapped up in personal beliefs, rather than the actual matter at hand of 'what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia', and this is leading to GenoV84 making bad faith assumptions. (I said as much in my 3O.) GenoV84's arguments in favour of the blog source appear to be oriented around "but the blog is the Truth™" rather than whether or not the blog is in fact an encyclopedia-appropriate citation.

GenoV84 has a large proportion of the edits to the page even prior to this edit war, so I think WP:OWN issues may also be involved, but I'm less confident on this point.

At the time of writing, the recent page history looks like this. Specific diffs can be observed here and look more or less exactly like this for over a page of edits (e.g. this). Note the persistent accusations of vandalism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: I would like to clarify my position on the matter of this discussion:

the IP user objected that the blog cannot be used as a source by affirming that it makes unsupported "additional claims", whereas I repeatedly responded that blogs can be used as sources on Wikipedia and the blog is based on authoritative newspaper and magazine articles published by multiple reliable sources that report exactly the same informations, reliable sources that I had already provided as references to the Antony Flew article. I never said that "the blog is the Truth™", in fact I'm totally aware that reliable sources take precedence over blogs and that blogs "may not be the best choice" (as I explicitly said on the article's Talk page);
moreover, I hoped that the user Vaticidalprophet could help me and the IP user to reach consensus about what to do with the blog. In his 3O, Vaticidalprophet stated that "GenoV84 has found other sources that include the information he wants to add in this article, and accordingly can use them instead (and should have done so in the first place)". Now, if Vaticidalprophet is right and other editors agree that the blog is an unreliable source and doesn't provide useful informations, then it should definitely be removed from the article and the other sources that I had already provided should be used instead.--GenoV84 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: I'll post a more detailed response regarding the 'additional claims' in the blog article on the relevant talk page when I have time, but in short my issue with the blog was that it was written, quite openly, as an opinion piece, and that at least some of the information it presents also falls into that category (i.e., the claim currently in the article that certain arguments 'reek of bovine waste.'). The reliable sources do indeed include much of the same information, minus any of the additional opinion claims (which are specifically what the article, in my opinion, cites), and you will note that I have made no attempt to alter or remove any of those. I believe that the article would be just as strong with the entire paragraph that relies on that blog post being deleted, but as Vaticidalprophet said, you could try to reconstruct at least parts of it using the other, reliable sources. I think that the Wikipedia policy on blogs is designed to allow us to use scholarly or expert blogs as an additional source of information, not to allow the usage of anonymous opinion pieces from personal blogs. That being said, I was just trying to make a minor alteration to make Wikipedia more reliable, as I do from time to time; I am a user, but I am not an invested editor, so I will leave it to others to solve this. 76.97.77.25 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion and for having engaged in a polite and mutually respectful debate with me, 76.97.77.25. I owe you an apology for my ill-tempered behavior, although I would have preferred to hear your proposal earlier so that we could finally come to an agreement with each other; anyway, all's well that ends well.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Stepan Bandera, likely externally coordinated

Stepan Bandera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the last two days, we had four users, Andriy.v, Рассилон, Aced, and AS, editing the page and the talk page with the only purpose - to remove the definition of Bandera as terrorist from the lede. Bandera was convicted by the court to death for terrorism and is defined as such by reliable sources. In Ukraine, Bandera, who is also a Nazi collaborator and a Holocaust theorist, is considered a national hero and was given a highest state award. Andriy.v, Рассилон, and Aced are not extended confirmed, AS is extended confirmed with a count of less than 2K edits, but their last 50 edits go back to 2012. This means none of them is currently an active Wikipedia editor. All four are native Ukrainian speakers. It is quite common for Ukrainian internet users to coordinate such attacks, and I believe that this one is externally coordinated (likely on social media), and restricting these users will result in just more users joining the mob. We had here (not in this article though) similar cases in the past, see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Organized disruptive editing of Aleksandr Khanzhonkov page in recent days. There is some discussion at the talk page, but reverts do not follow discussion (Andriy.v is only discussing and not reverting, others are reverting) which is a complete bogus: they first claimed that Bandera is not called a terrorist in reliable sources, and then, when plenty of sources were provided, started to require that sources "call him a terrorist as a define feature"), and then that Osama bin Laden is not defined as terrorist in the lede (he is of course). I am not sure what could help here, they are not particularly interested in listening to the arguments, they only want the word to be removed from the lede. The article is under AE discretionary sanctions and has been semi-protected before the incident. Probably a revert to the pre-war version followed by a full protection would help, though I am afraid when full protection expires they would start reverting again. I come we can collectively come to a solution here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that the last version of the article is more or less ok ("terrorist" replaced by "involved in terrorist activities" and moved to the end of the first sentence of the lede), though the collective behavior of these users probably needs to be evaluated.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can comment on my involvement here, and I'm not sure Ymblanter's comments give full justice to the situation. I wasn't trying to remove mentions of Bandera being involved in terrorism from the lede or, indeed, from the first paragraph. I don't deny Bandera's involvement in terrorist activities, I just pointed out that it's not the most important thing Bandera is known for or described as in reliable sources. I detailed this (to my mind, perfectly reasonable) argument in the edit summary & later on the talk page. Ymblanter undid my edit, choosing not to address my argument but rather citing my nationality. Now Ymblanter agrees with my version, which was later reinstated by another user (that was not coordinated with me), so I'm not really sure why he undid it in the first place. To the general point — no, I wasn't part of a "mob" or an "attack", didn't coordinate one, didn't see attempts to organize one, and, frankly, don't see one having taken place in the article. --Aced (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, I do not know, may be edit-warring is a valid dispute resolution avenue in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but it is certainly not a valid dispute resolution method here.~~ You are expected to go to the talk page and discuss, and to achieve consensus, and if you see that your edits are not accepted, to stop edit-warring and continue discussing. Instead, I see four users coming out of nowhere, at least three of which were not interested in any consensus, and they were only using the talk page to state their opinion and to continue reverting. This is not what we really find acceptable here. Concerning the absence of coordination, I happen to have a PhD in physics and math, and I would estimate the probability that four users none of whom is active in the English Wikipedia just accidentally happened to edit the article / talk page on the span of two days, pushing one specific point, as zero.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not engage in edit-warring. Once I saw my edit undone, I did go to the talk page and asked for an explanation (and have not received an answer to my specific question so far). Concerning coordination, I'm talking about the lack of a coordinated "attack" or "invasion" by a "mob" as you claim. There's a considerable difference between having someone point out this article & participating in a coordinated attack. In my case, it was the former. Concerning my activity, I'm not highly active in English Wikipedia, but I am active and I don't come from nowhere, which anyone can easily check based on my recent contributions both in this wiki and in others. As a side point, I'd appreciate if you stopped referring derogatively to Ukrainian Wikipedia (as you did here and on the talk page), it isn't warranted and doesn't go a long way towards facilitating a productive discussion here. --Aced (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you revert an edit, get reverted, leave a random comment on the talk page and disappear, and the next user reverts with the edit summary "see the talk page", this is a textbook definition of coordinated disruption. Even if you have not coordinated directly anything with this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your description contradicts the facts on three counts - 1) I didn't revert an edit but rather proposed better phrasing, which had not been proposed before; 2) my comment wasn't random, it was a viable explanation for my edit and a question; 3) I didn't disappear, I waited for your response on the talk page (and given that it was late night in Europe, it's completely warranted that you didn't respond right away); what else should I have done? --Aced (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your question, you should have checked the edit history, and then, without editing the article, go to the talk page. As a matter of fact, you have just pushed your version into the article - it was not there before your edits, and it is there now. I understand why people do not want to start edit-warring for such a relatively minor issue, but the fact is that we do not have any indication that the version is consensus-based.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Not extended confirmed' and 'not an active Wikipedia editor' come apart quite significantly, especially when one of the editors involved is an admin on a non-English Wikipedia. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who of them is admin on a different project but if this is the case, it is high;u unfortunate that a Wikipedia administrator finds it acceptable to participate in coordinated disruption of another project.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly disagree with the definition "Bandera was a Ukrainian terroris" not because his wasn't involved in terrorist actions, he was, but because this is not the primary and most important definition of this character. Bardera isn't known for his terrorist actions, he known in first instance to be a politician and leader of OUN and other nationalist groups. As correctly mention AS on the talkpage even the most famous terrorist Osama Bin Laden isn't defined as terrorist ("Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, also rendered Usama bin Ladin, was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda") so why we should define a character who is clearly not known in first instance as a terrorist? I agree with actual definition of Bandera, and i think that this is the most neutral and right, according to Wikipedia politics, definition.--Andriy.v (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your, Ymblanter, efforts to resolve this conflict, but some of your statements are simply offtopic accusations, which I found sad and not helpful. I am called "not interested in listening to the arguments, "with the only purpose - to remove the definition of Bandera as terrorist", "pushing one specific point", posting false arguments ("Osama bin Laden is not defined as terrorist in the lede (he is of course)." - sorry, that's false if you understand the difference between the definitions.) I'll be thankful if you apologize for these accusations in accordance with WP:AGF ("may be offensive speech is a valid dispute resolution avenue in the English Wikipedia, but it is certainly not a valid dispute resolution method in UkWiki." :)). There is no magic, I know about this conflict from this discussion on UkWiki, and I came to improve article quality in most popular wiki-chapter without coordination with users above. Sorry for reverting the change, but not sure what did you expect from a "why do we have a low-count invasion of Ukrainian editors?" comment. AS ^sa 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have just confirmed that the action was externally coordinated. I hope other administrator(s) would weigh in what actions are needed here. I am obviously involved in this episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have striken out a statement on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, it indeed does not add anything to the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative abuse by User:Drmies

Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Diffs = 1 2

The context here is that User:Drmies took it upon himself to remove a talk page comment simply because he did not like what was being said. I personally did not agree with the sentiments expressed in said users comment but found the violation of WP:TPO particularly perturbing.

User:Drmies continued to edit war in violation of WP:TPO and eventually stopped after three reverts. He then proceeded to block me, without a hint of irony, for edit warring. Now regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with my actions (I’ve already been blocked for it so it’s settled at this stage), this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED which stipulates that Admins involved in a conflict cannot take administrative action in such a situation and that if they were to this would be administrative abuse of powers.

WP:TOOLMISUSE clearly outlines this as a serious issue - “Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanctions or even their removal.”

User:Drmies cannot claim to be ignorant of WP:TOOLMISUSE or WP:INVOLVED due to the fact that one would expect an admin of all people to be aware of Wikipedia’s own administrative policies but also due to the fact that I informed him that blocking a user you are involved in a dispute with is a clear abuse of administrative powers per the above policies. This was 22 minutes before he blocked me so he cannot claim not to have seen it.

User:Drmies therefore has blatantly and knowingly committed administrative abuse by breaching WP:INVOVLED and WP:TOOLMISUSE. In my opinion this seems like a clear cut case and I would respectfully suggest some form of punitive or remedial action should be pursued per WP:TOOLMISUSE.

PailSimon (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Neither a link to the allegedly offending edit nor a notification to @Drmies:'s talk page. I don't think this is going anywhere useful. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have pinged Drmies in the section title. As for the offending edits, I should have linked them, you're correct. Anyway, all one has to do is look at the edit history of the page in question or of myself. This shouldn't cause too much trouble hopefully and certainly doesn't mean it isn't going anywhere given nobody has commented prior to you. PailSimon (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What page - you have made no indication of where the issues have occurred, so no-one can judge the rights and wrongs of the matter.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - PailSimon, you know best which diffs are relevant to the complaint that you're making. That talk page is enormous; I doubt many people will take the time to trawl through it looking for diffs relevant to your post. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presumably this one--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes and here is more PailSimon (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
      - Here is the third revert of his against me. PailSimon (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Reyk, it's not a big deal to me: I knew this user was going to come here. Someone that combative, writing edit summaries like this one, they usually land on ANI, sometimes as a next-to-last stop. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have now given Drmies a notice on his talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)~~ Correction: Diannaa beat me to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:ExplosiveResults#Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol for why he removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't think it's particularly relevant as to why he removed it. This report is about Drmies breach of WP:INVOLVED which occcured regardless of whether or not he was justified in his reverting of me. PailSimon (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly made him involved at the time of block? Reverting an editor for disruption doesn't inherently make them involved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first thing I'd say is there was no disruption. PailSimon (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having read all of this, I very much think there should be a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer (PailSimon). I believe this report to be in bad faith, and that the filer is wasting everyone's time. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Delusion, I disagree. PailSimon hasn't violated any rules, but Drmies has.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how bringing forth an obvious case of WP:INVOVLED is bad faith and should result in action against me, instead of action against an offending user. Could you elaborate? PailSimon (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PailSimon, What diffs show Drmies is involved as an editor and not an admin? // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimothyBlue I don't see how he was "involved as an admin" by simply reverting. A simple revert by an admin would not be "involved as an admin" by my interpretation. PailSimon (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you saying admins cannot take admin actions against editors who they revert? By that definition oversighting is WP:TOOLMISUSE, as is reverting vandalism, removing personal attacks, etc (where followed by a block/revdel/etc). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point is that Drmies was not reverting vandalism, personal attacks etc. PailSimon (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PailSimon, I'd withdraw this and then read Hoist with his own petard. // Timothy :: talk 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very unprofessional comment. PailSimon (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no its the best advice you will receive on this matter. // Timothy :: talk 14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a block was necessary here. PailSimon wasn't making the offending comment but restoring it for what he perceived as a violation of WP:TPO. Calm discussion and explanation that it was (apparently) a DS action not subject to discussion via reverting is what should have occurred. I don't see that from Drmies.
At the same time this is pretty clearly not a breach of WP:INVOLVED as it was undertaken as a single chain of administrative actions from start to finish. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it a "single chain of administrative action fro mstart to finish" with regards to myself? I don't see how it could be construed as such by any meaningful sense of the term. PailSimon (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can non-Admins do closes on this page. I'd close this with at least a trouting to OP (with frozen fish). -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closure would seem premature, as the discussion does not seem over. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think its pretty clear this report is erroneous and filed as retaliation. // Timothy :: talk 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies clearly did the right thing here. Close and trout filer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This was not an administrative action or abuse of admin privileges, it seems to be the application of WP:NOTFORUM or WP:NPA (any editor can boldly apply it). —Paleo Neonate – 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say that it was not an administrative action but then also say not an abuse of admin privileges. If it was not an administrative action then it must be an instance of admin abuse given that he blocked me when he was involved. PailSimon (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the inappropriate talk page posts could be interpreted as an admin action, which would mean he was not involved, but performing a series of admin actions.— Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing inappropriate about it is the point I've been trying to make. PailSimon (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta be kidding me. Calling a peaceful protest a BLM riot is super inappropriate IMO— Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont get me wrong, it's an idiotic comment on the user's behalf but it's certainly not in contravention of established Wikipedia rules or guidelines, which it has to be in order to be an admin action.PailSimon (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an isolated point: that's not true in this topic area, which is subject to discretionary sanctions, allowing admins to take actions they deem appropriate to ensuring an article retains a productive editing environment. Especially so given the hot potato these events are. Whilst I note the block itself was not marked as arbitration enforcement, the entire article is still under heightened scrutiny. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what specific policy you believe was violated by said user? PailSimon (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the topic area, and this article specifically, falls under WP:AC/DS. Admins can take actions against editors, or edits, which would not be valid admin actions elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it specifically stipulate that Drmies actions are permitted in the page you linked? PailSimon (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I have to agree with Sphilbrick.---Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm missing something here. This is Drmies' original edit, removing ExplosiveResults' comment: [161]. It's unclear to me whether Drmies is acting as an editor or an administrator in doing so, and frankly the justification for it isn't as obvious to me as it is to some people. If Drmies is acting as editor, then revert-warring with PailSimon over the edit and then blocking him is absolutely an INVOLVED action and inappropriate, although I don't think much should come of it. If Drmies was acting as an administrator, then that's not at all clear from the context nor from the edit summary: 'not going to let you equate mostly peaceful protests with "riotous mobs"'. Again, perhaps I'm missing something. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The accompanying user talk message seems to be a clear warning that DS will be applied and strikes me as being an admin action. - MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Drmies mopping. We don't need people adding political fake news to Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, but the talkpage guidelines are different to mainspace ones. This seems to be an issue that arose from the talk pages. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some editors seem to be dismissing this complaint out of hand. I'm not sure removing the "riot" comment was in line with WP:TPO. The comment did not seem to be an obvious violation of the criteria there. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, I think Drmies's actions were good faith and the idea that they should be penalized in any way is wrong. However, I think the removed text was close enough to on topic and a direct and reasonable reply to the edit above. Thus I think NOTFORUM doesn't apply and the refactoring was improper. This is not endorsing the opinions in the view but there was an original !vote, a reply and then a reply to that reply. If reply to reply was FORUM then the reply was also FORUM. Either both the reply and reply to reply should stay or both should go. Springee (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hearing you, Springee, but I don't fully agree. "Reply to reply"--not all replies are the same. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have the equivocation and whataboutism in Wikipedia spaces that we find on social media. Equating mostly peaceful BLM protests with the seditious, violent behavior of a riotous mob intent on disrupting the very business of democracy is exactly that kind of thing. So yes, as far as I'm concerned it was a highly insulting FORUM post, which is why I removed it, and I explained why I did that here to ExplosiveResults and here to PailSimon. The latter's attempt to turn my repeated revert of unacceptable content into an editorial conflict about content is amusing but unconvincing: if that is upheld, then Recent changes patrollers should be very wary of the consequences. In addition, there's PailSimon's insults ("grow up" and taunting; if you want to know what this editor thinks Wikipedia is for, there's this edit summary. I encourage admins to look at their other work--edits like this for possible AP2 sanctions, and sections like this for ridiculous accusations. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we routinely allow insults towards Trump and the alt/far right to go untouched on talk page discussions, I do think it's a bit disingenuous to try to combat one editor's opinion about the BLM protests being riots and not other things. We can flatly ignore that opinion or point out that no RS seriously considers the BLM events as riots, and thus invalidate the point if needed, or if the editor continued to fight on that point, then there's WP:TE aspects to engage. But starting to patrol on ideological aspects like this when we have a clear blind-eye patroling other areas is a bad approach. Taking blocking action against the editor, on the other hand, is well justified. --Masem (t) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Masem, I think you know that I block Trump-haters as much as I do Trump-lovers, and I have revdeleted quite a bit of insulting content from articles related to him--more than about Obama and Clinton, for instance--and blocked tons of Trump-insulting usernames. BLP violations and disruptive content cannot stand anywhere (and I actually think that the comment I removed from the talk page was a kind of BLP violation), and should be removed everywhere. I do not believe that we "routinely" just let everything slide if it insults Trump or whatever, but I don't see everything, of course: what I do see is editors and admins like GorillaWarfare and Neutrality deal very carefully with possible BLP violations and partisan content. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Masem, I think that is a problem of certain editors despite their experience, as they bring in their biases. However, that does not seem the issue here. Vikram Vincent 09:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
George Floyd protests covers rioting and looting, including in the lead, sourced, e.g. see [162]. The 2020 BLM protests were mostly peaceful, but not entirely peaceful. Comparing rioting at the Capitol with rioting that happened during the 2020 BLM protests is inapt, not a comparison I would make, an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's not FORUMing, it's directly related to discussing article content, and it's not a WP:BLP violation (no identifiable person or group of people were named in the comment that was removed). It's no cause to remove someone's comment under our PAGs. Drmies should not have removed ExplosiveResults's talk page comment, e.g. here, and should not have blocked PailSimon for restoring it. I don't think Drmies actions violate WP:INVOLVED because all the actions were made in an administrative capacity (anytime an admin issues warnings, it's as an admin, not as an editor; you can't take off that hat), but I just think they were not-policy-compliant admin actions in the first place (not compliant with WP:TPO and WP:BLOCKPOL) . Comparing the capitol riots with BLM protests may be inapt, even offensively inapt, but we shouldn't censor (nevermind block) editors for making comments we disagree with. WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (off-topic, but still): I don't agree that "anytime an admin issues warnings, it's as an admin". I sometimes issue warnings on articles where I would be precluded from taking admin action per INVOLVED. But surely I could still issue warnings in my capacity as an editor?— Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  That's a good point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an admin who is INVOLVED and issues warnings in their capacity as an editor would thereby be taking an admin action in violation of INVOLVED or any other PAG. So in that sense, yes, you could still issue warnings in your capacity as an editor. However, I don't think it's a good idea for admins to do so, because even if the warning is in their capacity as an editor, it will be perceived as coming from an admin, with all the implications of such. At best, it will confuse editors (as we see here) regarding whether a warning is made in an administrative capacity or not (I suppose that could be mitigated with an explicit disclaimer). Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Hm. This is giving me furiously to think. I've definitely given warnings in cases where I was working as an editor and had no intention of taking admin action. I guess I should start making disclaimers. This message provided as a nonadministrative warning. Wonder if there's a template for that? —valereee (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, there's a template for that: {{burma-shave-notice|involved}}. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partly with Sphilbrick and Ymblater here. Partly because I'm not opposed to strict WP:NOTFORUM enforcement on highly active talk pages on emotive issues. But if we are going to strictly enforce it with talk page deletions, we need to be fair about it. Plenty of people have compared the attack on the US Capitol to BLM protests both supporters and opponents of each in various ways e.g. police treatment. The contested comment no matter how much we may disagree with it is not so far beyond the pale that it warrants deletion while leaving other forumish comments alone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW @PailSimon: I don't see that anyone has made this explicit yet but please re-read the orange box you see when editing this page or the red text at the top of this page. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." I.E. no one cares if you pinged Drmies in the section title, it's not a valid response to that part of Reyk's comment. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playtime at Roary the Racing Car

Roary the Racing Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Besides the string of test edits, would someone mind running a copyright check on the content here? I can't tell if much of this was lifted from other wikis or vice-versa. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also wondering if a more comprehensive block is merited for this range [163]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is, and that's what I just did. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, Drmies. They've been all over the map. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On face value, Earwig doesn’t flag any direct copyright violation, although it may not identify close paraphrasing. I’m running out the door so can’t look in any more detail at the moment. If no-one else gets around to it, I’ll have a bit more of a look later today. --Jack Frost (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you, Jack Frost. I found a lot of matches to other wikis, so it's entirely possible that they copied us. But I'm still suspicious, if the content entered today was new to the article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi 2601, apologies it took me so long to get back to you. I’ve had another look, and everywhere I can find the article content elsewhere on the web looks to have copied it from us. However, I am awfully suspicious that the episode summaries have been copied from somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me find where (I have to wonder about whether they’re off the back of a series DVD or somewhere similar); it certainly doesn’t seem to be off the web or anywhere else that I can prove it. Sorry I couldn’t be more help. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, hold the phones. That’s exactly where they’re from; they’re a paraphrase of the episode summaries which come on the back of the Roary the Racing car DVDs. If you google image search Roary Racing Car DVDs you can find the plot summaries. However, in the (admittedly small) sample I’ve just found, there seems to be sufficient difference that I don’t believe it falls foul of the copyright violation policy (either directly or as close paraphrasing); there’s only so many ways you can describe the antics of a toddler’s TV show... Good pick up, but in my very humble view I don’t think it’s copyright violation. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jack Frost, absolutely great research. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy vandalism and extensive socking, multiple actions needed.

PROTECC

Protection applied, socks blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spanish football league system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slisas2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2A02:1205:503B:4FD0:DD97:6D3D:2AE7:B60 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Diego Fuentes Cruz de la Pobla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For some days now, the article Spanish football league system sees heavy disruption from a vandal first calling themselves Slisas2222, then (after several warnings) using the IP 2A02:1205:503B:4FD0:DD97:6D3D:2AE7:B60 to again rack up a number of warnings, and now created the account Diego Fuentes Cruz de la Pobla to carry on. As there are several admin actions needed, I thought it easiest to come to ANI to request semi-protection for the article (a untreated request is pending for days), and block for the sock-master Slisas2222 and their various socks (per WP:DUCK) (no specific diffs provided as all three accounts only edit the article mentioned and clicking on the article edit history is enough to see the large number of obvious violations) Jeppiz (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now also blocked a couple of socks--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter I notice that I was manually reverting the article around the same time you were and I think I accidentally removed the protection, since my edit was seconds after yours. Not sure if I did remove the protection, when I check the edit differences between my first one and yours, it shows that I removed the { { pp-sock | small=yes } } part of your edit. Not sure if that's the protection. Sorry for the confusion RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the protection template no problem. The protection itself was there all the time, you can not remove it so easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Violation of 1RR after warning

PARBOILED

Partial block per AE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nomanpk44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Insurgency in Balochistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomanpk44 violated WP:1RR on Insurgency in Balochistan by making 2 reverts in less than 24 hours [164][165] by misrepresenting sources and defying the note on his talk page.[166] Dhawangupta (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block from the article only (AE action logged here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#India-Pakistan). El_C 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

ShortDescBot creating blank pages

BOT STOPPED SHORT

Unintended operation caught and stopped. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

ShortDescBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

This bot has opted to create pages that are entirely blank except for short descriptions (possibly imported from Wikidata), with implausible and never previously created titles. They are here:

"Pyrausta quadrimaculalis (Dognin, 1908)"

Pyrausta quadrimaculalis (Dognin,1908), Species of moth.

Note that the second article I listed has a short description that is literally the entire contents of another stub article: Pyrausta quadrimaculalis, the other one's short description is just "species of moth", and both of these articles created by the bot already have articles.

I'm not sure if this is what the bot is meant to do, but, if not, I came here for security. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JJPMaster: It's probably worth contacting the bot's operator, MichaelMaggs. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping - I saw the pages but didn't realise they were bot-created. Not sure how that happened but I've stopped the bot and am looking into it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qkowlew

PROTECTED

Condolences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qkowlew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user is died, see in Russian Wikipedia. Please to protect the userpage of deceased user. Salsero al Zviadi (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

LaDanian1000000 adding non-notable game entries and their recent non-communication

LaDanian1000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:LaDanian1000000 has been entering non-notable game summaries to NFL player articles for about two years. Originally, these edits appear to have been unsourced, but even now the editor uses poor sourcing as they always using a box score from Pro-Football-Reference even though they don't mention the actual feat that was accomplished (example: that x player's sack in the box score was the first of his career). The editor also has a tendency to undue other editor's game reports when they actually are notable and completely sanitize them of important context (example: this edit on Niko Lalos) and replace the prose with almost robotic wording and disrupting the prose itself (using "recorded" instead of the actual applicable verb such as intercepted; rushed for z yards). This goes against the style guide of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and LaDanian1000000 has been warned multiple times by several editors (including Rockchalk717, Dissident93 & Yankees10) as evidenced by their talk page. LaDanian1000000 has not headed these warnings and instead of adding what are considered to be non-notable game entries and it look like they have simply decided to ignore other editors, despite previously communicating with editors. I'm not sure what exactly is the best course of action, it's possible that a block could force LaDanian1000000 to respond and communicate regarding the game entries. A topic ban on American football-related articles might also work. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this 100% as this become troublesome and almost as disruptive as vandalism because he’s been warned multiple times. The user also tends to wait for a notable game then puts the player’s entire stat line in, instead of just what stats were notable.--Rockchalk7 17 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rockchalk717, I can NOT read your signature. Please see WP:SIGNATURE and be mindful of accessibility guidelines; see WP:COLOR. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes my eyes go out of focus. Please fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that bugs me: I know WP:SIGLINK doesn't really address this but for all but 3 characters at the very end of the signature (and the least visually adorned of the sig) to not be linked is kind of aggravating. And yes, the contrast ratio is low. Sorry if this is off-topic from the thread, but yeah. That sig's pretty loud. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To go back on topic, but I also support a short term block of a week or so. Hopefully that can make the user more receptive to discussing these sort of edits as continuing to do it will just result in more longterm blocks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XIIIfromTokyo

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Delfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

Last ANI by Guy Macon listing all the previous ANI about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#XIIIfromTOKYO_%28need_an_admin_who_speaks_French%29

Thank you.

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

It's worth noting that this is a pretty serious BLP issue, dealing with the ongoing sex crime accusations against Olivier Duhamel. I know that's somewhat afield from what OP is concerned with—that XIIIfromTOKYO's references to "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University" is directed towards Delfield. Interestingly, the content at issue does not seem to discuss Paris Assas University, and in fact seems to be a throwback to accusations made in a SPI case opened against Delfield that closed without action. I think there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [167]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[168]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757[169][170].

And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

persistent IP hopping vandalism by 5.110.58.204

5.110.58.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

an IP user currently editing as Special:Contributions/5.110.58.204 is making a set of edits that amount to vandalism, having been temporarily blocked as other IPs for the same or similar edits within the past weeks. Edits tend to remove any indication of non-Arab origin of Muslim dynasties, and to inaccurately attribute Arab origins, and are invariably and entirely inaccurately given edit summary of "fixed typo". This is clearly the same actual human as made similar mischaracterized 'fixed typo' edits as 51.235.78.91 (blocked), 2.89.198.136, 51.235.135.45 (blocked), 51.235.34.5 (blocked), and probably others. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them for a month (same period as Special:Contributions/51.235.135.45). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - that should be sufficient (for them to move to a new IP). Agricolae (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, there should be an edit filter disallowing any edits with a summary of "fixed typo", because in my experience at least they're invariably vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "fixed typo" one of the small number of preset choices one is offered when editing on the mobile app? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is, which would make this a fairly restrictive proposal. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know, since all my phones are dumb and I twitch at the prevalance of "mobile devices"! But in a way that just makes it worse since it gives mobile-using vandals easy cover (which, as seen, they take full advantage of). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that is something of a shibboleth; anyone actually doing so will either say "spelling" or "Ce". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There'd need to be a size restriction, at the very least. 11 of my last 500 ESs (over 90% of which were gnoming) were "Typo"; 3 corrected mistakes I'd just made; none of the others was more than 1 byte. 8 of them were "ce" and nothing more; range, -12 to +10 bytes. Narky Blert (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there's selection bias with the pages I follow, but in my experience at least 80% of "fixed typo" edit summaries are vandalism, sometimes egrerious ones. Disallowing that (pre-set?) edit summary for edits over a certain size might work but I have no idea if the back-end coding would like that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically "Fixed typo" rings my bell in 95+% of cases. It often means addition or deletion of 1+Kb, which isn't WP:MINOR by anyone's standards; and is almost always a crap edit of some sort.

If it were filtered or disallowed, I'd expect to see a lot of crashkey ESs - which would be no bad thing, because no edit like that is ever of any value. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive history at Thugpun

Thugpun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of WP:BLP violations over the long haul. Requesting a good look at this for possible mass rev/deletion, page protection, and maybe deletion for questionable notability. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some revdels have been applied; I've also nominated it at AfD for notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory content at Education City

Education City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Added by two accounts, presumably the same user. Asking for rev/deletion and appropriate sanctions. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see @Girth Summit: has done some revdels, but I wonder - while the content in question was absolutely inappropriate, does RD2 actually apply here, seeing as Herbert London is not a BLP (d. November 2018)? (If it does the edit-summary on 27.60.11.147's last edit should also be revdel'd.) Also the IPs should have been notified of this discussion - I've done so on the one they were most recently active on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger and Girth Summit, thank you for following up. I should have notified at least one of the accounts--my assumption is that they're the same user. I didn't realize that London is dead, and my ignorance about him makes edit summaries like this [171] all the more odd. Alongside any constructive intent, they seem highly motivated to insert their opinions and assume nefarious purposes in others. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even if BLP is discounted those edits have WP:RGW and/or WP:THETRUTH all over them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just cropped the pointy edit here [172]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the snide little asides here [173]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting personal commentary in the 'reason' parameter of maintenance tags is a new one on me and a nastily subtle form of POV-pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I confess I hadn't realised the person in question was dead. Not sure what the consensus on precisely what 'recently deceased' means, but I have no objection to any admin changing my settings if they think I goofed. GirthSummit_(blether) 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bushranger, it's also rich that they're referring to WP:BITE [174]; this is assuredly not a new user. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattuk56

NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA

And thus no longer here with editing privileges. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mattuk56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Reported at AIV with "vandalism after final warning. 13-year-old account with all of one previous edit (a BLP vio) shows up today to make unsourced BLP edits, POV. and vandalism, finishing off with personal attacks. NOTHERE?"

user:Darkwind responded with "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:ANI" so here we are:

personal attack diffs: [175] [176]
incivility [177] [178]
unsourced BLP name changes (that contradict the cited sources): [179], [180], [181], [182]
BLP violations: [183], [184], [185], [186] (not as obvious, but calling an apparently active wrestler a "nostalgia role" probably crosses the line, and the bit about fans wanting him out of the league is unsourced at least), [187] (again, not as obvious, but describing an active comedian as formerly cynical and formerly controversial is likely BLP vandalism, and certainly unsourced). [188]
Vandalism: [189], [190], [191]
rigged election edits: [192], [193], [194], [195]
what's left from today... [196] not vandalism, but not as informative and less than neutral to change "coming second place to" to "losing to"

Meters (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have no issue with the report having been declined. Meters (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Legal threat

An editor who I already had to bring to ANI back in October, has continued to stalk and challenge my edits at Squatting, as can be seen on multiple discussions at Talk:Squatting (interaction history). Whilst I have attempted to stop interacting with Graywalls unless absolutely necessary, they just made a legal threat against me at ("Claiming your allegations as facts is libelous" link) so I am requesting assistance per Wikipedia:No legal threats. Mujinga (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT specifically states "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." What is the specific threat of legal action against you or someone else? 331dot (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I took that specific sentence as referring to BLP issues. WP:NLT also states "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat" Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the discussion is about material though, I think it was about the outcome of a previous ANI discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to you posting things as it relates to that article in a way that casts aspersion on me which I believe is libelous, such as unfounded statement claiming I am "stalking" your edits. Specifically at: User_talk:Gobonobo#Squatting. I asked you to stop doing this. This is not a "legal threat". Also, I am editing the article squatting while trying to follow the BRD process. I believe you're misinterpreting the advise from last discussion. It did not say that either one of us would have preferred claim to specific articles on which we both have interest in. Graywalls (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just digging your own hole now Graywalls. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention." And how exactly would you end up at User_talk:Gobonobo#Squatting EXCEPT by stalking my edits? Mujinga (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it so my intentions aren't misunderstood. So it couldn't be any less clear, I have, or had no intentions of suing you or anyone else. I had no idea those specific words are associated with such in Wikipedia. There's no rules against looking at contribution history. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An important reminder: Merely talking about libel or whether certain edits may be libelous is not a legal threat under WP:NLT. Where the obvious intent is to intimidate or chill participation, however, such discussion may give rise to sanctions as generally disruptive.
NLT is a bright-line rule: You may not use Wikipedia to threaten legal action, and until such legal action is resolved, you may not edit Wikipedia. It does not, contrary to Mujinga's argument above, prohibit statements that are subjectively interpreted as legal threats. The "Perceived legal threats" section of the policy very conspicuously links to the "reasonable person" standard, meaning your subjective interpretation is not what matters. What matters is whether a reasonable person would understand the statement to mean that X is threatening Y with legal action. And even then, administrators are cautioned in edge cases to seek clarification and, if necessary, request that the author refactor his or her suspect statement.
Sanctions may lie where the discussion of litigation is clearly intended to disrupt. "[Article subject] will probably sue you for posting that!" would not trigger NLT, but may still result in sanctions for incivility and general disruptive behavior. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikezarco

NO COMPROMISES

Self-admitted compromised account given the appropriate treatment. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mikezarco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mikezarco (talk · contribs) has been a constructive editor in their few months on Wikipedia. They and I have had countless interactions on different pages since October 2020. Over the past few days, however, they have been acting differently. Reverting without explanation when they have demonstrated their knowledge of edit summaries; vandalizing my user page, etc. Then, they left a message on my talk page this morning saying they were hacked. I believe, for the good of Wikipedia, that this user be blocked indefinitely per WP:COMPROMISED. Their account is in no way stable, as they exhibited unusual behaviour not even 30 minutes ago. They admitted they were hacked, which, even if it was the hacker themselves writing that, the account would still need to be blocked for the safety of Wikipedia, once again per WP:COMPROMISED. I don’t know the exact protocols this requires, but I thought I would bring it up. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd as a self-admitted compromised account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism." (This was actually attempted to be put into the article)

[a]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards