Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

  For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Imagine my surprise on clicking. EEng 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"String 'em up, I say. It's the only language they understand". The box has now been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Wikipedia back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the sanction is still relevant, see these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also in addition to its overlength it appears HW still has that WP:POLEMIC-violating signature line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
  • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes

• And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.

About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [7]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [8]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [9].

Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.

Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:

• Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
• Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
• Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
• Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
• Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
• Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
• Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.

Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.

So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.

I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

• The diffs in the original post
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
• Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).

Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It was not a "logged warning", it was a straight-out civility sanction: i.e. If you do X, you will be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
  I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A fate worse than death...

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [11] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticizing a series of problematic edits involving BLP articles. That is not uncivil. Johnpacklambert by his own admission was disregarding available online sources, and making arbitrary decisions on who is alive or not. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately". Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a huge fan of expecting civility. And HW's comments aren't at that bar. I'm not certain anything less then this will get them to pay attention. But while it could be said much better, is anything said by HW inaccurate? We appear to have an editor who has a very high error rate. Calling them out on that seems like the right thing to do. HW hurts their (important) message here. A calmer approach might have resolved the problems by now. I'm not sure what the right next step is--this proposal seems like it's likely to be used as a hammer. But I don't see evidence that anything less will get HW to pay attention. (I'm neutral on this for now, mostly just musing and seeing where I get to as I type this.) Hobit (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions if the main or only complaint is reminding John Pack Lambert via edit summaries that his playing around with people's alive status is utterly incompetent. Further, I would WP:BOOMERANG this and ban JPL from changing such categories, given his longstanding display of incompetence in doing so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Eh, this is still open. But anyway ... look. There's an ongoing sanction against HW. He's contravened it a number of times. His block log is active going back over a decade, so whether he's been personally mean to JBL recently is scarcely the issue. What IS the issue is this: do sanctions actually mean anything, or can they be safely ignored as long as an editor's made enough edits? Ravenswing 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

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

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I note that User:Chess has, coincidentally, edited Wolfowitz's user page to remove said userbox. I assume it will probably return sooner rather than later. ——Serial 07:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Came here from the ping. The userbox is a BLP violation plain and simple. We can't just wantonly accuse living people of criminal behaviour without sources. Calling for the death of a living person makes it 100x worse and could result in WMF actions (Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm). The fact he was the President of the United States and that it might be a common political belief that he deserves to die only matters in the sense that threatening death upon on a President is potentially in violation of US law and certainly has no bearing on whether one is allowed to violate BLP. WP:BLPTALK is extremely explicit that BLP applies to all namespaces including userspace and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

I wasn't aware of this AN/I thread when I removed the userbox (I patrol userspace for BLP vios and personal information and what not) but I stand by my decision and this isn't really something up for debate. The userbox violates BLP regardless of whether it is acceptable political speech. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

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

An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone still believes that BMK and some others are genuinely concerned about civility in edit summaries (rather than inflaming old quarrels), I suggest you review these bon mots from BMK's more recent contributions. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. And is there even a sign of a warning . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rev id's that start with "8" or lower are not recent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Civility is a slippery slope :-) Vikram Vincent 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Whoa. That is a surprise. What's with all the fuck-derivatives, there, Beyond My Ken, if you don't mind me asking? -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• So HW's official explanation for why they have been uncivil while under a civility sanction because of the nature and extent of their incivlity is that another editor who is not under a civility sanction has at times used colorful language? Perhaps they should recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be a legitimate argument in and of itself. And perhaps others might remind themselves of what the nature of HIW's objectionable edit summaries were that caused him to be sanctioned in the first place [23]. Hint: It wasn't for using colorful language, it was for multiple personal attacks against an editor. So I rather think this is an apples and oranges situation, and not relevant to HW's behavior to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I believe he is arguing that your objections should be discredited because WP:POTKETTLE and WP:GAMING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I can see where someone might think that POTKETTLE was relevant -- even though it's not, because our situations are entirely different, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz being under a civility sanction, whereas I am not -- but "gaming the system" is obviously completely irrelevant here. If that's what he's on about he's grasping at straws. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, they are different. You have been substantially protected and largely avoided any perm sanctions despite your actions. HW has been fucked repeatedly. The argument that they should be punished more severely while simultaneously getting away with similar is not just pot-kettle, its amoral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've been "protected" and he's been "fucked repeatedly", huh? You might want to compare our block logs to see how much I've been "protected".
  In any case, this report, and the proposed sanction, is not about me, it's about HW's continuing incivility while under a civility sanction. I understand that the "whataboutthem"-ism of pointing at someone else is a frequently used tactic to attempt to get the heat off oneself -- one often used in contemporary politics to create false equivalences and confuse the public and the press (which should know better) -- but such sleights-of-hand are rarely successful, even when repeated by enablers with hidden prejudices, unless the audience for them is extremely gullible, a category I do not place the Wikipedia community in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Deepfriedokra

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

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

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

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

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

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [24]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.

I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:

I think this individuals contributions,[25] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).

They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.

They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).

I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)

A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
  The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [26] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [27] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [28] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [29] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.

I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.

This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.

Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.

I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [30], [31],[32],[33],[34],[35]) and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [36] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BunnyyHop hasn't stopped making POV pushing edits since last time, as well as him now, doubling down at pushing his POV even harder. Des Vallee (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

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

bold and italic added by me

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

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

Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [37]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [38] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.

I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):

On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»

In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»

In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»

The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»

Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop

Offtopic CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [[39]]. To me it's pretty obvious when you look at his edits. To copy/paste what I wrote below: Thank you t. In regards to [[40]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[41]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[42]]. Or this [[43]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine". It seems that Timothy's thing is getting onto pages about early 20th century communism, push original research, report those who call him on his sources. Stix1776 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion.Stix1776 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [44] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: BH's POV WP:BLUDGEON continues at Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, ignoring responses, repeating the same arguments, this entire thread is a timesink.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [45],[46] on the same page where they did it before: [47], [48],[49],[50],[51]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([52]), ([53]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

• If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.

Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [54], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.

The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([55] [56] [57] [58]).

There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.

So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.

So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova   T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been paying more attention to these disputes on the linked pages and they are indeed content disputes and not behaviour issues as the OP projects. Agree with TFD that this complaint is again a badly written piece. Perhaps they should try out Rosguill's ANI reform proposal for the next complaint. Vikram Vincent 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is Bunnyyhop still engaged in their usual tendentious behavior about Mao Zedong, casting asperions on other editors saying their source evaluation was just their own POV while defending fringe sources and material. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [59] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [60], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just going over the diffs that have been presented, this is reasonably sourced and attributed; this is removing a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that had gone completely uncited for months; and this (regarding this edit) seems like a reasonable dispute over sources and WP:DUE weight. That isn't to say that Bunnyyhop is necessarily right in each case, just that these are patently obviously legitimate content disputes, not something that could reasonably be used to justify sanctions. Perhaps Bunnyyhop could be more cautious about assuming good faith, to be sure, but it's a bit silly to raise that objection while simultaniously making accusations of bad faith over a content dispute; and I'm not seeing a lot of presumption of good faith extended towards Bunnyyhop in the talk history of that page, either. Is this earlier comment really indicative of someone who has WP:CLEANHANDS when it comes to assuming good faith in this dispute? --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin evaluation and close

• I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.

Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.

Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no such equivalency here from the 'sides'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This again? User makes questionable edits, we get a bunch of people who seemingly have similar political views defend them for making POV-pushing edits about those views, etc (My hands aren't clean here either, I !voted in the previous ANI). This has turned into a mess. I have to agree with Neonorange here, this is going to waste more time and turn into another sprawling thread in which it's going to be hard to find a bunch of neutral admins that have the time to read through everything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Dtt1 and Ashish Chanchlani

• Dtt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashish Chanchlani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ashish+Chanchlani

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani (2nd nomination)

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: Someone with OTRS access please have a look at this Ticket:2021021310003214. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: I here on Wikipedia work on articles which are salted or banned despite of the fact that they have sufficient coverage and ARE notable, and the same I am doing with Ashish Chanchlani the fact that he passes WP:RS cannot be denied, If we keep aside the fact of his multiple notable award winning then also he has multiple RS sources and I recreated the article on the base of all the new sources which wasn't there in the afd's, and if we talk about the references this here on Forbes India piece (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece which is by The author, Mansvini Kaushik, who was employed by Forbes at the time of publication and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Similarly, the Entrepreneur piece (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458) here is also a staff profile which is independent, and also there are sources like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) Wikipedia:INDIANEXP this which is again mentioned in wp:rs so how come I am paid or wrong if I attempted to create them? Parmish Verma was also salted and banned from recreation despite of the fact that he was well Notable and was having good refs available and I am being blamed as a UPE where I am trying to create articles on pages which ARE NOTABLE in India and just because we lack knowledgeable editors the fact that these people are notable can't be denied.Dtt1^Talk 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Title Blacklist

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

Yes, I think this would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• And to add onto this, I don't think the suspicions here are remotely unfounded or coincidental. Nearly every page move Dtt1 has done is moving sock-spam (or coi-spam) into mainspace:

Rohanpreet Singh - created by a declared paid/coi editor, moved within 24 hours of submission by Dtt1 who was a "brand new" user at the time

Draft:Rohan Solomon - recreated by dtt1 following CarryMint's several blocks

Draft:Toranj Kayvon/Toranj Kayvon - recreated/moved by dtt1, following known upe sock farm, Shringhringshring's block

Pratik Gauri/Draft:Pratik Gauri - moved by dtt1, sock spam by ShaiksKings

Khushi Shah/Draft:Khushi Shah - moved by dtt1, which also led to their temporary block for socking, from the ImSonyR9 a well known and prolific paid sock farm

R Nait/Draft:R Nait - moved by dtt1, a creation by a prolific spammer Swarup Kumar Solanki

Yasir Akhtar - moved by dtt1, created by known spammer Ayesha Mallik just weeks after their block and Dtt1 joining

Bandish Bandits - moved by dtt1, created by Godiswithyou

Viral Shah - another ImSonyR9 upe creation, even acknowledged by Dtt1, moved to mainspace

Just Sul - yet another ImSonyR9 UPE creation

Yasser Desai - their first page move, a long term spam target by a variety of spam socks, was moved to mainspace by dtt1 within hours of becoming extendedconfirmed

I could continue but I think my point is demonstrated here. When you hear hoofbeats... It seems so unlikely to the point of improbability that Dtt1 is some special unicorn who has just showed up at all of these paid-for-spam articles out of happenstance. CUPIDICAE💕 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic-Ban

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per the clear case presented by Robert McClenon - wolf 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• conditional suppport as a second choice if the siteban proposal fails and on the condition it extends to all BLPs broadly construed as they have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding (or unwillingness) to abide by WP:BLP. CUPIDICAE💕 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite

• Indef, there's no way Dtt1 is not an UPE as mentioned in this SPI from September – Thjarkur (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• support both a tb and indef should they come back. My UPE suspicions aside, Dtt1 lacks the competence to edit BLPs, as evidenced by my multiple warnings to them about sources and their continued insistence that policy based decisions regarding said sources are "reliable." It's like talking to a brick wall. I'll also note, failing an indef, a BLP topic ban broadly construed should be placed to prevent further disruption. They've been warned about BLPs, sourcing and deprecation but insist on adding unreliable sources to support content in blps. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef as UPE per the evidence in Ticket:2021021310003214 and other indications of being a paid editor such as their vehement defence of this spam magnet by citing SEO spam sites, their attempts to do the same elsewhere and their moving of sock spam to mainspace. Blablubbs|talk 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  For context, the ticket provides credible evidence that Dtt created Ashish Chanchlani in exchange for undisclosed payments. Blablubbs|talk 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Indef for UPE - There's no way this isn't UPE. On Wiki evidence is clear enough, OTRS ticket takes the cake. Wikipedia isn't for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef for UPE - This editor had drawn my attention when they tried to create Sapna Choudhary Draft:Sapna Choudhary a salted page made by multiple socks previously. His creation log is full of promotional non-notable pages that have been deleted. Ticket:2021021310003214 is damming too. All in all in my opinion there is enough here for a Indif block for undisclosed paid editing. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef for UPE - 2021021310003214. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef for UPE per the ticket and edits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef – pretty obvious UPE issues even though I can't see the ticket. And this post is a prime example of other problems discussed above (WP:IDHT, difficulty/refusal to understand the requirements for sources for BLPs, which turns into a time sink for other editors). --bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban as per comment by Bonadea about above post by subject editor saying that they work on items that are salted and banned. That is, the subject editor is saying that they are here to break the rules. I've inserted a subhead for the calls for indefinite block. I can't see the ticket, but I can see what amounts to a middle finger. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:ExoEditor and User:Kepler-1229b

Both editors are repeatedly removing a merge template from an article, but the merge discussion has not yet been closed. See [61], [62]. I attempted to discuss this on the talk page but ExoEditor continues to remove the template, and Kepler-1229b has put a 3RR notice on my talk page, even though I was careful not to violate 3RR. In addition, ExoEditor (formerly Albertheditor) has baselessly accused me of sockpuppetry in the past, which was discussed in a previous ANI thread. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Kepler-1229b's talk page, they seem to have a history of reverting constructive edits. They have also been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation was a false accusation, and there were only two or three incidents of reverting constructive edits, and one of them was ended by another editor. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. On one hand, you did technically break the three revert rule, but on the other hand, I would do the exact same, and would consider removing merge templates for a merge being discussed obvious vandalism or disruptive editing, which is an exemption from 3RR. But on the stand next to the tv, I am definitely looking at the exception in a forest of rules, which is WikiLawyer-esque behavior. So I'm going to stop writing now. 4D4850 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia works with consensus. We are two editos in favor of removing that merger notice from the article (after many months of debate and many editors involved, consensus has been reached about not merging the article (or at least no consensus has been reached about merging it) even though it hasn't been closed. SevenSpheresCelestia has now broken the three-revert rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KOI-4878.01&action=history), something that neither Kepler-1229b nor me have done in this case. I'm not asking for him to be temporarily banned. I personally think there is no reason to create a problem from something like removing a merger notice from a page. I would appreciate if an administrator archives the merger proposal (most of the pages proposed by SevenSpheresCelestia to merge have already been merged; those for which consensus was reached, including me) - I think I shouldn't do it myself. With respect to the sockpuppetry accusation he is talking about, that happened last year and I honestly don't think it's related with the issue at hand here. In any case, anybody can check in his talkpage that I apologized to him. I don't want any trouble. I'm just in Wikipedia to help it grow with my little grain of sand. Thank you and have a good day. ExoEditor 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article so that all parties involved can discuss the dispute properly and make sure that a consensus has been reached. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant discussion has been closed by User:Onetwothreeip, but @ExoEditor: reverted the closure. I added the archive template back and commented on the talk page; an IP editor (possibly ExoEditor?) then removed my comment and the archive template. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: ExoEditor has removed my comment again. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: and again he continues his disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't notice, but he claims I'm disruptively editing and created another ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The behaviour of SevenSpheresCelestia is just unacceptable. He keeps closing a debate for which consensus hasn't been reached at all. I'm now forced to kindly ask the Administration to temporarily ban him from editing. He proposed 4 mergers, and after many months and editors involved, consensus (including me) was reached for merging 3 of them. It's not enough for him. He insists that consensus has been reached to merger the 4th article, something that not only is untrue, but shows no respect for the group of editors (including me) who spent much time working on it. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 right here. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious of this recent edit happening when it did. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fourth removal of my comment, please block ExoEditor for disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot close a debate that you started: True, but I didn't close it, User:Onetwothreeip did. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. "Fourth removal" is counting the IP editor. Regardless of the number of edits, your removal of my comment is disruptive and borderline vandalism. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your friend closed it, so it's irrelevant. Wait until an administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached. Plus reverting vandalism is an exception. I really won't waste my time reading more your comments. You may not have but I have a life. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My "friend"??? I haven't had any interaction with User:Onetwothreeip before this incident. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I agree the disruption here stems mostly from ExoEditor, who, as far as I can tell, edits on exoplanets much like a fanboy of whatever niche fandom would. They went as far as opposing merge notices e.g. [63], which is utterly silly WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, given a merge discussion was ongoing. I don't know what the best solution is, but IMO a topic ban is on the table. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, I'm forced to reply you. Wikipedia works with cosensus. Several editors were in favor of removing that merger notice (most of the merger proposals had been accepted after several months of debate and many editors involved, and no consensus was reached for just one of the pages). Plus the debate should take place in the talkpage of the page at hand or in a 'Article for deletion' discussion. Not in third-talkpages, as it's happening now.

I will avoid commenting on your insults. If you think that keeping an un-solved debate open in Wikipedia is 'fanboy' behaviour, it's not my problem sorry.

Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia.

The corresponding evidence will soon be sent to the Administrators.

I won't check more this discussion, sorry. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia. Here he goes again, he was making the same claims in the ANI thread mentioned above... SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, now you made me interested enough to make some time to find the proof, which I already have. Good luck and bye.ExoEditor 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Show me your "proof" then. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia" Alright, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality has to stop. Such repeated and baseless accusations are enough for me to support a full ban of ExoEditor (talk · contribs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

ExoEditor is continuing his disruptive editing at ANI. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saw your comment because the Administrator asked me for the evidence we have against you. Just for the archive, it must be noted that this user SevenSpheresCelestia is closing ANI's where he is partially involved. As I said, I won't waste my time anymore with this disruptive editor who has 'suspiciously' semi-retired the same day that an investigation on him/her has started. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not close your ANI thread; I reverted your disruptive reversion of its closure. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @ExoEditor: I strongly suggest that you - very quickly - either provide evidence for we have solid evidence that (SevenSpheresCelestia) uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia, withdraw and strike those comments, or I will simply block you. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SevenSpheresCelestia Cheers. ExoEditor 21:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExoEditor: Yes, which I've suggested is closed as none of it is convincing, and some of it is plainly incorrect. So, again, "solid evidence" please. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b: This also applies to you, given that you wrote the SPI and nonsense like this. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked ExoEditor for a week after they ignored the above, but instead asked for the merge request to be closed how they wanted it here, and again repeated the sockpuppetry allegations. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And out of nowhere (see immediately after ExoEditor's block), [64], Kepler-1229b asks that SevenSpheresCelestia is banned, offering no logic. This smells of retaliation through a sock sock behaviour. It's at the very least WP:BADFAITH/WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am a sockpuppet of @ExoEditor:? I am not. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ardenau4, one of the "sockpuppets" (I know SevenSpheres on Discord, but we're not the same person). I haven't actually edited anything in a while but I will say this: given that I've read articles that have been edited by Kepler-1229 b, I don't suspect him/her as a sockpuppet. However, given that ExoEditor, does have a COI on his page, this may be possible meatpuppet behavior. Unfortunately when I became inactive a while ago I hoped this conflict would have resolved itself, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been the case. From what I've seen of this conflict, this seems to be in bad faith, as conflicts like this have happened before, where users have edited pages that ExoEditor has created/contributed to, and have started small edit/talk page wars. I hope this conflict gets resolved some time soon. Ardenau4 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:AnotherEditor144

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

(Non-administrator comment) This user definitely rubbed me the wrong way, as well. Nobody requests suggestions from SuggestBot 22 minutes after creating their account. Nobody subscribes to the Administrators' Newsletter before they're autoconfirmed. Nobody starts archiving their talk page within three hours of account creation. This one definitely quacks like a duck, although I'm not sure what the backstory is. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably simple block evasion. Some sort of CheckUser action may be warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I concur. This is not a new account and I concur Ockham's razor aka duck suggests block evasion is involved. But who's the master, I am unsure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I was doing a lot of research when I was anonymous so that I was prepared. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at checkuser evidence for this account, and I couldn't conclusively associate this account with any other. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Could be a WP:CLEANSTART, which is allowed. Fences&Windows 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since this thread was opened. The point may now be moot, and in any event there's nothing we can do about it unless the master can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I scared him away, who knows! Or he decided to recreate himself with less red-flags! heh. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first account, not a clean start. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

People can be blocked for disruption, trolling or obvious block evasion even if the original master isn't clear. Blablubbs|talk 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 14:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of disruption, trolling, or obvious block evasion, I merely made the point that people may be blocked even if there is no master. The original block here is an example of that. But since you asked: I do have trouble believing you're a new user, and your conduct here and here does give me pause. Blablubbs|talk 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What conduct are you talking about? Also, I am not connected with the other user in any way. Extraordinary Writ says there is no master. User:Slykos is not involved. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• They seem likely to be part of the Niceguylucky cluster. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  The other sockpuppets are only possilikely, Andrew Davidson, so I would probably be unlikely to unrelated when checked. I am not connected with Niceguylucky in any way. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Per Shibboleth, I think this is likely another case of failing to watch the How to return secretly and successfully to Wikipedia training video.  // Timothy :: talk  04:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Even if this was a clean start (which it isn't), I could not have found that video. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• So, I finally had some more time to look through AnotherEditor144's edit history and re-examine this; hence, here is a more expansive answer to the question of where the diffs are.
  You have stated that you did a lot of research on Wikipedia because before you started editing. This research must have indeed been quite expansive, given that you have, among other things, you are apparently familiar with the letter code system that was formerly in use at WP:RfCu, which was replaced by SPI in 2009 and have cited a rather obscure essay at AfD. It would stand to reason, then, that someone with that sort of familiarity with Wikipedia would know a lot about our conduct standards in project space. For example, I would expect someone who claims such knowledge to know that !votes like these [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] or close suggestions like this [78][79] aren't considered particularly helpful. Such a person would also know that it isn't good form to respond to almost every comment in an AfD discussion ([80][81][82] – in one of these, you managed to ping Extraordinary Writ 7 times for no apparent good reason).
  Similarly, one would expect a user so familiar with the history of SPI to know that the system hasn't been in use for twelve years and that "block evasion" doesn't negate the prohibition on connecting named accounts and IPs, or that users with 24h-old accounts are discouraged from acting as a clerk (as is anyone else who isn't one).
  The chronology of events also gives me pause. In your 4 days on Wikipedia, you have racked up 351 edits. Of those, only 33 were to mainspace. However, you made lots of edits to Wikipedia-space. Your first edit to an AfD was, by my count, after just 8 mainspace edits. Despite this inexperience, you also proposed a new speedy deletion criterium on your second day on the encyclopaedia, after having invited yourself to a wikiproject, authoritatively denied a suggestion that wasn't an edit request on a talk page and inserted a pointless clarify tag after a "cum laude" on your first.
  In summary, what baffles me here is that I would assume that someone who has lurked long enough to know of – and participate in – all these processes would also know enough to not be consistently disruptive. Combined with the fact that you seem to have little interest in actually contributing to the encyclopaedia, I have my doubts about your claims about not having prior accounts and about whether you are here for the right reasons. I like to extend newcomers the benefit of the doubt, but AGF is not a suicide pact, and my birthday wasn't on the 19th. Blablubbs|talk 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(mistake fixed: "because"->"before" Blablubbs|talk 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

(and another one. I should drink more coffee. Blablubbs|talk 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

• Addendum: Here's a permalink to AE144's comments that were removed by JayBeeEll as "indistinguishable from trolling"... Blablubbs|talk 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• This does not constitute trolling in any way. It was said because it could be rewritten. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blablubbs, some of your arguments can be refuted.

  1. The essay that I cited, specifically WP:TNTTNT, was reached by following a link from WP:TNT, which someone else cited.
  2. The letter code system was found by searching the 2009 SPI archives and I have no knowledge of WP:RfCu.
  3. I was not looking at conduct standards. Knowledge can be strong in some places and weak in others.
  4. The action taken in your first diff was a reasonable action. People say "Delete per X" or something similar (where X is any user) very often, as are your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th diffs.
  5. In the 3rd diff, WP:GNG is a good reason to keep/delete. Notability is one of the key factors in deciding what belongs in Wikipedia. The same reasoning applies to the 6th, 8th and 10th diffs.
  6. In the 7th diff, this is reasonable, as this has been done before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations.
  7. After your first set of diffs (which, in my opinion, is too many), your 14th diff was responding to a clear consensus, as was the 15th.
  8. For the 16th through 18th diffs in the 2nd paragraph, you have not provided a rationale for your reasoning.
  9. The proposal was ill-informed (I know that), but it was motivated by this closed AfD, and I did not know that the proposal would be rejected at the time.
  10. I have withdrawn my so-called "invitation", and they were suggestions anyway, not inviting myself like you said.
  11. The denial was (or at least was supposed to be) in good faith, and the rationale was valid.
  12. Many people do not know what cum laude means, and the article had high visibility on the Main Page when I inserted the tag, so I was asking someone to improve it.
  13. To an outside observer, I would have been coming in good faith.
  14. Your statement was very long, almost to the point where someone would not read it saying 'tl;dr'. This means my statement also has to be long.

  Please review this before trying to use measures such as blocking. -- AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Just fixed some mistakes at 20:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose NOTHERE indef

• I think the trolling has been going on long enough by now, and I don't plan on engaging it further. Glancing over this discussion, there seems to be no serious doubt about the fact that you are not a new user and not here for the right reasons. If someone behaves in a way that makes them functionally indistinguishable from a block-evading troll, we don't need a master to block them as a duck. Blablubbs|talk 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Blablubbs|talk 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Oppose What exactly is "functionally indistinguishable" about me and a block-evading troll? AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This user is clearly here for the wrong reasons. For starters, the sort of trolling exhibited in AfD discussions is not acceptable. I was pinged eight times in one discussion (plus a ninth ping that wasn't delivered and three messages on my talk page), and the thorough evidence submitted by Blablubbs shows additional badgering at other AfDs. The user seems to think that Wikipedia is some combination of a social media site (see, e.g., this this list of messages to users who ostensibly "supported" or "defended" them), a soapbox (see, e.g., the continuous badgering at AfDs), and a game. AnotherEditor144 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and that's sufficient to revoke the privilege of editing. See WP:NOTHERE. Additionally (and independently), this user displays numerous telltale signs of sockpuppetry, as clearly demonstrated above. It's a clear fail of the duck test, and, as a result of the numerous unconvincing denials, methinks the lady doth protest too much. If the user has a change of heart down the line, there's always the standard offer. But until then, an indefinite ban is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Personal attacks

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

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."

On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."

Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [83][84] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [85] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [86] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [87] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([88], [89], & [90]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [91][92] and have been uncivil. [93]

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

Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [94] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [95]

See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [96]

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

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

• 9 November 2020, American politics: [97]
• 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [98]
• 2 December 2018, American politics: [99]
• 5 August 2018, BLP: [100]
• 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [101]

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

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [102][103] This one was very nearly a violation: [104]

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

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [105] is not a personal attack? This [106] much like this [107] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [108] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [109][110] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The attempts of you both to push a 'both sides' whataboutist narrative are quite transparent. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [111] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [112] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

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

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

  These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even it's not actually true", then I guarantee you are going to receive sanctions, probably sooner than later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects – where is the observable evidence of me WP:FILIBUSTERING anything at the talk page where Crossroads made that accusation? Note that WP:FILIBUSTERING specifically means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, not one you or Crossroads happen to disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is just more WP:WIKILAWYER hand-waving. You cannot evade the community finding you disruptive by trying to nitpick over exact wording in guidelines and essays and policies. If you are being disruptive, you will be made to stop being disruptive. If you don't think FILIBUSTER applies, then try BLUDGEON, TE, etc. There is no question that you are disruptive when it comes to this topic area. I'll be "happy" to pore over details of a large number of diffs of your behavior if this ends up at AE or ArbCom, where that level of analysis is actually useful. At ANI, it's a waste of time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Consistent sockpuppetry without any ample assistance lately

Recently, this sockpuppet investigation against a particularly popular contributor of bad faith to Wikipedia has returned. The sockpuppet investigation case has been expanded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter, however, there also have been lax protection policies pertaining to articles related to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia in particular). I am requesting the sockpuppets of Hoaeter are immediately stopped in their tracks. The WP:DRIVEBY at Habesha peoples, and WP:AGENDA pushing at P'ent'ay among other articles is tiresome. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen, I had protected Habesha peoples for a month and (as you probably noticed) the suspect edits resumed a couple of days after that expired. I suppose that article will need protection again, but the new edits were less disruptive than before (perhaps by design) and, as of this writing, it's been pretty quiet for a couple of days. I'm not sure what happened with the SPI report. I wondered if it was missing some sort of flag where the clerks or checkusers would see it, but it's in all the right categories (and is listed on the main SPI page). It's frustrating, I know, but FWIW it's not even the oldest open SPI case (and, as always, we're depending upon volunteer effort). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A reminder that per WP:ARBCOM ruling standard discretionary sanctions are not in play for the Horn of Africa region, so don’t be afraid to put them to use here. 2600:100C:B02B:FDE3:7D12:4069:B31F:9D78 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume the editor meant "now in play?" (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Final decision.) I am not sure about applying sanctions, as I would seem to be fairly much WP:INVOLVED. I have, however, placed an alert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I am not sure why I have so much trouble wrapping my head around WP:ACDS. It's unclear to me what a discretionary sanction would look like, in this case. Unless I'm mistaken, Hoaeter is already technically banned from editing here, as per WP:THREESTRIKES. They're already not allowed to edit, and (as of this writing & in my opinion) no one else has been so disruptive that page restrictions are justified. (I believe page protection is a separate remedy, and we've used that in the past.) Blocking sock accounts as they are identified seems just as effective and, as a normal admin action, is something that I can do (unless I am mistaken) even if I'm WP:INVOLVED. (I've still been logging already-blocked accounts at WP:SPI/Hoaeter for the sake of documentation and (for lack of a better term?) transparency.) As far as I know, there's really nothing else to do where Hoaeter's concerned that we aren't already doing. If there is an uninvolved admin who reads this far and wants to apply discretionary sanctions, then please do so, but where the Habesha-related articles (and templates etc.) are concerned, we're really only concerned about a single editor using multiple accounts. And if I am overlooking something really obvious that discretionary sanctions would do for us (e.g. some technical remedy I don't know about), then please point this out to me; the coffee is not doing it for me today and it's entirely possible I'm missing an important point. Maybe this comment is better suited for WP:ARE; again I'm not even sure what to ask for, in terms of a sanction. (I will cross-post this to Talk:Habesha peoples where WP:ACDS has been fairly recently discussed.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S. to TheLionHasSeen, I believe the SPI case may have taken so long because it was missing the CUrequest parameter. For future reference, if you want a Checkuser's attention, the status template needs to look like this: {{SPI case status|CUrequest}}. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They have even attempted to get me blocked on Simple Wikipedia for notifying their administration of their workings there (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&oldid=7383888 vandalism report) and verbatim copying information from this English Wikipedia, with the same agenda pushing tactics they've used before. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Poisioning of well on AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disha Ravi
• Disha Ravi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vincentvikram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Shankargb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Vincentvikram has been tagging active editors by falsely accusing them of being canvassed[113][114] and after I warned him on his talk page against this WP:DE he went ahead to double down not only on his talk page,[115] but restoring the same false accusations on AfD,[116][117] and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR.[118]

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

Reply by Vikram

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

• Starting with the easier accusations. An IP posted a delete comment at the top of the AFD which another editor moved down the list inorder. I highlighted the delete vote to help the admin count it. I thought I was being helpful.

• I tagged four accounts for either SPA or canvassing since I had reasonable doubts after visiting their talk pages. I tagged Shankargb with canvassing tag after seeing at least five sections (a sixth section he had deleted) with warnings of disruptive editing and two sections with DS alerts(within one year), the last being yesterday. If I am wrong about the SPA/canvassing concern I will apologise.

• Shankargb made a comment about "no personal attacks" and yet talked about my comprehension stating The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Instead, he could have just talked about what aspects of the stub were actually puffery.

• I tagged krao212 since that account was ten months old and had at least ten sections with warnings of DE and two DS alerts, and all these were in related areas and hence my genuine concern.

• Two other accounts I tagged were clear cut SPA cases.

• What I do not understand is why would Shankarsg delete the tag for krao212 instead of just his?

• The tag I re-added was not shankargb's but krao212 and shankar objected to it and removed it twice. Why does one editor fight so vehemently for another account that has so many DE and DS warnings?

• Two other editors Sadads and RationalPuff have also expressed concerns in this aspect with Rationalpuff tagging this account as well.

• Finally, I don't like being threatened. I don't think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything. Have a discussion with me but don't add a threat at the end of that sentence and Shankargb added threats thrice. It in fact is a bullying technique and I called it. If he wanted to make a report just go ahead and make a report. I was acting in good faith and will accept a mistake if I have made one either knowingly or unknowingly. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Wait! Did I read this correctly?! Shankargb wrote above ..and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR and gave this as an example? I voted "Keep" on that AFD and highlighted the "Delete" vote of that IP. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. Vikram Vincent 08:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent, getting a Discretionary Sanctions alert is not an indication than an editor is doing anything wrong; they simply inform editors of the particular rules for a topic. Having been in previous editing disputes is not evidence of having been canvassed. Tagging other editors on the opposing side of an AfD can be disruptive and should not be done without evidence - I think you were being excessive. Note that Sadads is the article creator, so not a neutral party.

There is no need to refactor comments to bold recommendations - AfD closers will read the full debate.

If we regarded editors saying that they may report an issue to ANI as "making a threat" then that would have a chilling effect on discussions of editor behaviour. Fences&Windows 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok Fences and windows, noted on the DS and DE. However, I did not refactor to change a vote from x->y as claimed by OP. Best! Vikram Vincent 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Was going to come here and say that Shankargb's comments are out of touch with the reasonable work that Vincentvikram is doing to keep the conversation organized and structured with comments for the closing admin. There are a lot of signals that this topic is beginning to solicit participation from folks who are loosely connected to the Wikimedia space and don't understand the conversation. (I was even harassed on Twitter by a hindu nationalist extremist/conspiracy theorist because I created the article in November (since deleted)). I was purposefully not tagging/commenting on individual accounts because I didn't want to get targeted in a situation like this. Sadads (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: would appreciate you or another uninvolved admin keeping an eye on the AFD/discussion, to help navigate this, Sadads (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I collapsed the back-and-forth between User:Shankargb and User:Vincentvikram at AfD as resolved. You have made 10 and 29 edits to the page, as the 3rd and 1st most frequent editors, respectively. Both of you should now let others comment to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the debate.

Other than adding a comment to clarify that the article had been moved back, I didn't see any other need for admin action, Sadads. The general notice about canvassing is up and any closer will know to take short comments from new and IP editors with a pinch of salt. It'd be helpful though if you would self-identity as the article creator in your comment at AfD. Fences&Windows 12:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Its more I think there are likely to be increasing problems, that I suspect will scale at some point-- for example, yesterday on twitter there was a solicitation participants. Sadads (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is IMO a halfway decent argument for calling this AfD early in recognition of a steadily increasing heat-light ratio (evidence in part by this thread), lack of any new relevant arguments, and the reality that this is a two-outcome AfD at this point (keep or no consensus). Not sure anyone wants to step in that, though :) (and also, I !voted to keep, so I'm not exactly uninvolved). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• No further action needed here after Fences and windows; AfD is a Keep (and I have !voted accordingly). Close this. Britishfinance (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning (Bus stop)

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

---

Can we have a few more eyes here, please, with a view to establishing whether User:Bus stop has budgeoned the discussion? By my light, it's been a pretty clear strategy from the moment they opened the thread, but I might be jaundiced. To crunch the numbers, there have been:

• Approx. 83 edits to the thread, of which
• 40 edits are by Bus stop—48%—resulting in
• Approx. 5,100 words, of which
• Approx. 3,000 words—58%—are from Bus stop.
  It's true that discussion appears to have died down over the last couple of days, but that's not, perhaps, surprising, considering the ever-expanding word count and the (slightly bizarre) propensity for diversions into Paul McCartney's Jewishness (or otherwise).
  The question(s) are, is this behavior considered disruptive; does Bus stop have any previous history with such behavior; and, if so, should they be restricted from such behavior. Many thanks. ——Serial 15:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

H'mm; to answer a couple of my own questions. I note that WP:BLUDGEON itself states that Doing so may be considered a form of disruptive editing; I also see that bludgeoning was central to this ANI thread from December. ——Serial 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129—you write "By my light, it's been a pretty clear strategy from the moment they opened the thread, but I might be jaundiced." Why don't you just ask me what my strategy is. I'll tell you. My strategy is to cause the Einstein article to say something along the lines of "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew"—something like that. If I bludgeoned, I'm sorry. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Deja vu... Bus stop received a topic ban from the American politics topic area in November of last year for bludgeoning behavior (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler), and his "fixation on tagging people he identifies as Jews" was mentioned there. Bus stop has a long history of this behavior around Jewish people and Judaism in general: a search of ANI archives shows it goes back for over a decade. In 2007 it was proposed he be topic banned from Judaism (resulted in an indefinite block); in 2012 it was proposed that he be topic-banned from categorizing people as Jewish (unsuccessful); in 2014 this was again proposed (Bus stop "agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention"). It's concerning to see he is continuing both the bludgeoning and "Jew-tagging".GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. The "Ham Steak Hawaiian Jew"? And I didn't make that one up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Serial Number 54129, If you would like to understand, I would be glad to explain. If the subject of an article is clearly Jewish, and sources provide commentary on for instance how their Jewishness has bearing on their life, in such an instance we should not be using the wording "born into a Jewish family". We should instead be saying "was Jewish" or "was a secular Jew". I'm not "Jew tagging" in that I am not adding new information the article; the article already said the subject was "born into a Jewish family". I am changing the locution. It is not the family that is the primary focus of the article. The primary focus is the subject of the article. If sources unambiguously support that the subject is/was Jewish, then why are we writing "was born into a Jewish family"? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How many more discussions of bludgeoning by Bus stop have to occur here before more serious sanctions are imposed? And how much longer must Wikipedia and its editors be damaged by Bus stop? This behavior seriously disrupts discussion and drives good editors away. But, of course, that seems to be Bus stop's primary motive. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone remind me how to check if Bus stop has been given a BLP DS alert in the past year? If they have, I'm ready to use DS to topic ban them from anything related to Judaism and BLPs. If they haven't, that would be a good first step. i know there's a way to check that, but can't find the documentation after a few minutes of looking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Try to post a DS alert at their talk page, and then when you try to save the edit you get this search option.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, this appears to be the only alert they have received in the past year. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

hmmmm.... I see this BLP warning in the edit filter log for roughly the same time but it didn't show up in the history search; let me save the diff so I don't have to search for it again and I'll investigate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You can search for "discretionary sanctions alert" in the tag box: [119], or look at filter 602. Note that entries will be made in filter 602 on the first attempt to save a DS alert, even if the person alerting the user does not continue with the edit. That may be what you're seeing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have waited for your comment; I just spent the last 10 minutes eventually figuring out the same thing. It looks like Doug started out with a BLP alert, but for whatever reason never saved the edit. Although I'm about to give Bus stop a ds-alert for BLPs, as a write this I haven't yet, but it already shows in the log I tried to because I hit preview originally tried to save it on their talk page, but was stopped by the big red warning notice. That seems suboptimal, but I guess off topic. Anyway, a couple of minutes after the signature timestamp, Bus stop will have been given a DS alert for BLPs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—my point concerning "Jew-tagging" is that I'm not doing that. My point is that I am not taking the initiative to add to articles that someone was Jewish if the article didn't already imply that they were Jewish. I say "imply" because the language "was born into a Jewish family" implies that they must be Jewish. So, all I'm doing is stating outright, what already is implied. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—another way of saying this is that the article is not primarily about the family. The article is primarily about the subject of the biography. If sources expound on the Jewishness of the subject of the biography, why should we be using the language "born into a Jewish family"? I prefer to directly say that they were Jewish, or that they were a secular Jew. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have already made these points at the talk page, there is no need to repeat them here where it is your conduct being discussed, not whether the term should be included in the page. El C's comment below seems apt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—I did not point out at the Talk page that the article is not primarily about the family and that the article is primarily about the subject of the biography. I am saying this right now for the first time. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, GorillaWarfare, I am responding to your language of "Jew tagging". I don't know that it has a definition. But as I am trying to explain, I am not adding the new information that anyone is a Jew. If an article is already saying that someone was "born into a Jewish family", and if sources go into detail about them as Jews, shouldn't the article be just straightforwardly saying that they are Jews? Why the indirect locution? Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, GorillaWarfare, you should not even be using the term "Jew-tagging". It is improper. We don't make such insinuations. We should be attempting to respect one another's editing propensities. It is a vast world and Wikipedia attempts to write about as much of it as possible. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You just made three separate comments to me, each pinging me, without me having responded to any of them, within an hour-long period, in a discussion about your own bludgeoning behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I pinged too often GorillaWarfare but if you are saying something inaccurate about me at this noticeboard I think it is in my interest to clear it up. If not, sanctions would follow, isn't that right? I know how this works. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, Bus stop's original comment seems to have disappeared into the ether (except there's no such thing on Wikipedia), so I'm going to attach my response to it, edit conflicts and their refactoring notwithstanding. Bus stop's comment in question read: Trumped up charges, GorillaWarfare. And WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for both GorillaWarfare and Serial Number 54129 (diff).

My response read: Negative, Bus stop, I submit to you that you are projecting. My sense is that you either bludgeon discussions to the point of exhausting the endurance of other participants, or you tersely engage in fire-and-forget commentary without even a cursory glance at whatever is the case in question, like you did with me recently (direct link). That you've been allowed to continue swaying between these two extremes, that is a bit astonishing to me, truth be told. And distractions concerning the content dispute itself when this behaviour is called into question, well, unfortunately that's just par for the course. El_C 16:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't erasure of Jews a concern? Einstein very clearly self-identified as Jewish and so surely we should respect that, instead of apparently trying to minimize that aspect of his life. Here's a very detailed analysis of his identity: https://aeon.co/essays/einstein-on-the-practical-matters-of-being-german-and-jewish (there's much more controversy about whether he was German than whether he was Jewish). Bus stop could certainly comment less, but the constant reverting by others, their lack of engagement with sources, and the repeated derailing sarcastic comments by Martinevans123 ([120][121][122]) are concerning. Fences&Windows 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Attempted humour. Obviously failing. Would you like me to strike them all, or remove? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Martinevans123—you've been a thorough pain in the fucking butt. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for that vote of confidence. You can always blame me if you like. I didn't notice you getting derailed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that's somewhat irrelevant here, to be honest - the issue is repeated behaviour after many warnings and sanctions, not this particular content dispute itself. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly. Astutely put, Black Kite. Also, I'll soapbox a bit by linking to Einstein's Why Socialism? — a non sequitur, but I did it anyway. So there. El_C 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C—Wikipedia is not exempt from antisemitism. Antisemitism is ubiquitous. And of course it finds its way onto Wikipedia. If the subject of an article receives considerable commentary in reliable sources on their Jewishness, how it impacts their lives, how can we be saying merely that they were "born into a Jewish family"? Shouldn't we be saying they "were Jewish"? Or that they were a "secular Jew"? Wikipedia doesn't get to decide who is a Jew—reliable sources do that. In short—a person is a Jew if reliable sources support that they are a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, I am not interested in engaging this content dispute with you at this time, certainly not on this forum. El_C 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a simple fact, El C. It would be Pollyannish to think that antisemitism is not found at Wikipedia. A factor that bears its ugly head in every other part of society probably has a presence on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I really, really hope you're not trying to insinuate anti-semitism on the part of those you were arguing with on the Einstein article, because that would be a very poor idea. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, Black Kite, and I mean that with utter seriousness. I am referring to ideas. If a person represents that a non-practicing Jew is not entirely a Jew, I don't consider that person to be an antisemite. But the idea is not only at odds with the way Jews identify as Jews, but it is also contrary to the way Wikipedia supports its own material. In essence it is original research for an editor to say that for instance Einstein was not entirely a Jew because he wasn't a practicing Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, thank you for that. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Right? Well, at least there's that. Bus stop, that you continue to try to engage the topic dispute with me here after I had already said to you that I am not interested in engaging this content dispute with you at this time — well, I think that speaks for itself. El_C 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• A rate limit for Bus Stop was suggested in the December ANI. I think it's a reasonable thing to try. Levivich had suggested three posts per thread. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Meh, I learned a long time ago that Bus Stop can be generally ignored. They have a limited understanding of policy and I have yet to see them participate in a discussion at BLPN where I didnt end up wishing I had a device to throw a shoe at them long-distance. Archive 280 Stefan Moleyneux is one example of their range of tactics. It generally goes: Make crap argument not based on policy. When pointed out argument isnt in line with policy, pretend they meant something else. Argue a different point. Ignore direct questions. Waffle when asked for evidence. Change argument entirely when looks like not being listened to (this happens often). Generally the best way to deal with them is to 1. Ignore them and address only other editors who can make a coherant contribution. 2. Revert anything that looks to be a BLP issue. 3. Force them to attempt to gain consensus. 4. Watch any subsequent discussion collapse under the weight of their tiresome verbiage. Really they need a topic ban from all biographies AND anything remotely to do with Jews. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Fences and windows. Thank you for weighing in. People can be so unfair. If anybody takes the time to look at what transpired at the Einstein article—Talk page and article space, it will be seen that I have been careful to maintain rational dialogue with others, supplementing my arguments with sources. This is a content dispute. The unfairness is that it has now switched to a behavioral issue. No, it is not a behavioral issue, at least not on my part. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Allow me to very quickly summarize what took place. I have been arguing with several editors. That is permitted. One editor is permitted to disagree with three editors. Here's what they do: one maintains the position that Einstein is not fully a Jew. The other maintains that Einstein is not a secular Jew, because he was semi-observant as a little kid. (Totally ridiculous—all Einstein did as a toddler is tell his parents to get kosher food, which no doubt they ignored.) Based on the reasoning of these two editors, I cannot write that Einstein was Jewish, because in the opinion of one of them, he was not fully a Jew, and I cannot say that he was a secular Jew, because in the opinion of the other editor, Einstein was observant as a child. Ridiculous? Sources of course don't matter in any of this. Original research reigns supreme. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sources are of course just things to use when they are convenient. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hang on, I thought I was meant to be the sarcastic one here. Already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bus stop, I realize this discussion concerns you, specifically, so that it is of course expected for you to wish to make your case. But, I'm letting you know that it's starting feel like you are bludgeoning this very discussion which alleges that you bludgeon discussions. So, there are shades of irony to be drawn from that, which may well be lost on you, but I suspect are being picked up by most participants here. Self-awareness can be a harsh mistress, truly, but I think being blunt about this is long overdue. El_C 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• El_C—so now I'm bludgeoning in making my case? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what El_C posted, Bus stop, and that's one of the signs of bludgeoning. You persistently interpret, or misinterpret, statements rather than actually read and attempt to take in the poster's expressed thought(s). Tiderolls 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tide rolls—I merely responded to what El_C posted. And I read what they posted before responding. This is getting ridiculous. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, bludgeon-y projection, thy name is Bus stop... El_C 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

El C—don't administrators have anything better to do than constantly degrade this project and waste everybody's time? Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do than to respond to every single comment posted here? Give it a rest, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And you're coming extremely close to making a personal attack by accusing El_C and other admins participating here of "constantly degrading" Wikipedia. I'd watch my step if I were you, you're already close to a sanction for your bludgeoning behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—can I ask you a question? Do you have a sock-puppet named Jayjg? Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why, yes, thank you for bludgeoning me. I find it extremely useful to have a sockpuppet who is an admin, as it relieves me of the burden of doing many everyday Wikipedia things, like convincing other editors in consensus discussions, making arguments regarding sanctions, and protecting articles from damaging vandalism and PoV editing. Instead of doing those things, I just pull on my sockpuppet, get out the admin's broom, and sweep away all my problems just like magic. It's really convenient, and it really is true that two Wikipedia accounts can live as cheaply as one.

Anyway, I've been waiting for years for someone to uncover my deep, dark secret, and now that everything's out in the open, I feel so relieved. It's as if a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders. Again, thank you for bludgeoning me.

With apologies to Jayjg. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation. Do you have anything to back it up? —El Millo (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. The little bell went off, indicating that someone had posted on this thread, and Bus stop just reached for the first attack they could think of. Interestingly, I guess I must have been accused of sockpuppetry with maybe 15 or more people over the years (User:EEng is one of the ones I remember), but I don't recall User:Jayjg having been one of them. I guess I just have one of those faces that looks like a lot of other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a hunch, Facu-el Millo. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Such hunches can get you blocked, ya know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Insert bludgeoning response here →

I too have been accused of sock-puppetry. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—my apologies—I must have been mistaken. And my apologies to Jayjg too. You just seemed like the same editor. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So, because we "just seemed like the same editor", you just assumed that two high-profile, long-term editors, one of them an admin, were sockpuppets. Yeah, sure, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Valereee's suggestion for a rate-limit, but as noted in the previous discussion, there is little doubt that Bus stop will quickly circumvent a rate limit by starting a new thread. That, in effect, would make the problem worse. There needs to be clearly specified, graduated sanctions with no exceptions, ultimately (if necessary) escalated to an indef block. I don't like to see an indef for someone who does make some useful edits, but this has gone on long enough and with too much damage. Bus stop's history clearly tells us that previous discussions and sanctions have no long term effect. I suspect that's the case because Bus stop enjoys the bludgeoning process, or cannot comprehend where normal discussion stops and bludgeoning begins. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting, Sundayclose. I rarely start new threads. How can you say "Bus stop will quickly circumvent a rate limit by starting a new thread"? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the argument, either by mistake or purposefully, which states that you could just start a new thread to circumvent the limit per thread, not that you currently start new threads. —El Millo (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I understood that, Facu-el Millo. But I habitually do not start new threads. No wonder this is called the torture boards. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin. Never will be. But I will offer this: this sort of thread is a total degradation to the project. Whatever the outcome, this is why Wikipedia is toxic. Salem witch trials pale by comparison. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are somewhat correct, but what you don't seem to recognize is that you are the toxic element here. You've attacked numerous editors who have reported your disruptive behavior to the community without taking anything they've said as a cause for concern to alter your behavior. Everyone else is wrong -- except for you, of course. If you stop to think about it for just a moment, you'd realize that this is extremely unlikely to be true, and it's not, unless, of course, all the other editors here are irresponsible and don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
  Your behavior is disruptive, both here in this discussion, and in general in your editing. You came close to being topic banned in the past, but avoided it by voluntarily stepping away from those actions, but here you are, back again, doing the same damn thing you did before. By all rights, that topic-banning discussion should be dug up from the archives and re-opened, since the conditions under which you avoided being sanctioned are no longer in force. You're extremely lucking that you haven't been blocked just for your behavior in this thread - and yet you keep pushing the envelope, playing the victim, using the "toxic Wikipedia" card to deflect attention off of you.
  You should be damn glad that I'm not an admin, because I would have indeffed you a long time ago. The real admins are more judicious than I am, but even they have a point past which they cannot be pushed, but you continue to push away anyway. Good luck with that strategy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose, what about in addition to three posts per thread, BS can't start new threads on any talk in which they've posted in a currently open thread? —valereee (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I really think it's a non-issue. Per WP:BURO, an admin can see that starting a new thread is not a new discussion, it's a continuation of an ongoing one in the previous thread. That's why I used "discussion" in my proposals below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm persuaded by the comments that the issue of starting new threads is a matter that admins can manage. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Endless projections continue, even here

Above, Bus stop has written a response to me, by adopting yet another amazing projection. It reads: don't administrators have anything better to do than constantly degrade this project and waste everybody's time. Bus stop, I think my record speaks for itself. How about yours? El_C 21:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C—try to understand something—your "record speaks for itself" in some areas. But editors are not expected to "stay in their lane." I reserve the right not to agree with anyone about anything. This thread is pure toxicity. An administrator is expected to be fair. Have you actually scrutinized the edits to the Einstein article and Talk page of the past few days? Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, your record speaks for itself as well. In fact, it screams. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's astounding how the toxicity thing works, Beyond My Ken. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

From WP:BLUDGEON: Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, Beyond My Ken, I am here trying not to get sanctioned. You are here for what reason? You obviously have nothing better to do. Though you would no doubt say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit it, Beyond My Ken, you are totally uninspired by this project. Otherwise you would not be wasting this much time on getting me sanctioned. Wikipedia happens to have a Jewish problem—unsurprisingly. Antisemitism is fairly ubiquitous in the world at large. Why would there be not a trace of antisemitism at Wikipedia? An encyclopedia is incapable of uttering the words "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew"? Give me a break. Every source that addresses the subject supports an assertion that Einstein was Jewish. No source supports that Einstein might not be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) So, now you're playing the antisemitism card, how unexpected.

If you knew anything at all about me, you'd know that I am very concerned about antisemitism on Wikipedia and everywhere else in the world, and about the whitewashing of articles about antisemitic Nazis, Fascists, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and various other far-right figures. I take great pains to remove antisemitism when I find it, and to make sure those people are properly and accurately described and not glorified or excused. However, the current issue has nothing whatsoever with antisemitism, or even the debate about whether Einstein should or should not be labelled as Jewish (I believe he should be), and everything to do with your behavior. I understand that you can't see that, but it is very much the case.

As to being "uninspired" by Wikipedia, I very much doubt that I would spend hours daily editing here, making usually hundreds of edits a day, if I wasn't convinced that this project is a significant benefit to the English-speaking world. I truly believe in Wikipedia. I don't however, think that Wikipedia needs editors such as you, who disrupt the community in their earnest self-righteousness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You are making a very good argument in favor of sanctions with the two above comments. I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds—believe it or not this project actually compiles material in accordance with its presence in reliable sources. If all good quality sources addressing the question say that Einstein was Jewish and if there are no good quality sources saying that Einstein was not Jewish, then it should be possible for an entity purporting to be an encyclopedia to make a simple, direct statement—either "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew". This should not be so difficult. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is baffling that you're still repeating your long-refuted arguments from the Einstein discussion, and that you don't understand that whether you're right or wrong in the inclusion of the information isn't relevant here. What's relevant is the methods you use in order to get what you want. —El Millo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you have to try to argue your point as best you can, but when you're then confronted with disagreement by numerous editors, it's time to accept consensus. Do you think I agree with every consensus made here that is relevant to articles? Like Only in death ... I've suggested, here, ignoring your posts when your style becomes fatiguing, but they're obviously not being ignored. At least choose your battles more wisely (in terms of where you stand a chance). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the Law of holes is actually good advice, but pretty soon you're going to be hitting the Earth's core if you don't stop digging. Quit arguing content and pay attention to the people telling you to stop bludgeoning this discussion about your behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—you refer to "the antisemitism card". The antisemitism is the main problem. Obviously I'm not talking about overt antisemitism. I am talking about the inability to make a simple, direct statement: Einstein was Jewish. I am talking about the inability to make a simple, direct statement: Einstein was a secular Jew. I would concede that is not exactly antisemitism. But it is certainly bothersome. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129—you say "It's true that discussion appears to have died down over the last couple of days". Isn't that why you are starting this thread now? You don't want to wait too long after it has "died down". Now's your opportunity. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know about "died down", I just got fed up with the whole discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was going on to write Robert Mapplethorpe articles, actually on individual photographs. I hope they site-ban me. Less work for me. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, he wasn't Jewish. Not yet, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• People don't have to stay in their lane at Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors should feel free to wander into other people's territory. That is the natural educational inclination. One cannot force one's views on anyone else. But even on one's own turf, one has to be tolerant. The stupidity of this project is the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It extends typically to topic bans and even site bans. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Bus stop prohibited from BLUDGEONING discussions

Given that WP:BLUDGEONing a discussion is something that User:Bus stop is apparently unable to stop themselves from doing, Bus stop is topic-banned from posting more than three responses in any 24-hour period of time to any specific discussion anywhere on Wikipedia, except on their own talk page. This sanction shall result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite one, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on for too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

• Comment Sundayclose has suggested that this won't fix the problem; should we consider also requiring that Bus Stop not start new threads on any talk page in which they're involved in a currently-active thread? —valereee (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that admins can be trusted to see that if Bus stop starts a "new" thread to avoid a sanction, it's simply a WP:GAMING tactic and not really a new discussion, just a continuation of the previous one. That's why the proposal says "discussion" and not "thread". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that this reasonably implicit. And I guess now that it's actually been specifically discussed here as an intentional part of the proposal by the proposer, it can be regarded as an explicit part of this proposal. —valereee (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per actions in Proposal 2. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as it can be seen in all the threads that are part of this discussion, this user can't help but bludgeon. It almost seems like a bit now. —El Millo (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. At some point, with problems in multiple areas, we should actually start to talk about a site ban instead of 3 different high-maintenance topic bans, but I'm willing to try these two proposals instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but I have a strong preference for proposal 3. If this passes and that does not, I think it may be useful to define what "any specific discussion" means. Any single level-2 heading? Any discussion on the same topic? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Certainly any level-2 heading, but creating new sections or bringing up an issue on another page to circumvent this should also be covered in some way. I'd say to leave grey-area cases to admin discretion; though I support any discussion on the same topic, broadly construed. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I added "specific" in an attempt to make it clear that the 3-response limit was to one discussion considered at a time. I was concerned that the proposal could be misinterpreted as meaning that Bus stop could only make 3 responses in a 24-hour period across all of Wikipedia. But, as I've said elsewhere, a discussion is a discussion is a discussion, whether it takes place in a single thread, in sub-threads of a single thread, or in multiple threads. As long as the subject is essentially the same, it's all one discussion, and Bus stop doesn't get to avoid a sanction by starting a new thread or sub-thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining your thinking a bit more. That's reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this has been going on far too long now. Anyone who was involved with Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (568 talkpage edits), Killing of George Floyd (378, including 230 in 14 days), Greta Thunberg (251), Stefan Molyneux (239), Christchurch mosque shootings (159), or indeed any of the other 31 articles to which BS has made 100 or more talkpage comments, will know that it's simply a timesink. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as an uninvolved ANI observer. After reviewing the discussion in question and other behaviour, I believe that topic-bans on bludgeoning and making edits related to whether people are Jewish are warranted. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Can someone clarify whether the limit is 3 responses to a person or responses within a topic? Some discussions can be rather dynamic with different tangents/lines branching out. I also have some due process concerns about whether the limit applies if Bus Stop is the subject of the discussion like here for instances. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I intended it to mean three responses in the discussion, not per person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support with underlined wording inserted ...three responses regarding a particular topic in any 24-hour period.... I ignore Bus stop yet still waste time from skipping their interminable "discussions". Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable change that I would support. Anything to clarify the meaning is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above; seen this too many times in discussions that Bus Stop is involved in. They tend to drive a topic towards obfuscation via their approach to debate, which disrupts the process. --Masem (t) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I see this as the minimal level of sanction, and I suspect it may not be enough since all other sanctions have not helped. Unless I missed something, we can support all three of the proposals. Obviously proposal 3 makes the other 2 irrelevant. But I support all three. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the absolute bare minimum necessary to curtail many years of disruption and wasting other editor's time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be Bus Stop's primary issue, though admittedly it's the fine point on top of a handful of other issues; regardless, this is certainly the most glaring one. Their continued bludgeoning in this very thread might be somewhat understandable, given that sanctions are imminent... Except that they've already been advised to slow down by more than one editor, and/or at least not respond to nearly every comment, which is not advice they seem to want to heed. That alone doesn't give me an abundance confidence that this is a behaviour that they would (or could) change of their own volition, and that likely some sort of restriction needs to be imposed for the benefit of other editors. Note that I'm voting in the affirmative for all three proposals, and that should the site-ban fail, this is my vote. I was initially leaning toward this sanction only, but after having read the entirety of the conversation here, I'm not sure this would be an overly effective remedy, or that they even fully recognize the issues with their editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the minimum necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as obviously necessary but probably not sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Bus stop prohibited from discussing whether anyone is Jewish or not

Given that User:Bus stop has in the past agreed to voluntarily stop labeling article subjects as Jewish, but has returned to doing so, they are topic-banned from labeling any person, dead or alive, as Jewish, either by editing the article in question, or by adding a category, regardless of whether the person involved is or isn't Jewish. Bus stop is allowed to post suggestions on article talk pages to the effect that the subject is Jewish and should be labeled as such. They may not WP:BLUDGEON any discussion which arises from their suggestion, and may be blocked if they do so. The period of time of escalating blocks may continue up to and including indefinite, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—there is no reason anyone should go along with your witch hunt. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you actually going to bludgeon the !vote? —valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently so (see below). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This has been going on for too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

  Xxanthippe—correct me if I am wrong but didn't you argue years ago that Henry Kissinger wasn't Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not recall editing Henry Kissinger. Please provide a link. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC).

I could be mistaken, Xxanthippe. Please trust me, it was an honest mistake. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You were just warned above for making baseless accusations, and this is now the second time in this one discussion you've used this "I must have been mistaken" defense. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Xxanthippe, I Just checked. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—do you ever assume good faith? Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You've just agreed it was a baseless accusation. Where am I assuming bad faith by mentioning that you have now made two of them in one discussion, and were warned after the first? There is no assumption of faith, bad or good, it is just a factual description of your behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not "accuse" Xxanthippe of anything, GorillaWarfare. Secondly, I didn't even check the Henry Kissinger article before saying "I could be mistaken, Xxanthippe. Please trust me, it was an honest mistake". Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That you didn't check is the problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely not "the" problem, as there are so many. --JBL (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this has been cringe-worthy behavior for many years (Note that I've changed the header; I understand the motive for using the term, but "Jew tagging" just seems gross. User:Beyond My Ken, if you want to change it back I won't argue further). I was going to suggest a broader BLP ban, but it occurs to me, really embarrassingly late in the day, that Einstein isn't a BLP. Perhaps some were wondering why I proposed a BLP DS alert earlier; it's because I'm clueless. But also because he has done the same thing at BLP articles too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• No problem about changing the header. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, and long overdue, but I have a strong preference for proposal 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yes please. ♟♙ (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - That ship has sailed a long time ago in terms of the POV pushing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per comment on proposal 1: After reviewing the discussion in question and other behaviour, I believe that topic-bans on bludgeoning and making edits related to whether people are Jewish are warranted. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support There are plenty of editors who can reasonably present a case and Bus stop is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. This seems like a case of IDHT after repeated warnings here. --Masem (t) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This certainly seems necessary, but anyone familiar with Bus stop's editing knows that there are many other topics beside Jewish-related that Bus stop has bludgeoned. Unless I missed something, we can support all three of the proposals. Obviously proposal 3 makes the other 2 irrelevant. But I support all three. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Sundayclose's reasoning that the three proposals be put in place. —El Millo (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I happen to be Jewish and have written a few biographies of notable Jews and have also expanded articles about people whose notability derives in part from their involvement with Judaism. That is a small part of my editing. But this editor has a long history of being obsessive and unrelenting in declaring people Jewish even if their notability has nothing to do with being Jewish. As for Albert Einstein, it is impossible for an intelligent person to read that article and not understand that he was a proud Jew who was not religiously observant. And yet this editor wasted the time of several editors by trying to use a contemporary article from a Jewish newspaper to hammer that home. Articles about such a major figure should rely on the highest quality book length biographies, not newspaper articles published 65 years after his death that bring forward no new information. I am sick and tired of this editor's constant and counterproductive accusations of anti-Semitism to attempt to justify their obsessive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"contemporary article from a Jewish newspaper"? You clearly have not read the relevant section on the Einstein Talk page, Cullen328. The Smithsonian (magazine) is not a "contemporary article from a Jewish newspaper". It is the first source that I presented. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are simply wrong when you say "But this editor has a long history of being obsessive and unrelenting in declaring people Jewish even if their notability has nothing to do with being Jewish", Cullen328. You are confusing me with several other editors. Maybe I did that years ago. All I have done more recently is change wording from "was born into a Jewish family" to "was Jewish". Please stop it. You are talking claptrap that will get me sanctioned. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe I did that years ago." Yes, you did. As for the Smithsonian, that is no better source for a biography of a very famous person who died over 65 years ago than The Forward. I tell you what: If any editor other than you, any productive editor, calls any one of my contributions "claptrap", then I will take that very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328—are you saying that The Forward is not an adequate support for an assertion that Einstein was Jewish? If so, please explain to me why that would be so. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that contemporary popular newspapers and magazine articles are poor quality sources in general for Wikipedia biographies of highly famous people who died over 65 years ago. For use in such articles, book length widely reviewed biographies written by respected historians or other respected scholars are the type of references that should be used. And there are many such biographies of Einstein, and of course many of them describe his Judaism, as does the Wikipedia biography. I have no problem using The Forward as a reference in biographies of lower profile but still notable contemporary people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per Cullen and others. Overdue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is a topic that calls for editors with understanding of its nuances and the ability to make subtle distinctions, and it's not apparent that Bus stop meets those requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Site ban

I've never interacted with Bus Stop before, but after reading the discussions on Talk:Albert Einstein and elsewhere, I've got a sore head. I'm prepared to scrap this proposal if somebody (who isn't Bus Stop) can briefly summarise all the great work he does to Wikipedia and why he's a net positive .... otherwise I think we might as well put this option on the table and discuss it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, they have created several articles on works of art, although none in the past two years. But, in troubling developments, they've edited to add Jewishness into two articles just in the past ten minutes. WTactualF? —valereee (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as (attempted) proposer. Just edit conflicted with you saving my own edit to add this proposal, which I'll paste here: Adding this option, as it was a suggestion several people supported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler, especially after he immediately violated his topic ban. I didn't support the siteban then, and I actually opposed sanctions for the topic ban violations, but it seems it's time now. Bus stop is not only continuing the problematic behavior in this discussion, but engaging in behavior that would not be curtailed by the above two proposals (such as making personal attacks, casting aspersions, and making accusations of bad faith against other editors: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a net negative and highly disruptive person here to "right great wrongs". ♟♙ (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia is too parochial for me. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Can I propose a new policy/guideline that says "if someone supports their own siteban in a noticeboard discussion, they are sitebanned with immediate effect, without waiting for the 3 day (or whatever it is) deadline to pass. This does not count as a self-requested block. It's the real thing." I see User:NedFausa is doing the same thing in a thread higher up. Why have a discussion if the editor being considered agrees they should be banned? Or, alternately, why let someone troll the discussion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, Works for me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not for me. People can get upset and wanna take their ball and go home (before they've slept over it). The process should stand, regardless. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed, there is the risk that if someone self nominates themselves, then people will become complacent, and skip the discussion, and then when they change their mind, they can point to how they were the only/primary supporter. Having a thorough consensus removes any doubt whatsoever. Of course a person can self nominate still. Shushugah (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind people self-requesting a block to take a break, or to just chill out. However, if it gets to the state where admins are edit-conflicting to write a site ban request, and they haven't worked out that just stop commenting altogether is the only sensible option, then .... more fool them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Skip what discussion, Shushugah? This is not a discussion. Have you seen anybody respond to my numerous posts? Except in wise guy style banter? Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If I'm slow to respond I'm cooking din-din. (Salmon.) Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I plan to make some potatoes on the side. Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I find it somewhat interesting that you comment on others' lack of substantive or constructive replies to your argument and then let us know what you are eating for dinner, which is clearly irrelevant. I do not wish to discredit your point of view or make an argumentum ad hominem, but I do find this somewhat hypocritical. On another (more relevant) note, I believe the reason that your posts have few replies is that you are repeating the same argument (both in this discussion and in the discussions on Jewishness that prompted this); as such, people are already very aware of your point(s) and, if they have made their point and/or a rebuttal known, they may not repeat it after each of your comments. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 00:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Bus stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is fine with me as well. A net-negative as far as I can tell. Their support of their own site-ban is just the cherry on top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I do want to add that if any of the other proposals have sufficient support, they should also be imposed. That way, if Bus stop is able to convince the community that they should be un-site banned, the topic ban(s) here, plus the existing one from AP2, will still be in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I feel that Bus stop tries to drive wedges, suggesting that other editors are denying that this or that person is/was Jewish. Attic Salt (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This has been going on for more than a decade, and if this discussion is anything to go by it's getting worse rather than better. I'd support something lesser if I thought it would solve the problem, but I'm all out of ideas. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a cleaner option which would emphasize how the community feels about long-term disruption. Unblock appeals can consider procedures to handle any future conflicts. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Given that Bus Stop is asking for this, I only proceedurally Oppose but with the firm commitment that this is a final warnings; presuming the above two proposed community remedies pass, that failures to abide by them or any past warnings still active will be a site block. But this may be moot giving their comment above. --Masem (t) 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral Weak oppose as the user in question does have some – albeit seemingly few – constructive edits not related to people being Jewish. If I look at his/her contributions, exactly one half (25/50) of the most recent 50 contributions either have Judaism mentioned in the edit summary or article title. Even more edits are still related to Judaism. However, there are some edits which are constructive and unrelated to Judaism, as with adding an image, reverting vandalism, and trimming a lead. I believe that topic-bans are sufficient to prevent his/her disruptive behaviour without affecting constructive contributions. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC) (Edited 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC): Change to neutral after considering arguments and reviewing more past behaviour)
• Support I've seen countless threads at AN/I and elsewhere with the same problems: bludgeoning and IDHT. Clearly a net negative. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as Bus stop has rather proved my original point wrt bludgeoning; that's clearly incurable at this point in time. Also per Floquenbeam, who notes that the previously suggested resolutions—which I support, failing this psses—are unnecessarily complicated; I agree. If we are at the stage that we have to dictate how and where an editor should communicate in an otherwise collegial environment, then we've already lost the game, metaphorically. I rather assumed we would get to this point earlier, when I realised how entrenched this behavior was, but it's a good sign that the community have examined other options thoroughly before finally suggesting a minimum of six months off. Veiled accusations of antisemitism, actual accusations of bad faith, and frankly trolling suggestions of sockpuppetry have also played their part in my decision. ——Serial 23:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not thinly veiled accusations of antisemitism, Serial Number 54129. Wikipedia is approximately as antisemitic as any other place on the internet. Please tell me—why would it be otherwise? Please tell me. That's not a rhetorical question. I am of course referring to what has been termed the New antisemitism. I am not referring to overt antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for these years of tendentious drama to stop. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support per Boing & Floq - The irony of bludgeoning every person to death ... in a thread that discusses their bludgeoning .... You honestly couldn't make it up!. Unfortunately I don't actually know what they've done here that's been an improvement ... if anything it seems to be bludegeoning everywhere which aint an improvement. –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As Britishfinance has said earlier today about a different siteban proposal (which I authored), one word: unambiguous. El_C 00:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Considering Bus stop's long history of disrupting discussions and lack of response to other sanctions, I think we are at the point that this is necessary. Unless I missed something, we can support all three of the proposals. Obviously proposal 3 makes the other two irrelevant. But I support all three. I am convinced that anything less than site ban will eventually result in us being back here in a few months (or less) discussing this again. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  I feel that there is too much parochialism and too much antisemitism at Wikipedia. These actually go hand-in-hand. The inability to recognize Jews is a form of antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  It's amazing how these people work. Here we have Attic Salt and Beyond My Ken following me around and reverting me. This is identical with what Binksternet and Attic Salt were doing at Einstein. (Binksternet literally claims that Einstein isn't entirely Jewish. Parochial a bit?) Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Bus stop: Are you arguing that not describing people as Jewish is anti-semitic? It's not like people are trying to censor Judaism, it's (in my opinion) that you're trying to edit it into very many articles to the point where it has become a problem. MOS:CONTEXTBIO says that if ethnicity or religion is not relevant to notability, it should not be in the lead. I believe that this is also applicable – to an extent – to the whole article. If something is not relevant to the person or his/her notability, I think it should not be in the article. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Twassman—Wikipedia is censored if one cannot even state that Einstein was a secular Jew. That should be no big deal. Instead we have this thread. Bus stop (talk)

  @Bus stop: For Einstein, I believe that this is relevant given that he stayed in the United States due to Hitler's anti-semitism. Your most recent edit was challenged and reverted because Attic Salt (talk · contribs) believed that it did not agree with a source. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Eh, I give up. There are two topic ban discussions going on and Bus stop is still doing both of them while they're happening. This is so tone deaf I don't see any other option. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support given that Bus stop keeps going on and on about the content of the dispute that got them here, bludgeoning the discussion about bludgeoning and not even being able to stay on topic. It seems like a WP:CIR issue, plus all the WP:BLUDGEON, aspersions cast, and overall trolling when they started talking about what they were having for dinner. —El Millo (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo—these are not "aspersions". Wikipedia is just as antisemitic as any other part of the internet. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the accusation of sockpuppetry and specific accusations of antisemitism which you later admitted were unfounded and which you didn't bother to check beforehand. This is starting to look like Inception, you're bludgeoning my !vote about you bludgeoning the discussion about bludgeoning another discussion. —El Millo (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite—Binksternet writes "Jewishness [is] multi-faceted: Religion, culture and ethnicity are the three elements. Einstein was two of those three, not all three". Wouldn't that be original research? All sources that address the question say Einstein was Jewish. No source says Einstein might not be Jewish. Binksternet is undaunted; they write "there are the several meanings of Jewish including religion, race and culture, and Einstein emphatically did not practice the Jewish religion. He did not celebrate a bar mitzvah and he did not engage in any other religious ritual". "Parochial" is the only word I know for this sort of thinking. Bus stop (talk)

• Support -- indefinite site ban. Can we please stop allowing people to waste our valuable time through this nonsense? It's obvious that he's not getting the point. 14 years (2007!) is more than long enough for him to learn. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The impression I got at Talk:Albert Einstein was very creepy, like when the Germans were compiling lists of Jews in the 1930s – Bus stop was insisting Einstein must be a Jew. Bus stop's simplistic argument was repeated over and over on the talk page, without any acknowledgement of the subtler points brought up by others. I'm afraid the complexity of writing an encyclopedia is not what Bus stop is cut out for. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Binksternet, I was arguing that reliable sources support that Einstein was a Jew. And yes, it is that simple. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—you don't seem to understand—we write articles based on relevant information that is found in reliable sources. That's the basis for Wikipedia, when it functions properly. Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per everyone else, & echoing Sundayclose in particular -- if this ban is ever rescinded, the other two should be in place. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Their constant bludgeoning is disruptive as it is wasting everybody's time. After 14 years they are not going to change. P-K3 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasting time? Pawnkingthree—what could be a bigger waste of time? We are trying to write an encyclopedia? Let us stop kidding ourselves. What this is, I don't know. It is human stupidity. It's always been with us, and it shows no sign of going away. I have to cook some salmon. After I catch it. Something is fishy about that story. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, in no small part for the behavior displayed in this very conversation, where Bus stop displays their belief that repeating an argument over and over and over again somehow makes it more persuasive. Hint to Bus stop: not so. It seems the editor is convinced that all the rest of us are parochial and unable to detect anti-Semitism. I am sure that I am not the only administrator who routinely blocks antisemites on sight, and I resent that repetition. Topic bans on Judaism are not enough, since the editor bludgeons discussions about art as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328—you only block overt antisemitism "on sight". Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems that only you possess the secret decoder ring that enables you to detect anti-Semitism invisible to others. Please use your special powers somewhere else than Wikipedia, where actual evidence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I emulated Floquenbeam here as I've just indefinitely blocked Bus stop due to their continued badgering of one respondent after another (bludgeoning par excellence) in their own site ban discussion. Not having 3 days of this. No way. El_C 03:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Bus Stop et. al.--Jorm (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've interacted with Bus Stop a bit, and though we've sometimes disagreed, I should note that nearly all of our interactions have ultimately been cordial. That being said, I've definitely noticed the varied issues with their editing, and have even pointed on rare occasion that I thought their behaviour (especially on article talk pages) was problematic. Not just the bludgeoning, but also, without stating it directly, that they seem to be editing with a political agenda. I've always tried to AGF, and have rightfully said (when I 'pointed it out') that I didn't know if this was intentional, or just due to their personal POV. Frankly, I think some of their edits, consciously or unconsciously, amounted to white-washing certain article subjects, especially those related to organizations and figures associated with the far-right and occasionally, the alt-right. Given that their primary concern seemed to be whether this identification appears in the lead, I had somewhat started to suspect that this was because they didn't want this information (however overwhelmingly well-sourced) to appear in Google search results. I don't know this for sure, but it seems entirely plausible given their line of argumentation in the past. Again, this is just my informed opinion. This is also just one of several issues I've noted, in addition to other problematic behaviour I've seen, including the two primary issues raised here. While in the interest of giving everyone a "fair chance", I was initially just going to vote for the lesser sanctions proposed here, I've come to accept that they're essentially a net-negative to the project. The fact that they've made at least a few bad-faith accusations toward editors in this very section, including insinuating that one established editor is a sockpuppet of another (on a mere "hunch")... Doesn't instill me with confidence that most, if any, of these issues can be rectified in the near future. More than anything else, they waste a lot of editors' time--- whether by bludgeoning, or continually litigating a point/proposal that isn't really supportable by policy or consensus. Ultimately, the latter (including the issue that I raised) tend to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments after all the "Wiki-speak" invoking barely-applicable policy or guidelines is exhausted. Therefore, I'm voting for a community site-ban, as I think that their behaviour and civil POV pushing very much outweighs the positive contributions that they make (sorry, Bus Stop). Should this proposal fail, I am still in favour of the other two proposals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've literally never seen a productive contribution by Bus Stop, all I have ever seen their disruption. On an arbitration enforcement request against someone who was promoting voter fraud conspiracies Bus Stop wrote: I am especially horrified by the administrators here—Liz, Bishonen, Cullen328. Wikipedia is going to become a far-left screed. Nothing but polemic will populate our pages. Opposition should be welcomed. Instead you are silencing people. An article should reflect an adherence to reliable sources and consensus. When you ban people you reduce the likelihood of ever attaining the admittedly elusive WP:NPOV. Administrators should be rejecting this sort of witch-hunt which aims to silence opposing voices. Enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Doesn't feel right for BusStop to be permabanned with hardly anyone putting in a good word for them. They've contributed good constructive edits and they can be warm and collegial with other editors. It's a shame to lose an intelligent and mostly moderate conservative editor as we seem a little short on those. Unfortunately though, it can't be denied that their overly determined, one sided focus on sensitive topics has been problematic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, I think I did say something to that effect, though it essentially amounts to me saying that my interactions with them were quite civil. I said more positive things, and said that I could accept a reasonable explanation for some of their proposed edits (especially if they weren't familiar with the phenomenon of "Jew-tagging") under Proposal 2, which seem to have been lost in an edit conflict. However, I stand by my statement that their positive contributions were far outweighed by the other long-standing issues with their editing, per bringing "more heat than light". I also disagree that they were necessarily moderate beyond perhaps an occasional pretense to appear so, given the content of some of their comments, but that's ultimately a matter of perception. Obviously, they could be very "un-civil", as Hemiauchenia's quoting them shows; I think saying those three editors contribute to Wikipedia becoming a "far-left screed" says more about Bus Stop's political POV than it does theirs. I will agree that they seem intelligent. But that's obviously not at issue here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because I don't think this punishment fits the crime. I suspect Bus Stop is rather pissed off right now and handling this, in my view, poorly. However, I don't think this should rise to a site ban. Probably better to do something like a week in time out to cool down then reassess. If Bus Stop was saying really ugly things to individual editors (like accusing them of being Dutch[[128]]) I could understand. However, this seems to be a case of getting fed up (during a pandemic when many are short tempered) and acting in a way that isn't cool but is hardly site ban worthy. I just can't see this as a reasonable punishment for the crime in question. My comment only applies to the question of a site ban. Springee (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed site ban is nothing to do with punishment—it is to prevent further disruption and time wasting for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the miles of rope paid out over the years. Please do not close before the three days are out; currently, their indefinite block is only a common or garden one-admin block. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support Per proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. For the sake of my own sanity, I stay away from ARBAP-related topics whenever possible, but reading through the history of this case, it seems clear that Bus Stop's conduct isn't compatible with a welcoming or productive editorial environment – and hasn't been for a long time. Here is a thread from July 2007 (not even a year after they registered their account) where they engage in the exact same bludgeony conduct they've demonstrated here. Since this has been going on for over a decade, I don't think anything short of a siteban will be able to stop the disruption. Blablubbs|talk 11:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support because it's clear lesser sanctions will either be deliberately ignored or not comprehended. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. For me this is too much. I'd rather at least try options 1 & 2. And I say that fully astonished that BS continues to bludgeon the !vote and completely sympathetic to why the community is finally out of patience here. Bus stop, I hope someday you'll be able to contribute again. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Bus Stop and others. My experience is limited, but I can't think of another time when someone has made it so clear that they are intent on bucking community standards. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see any reason to think that this behaviour is going to change - I also agree with Grandpallama that lesser sanctions wouldn't work. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support To quote The Duke, reading this would give an aspirin a headache! Blimey. I've never heard of Bus Stop before this thread, and thought it was either an editor having a MAJOR meltdown, or someone had hacked their account. I can't see anything even close to say "go, on, give the rascal one last chance" As Charlie Chaplin said to Blackadder in a telegram: stop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Alas, for Bustop this must be "the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun." [129] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Now, if you play straight with me, you’ll find me a considerate Wikipedian, but cross me and you’ll find that under this playful boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless, sadistic, maniac. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wibble. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Come on, guys, there are better places to drop jokes than a person's site ban. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Bus Stop's editing behavior is clearly a serious issue worthy of serious sanctions. While I understand the community's frustration, I'm concerned that 'Support' votes are piling on due to a mob effect, springing from a proposal that was put on the table more or less just to 'see what happens', without, in my view, a reasoned argument for kicking a user entirely from the site. I don't expect BS to abide by BMK's proposals, but I feel that due process is not occurring here in a way that's equitable to all parties, and I find that troubling. RandomGnome (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Bus stop blacklisted from notifications

One of the bludgeoning tools used by Bus stop is the too-frequent pinging of opposition editors in active discussions. I propose that Bus stop be added to the notifications blacklist at MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the Romans stopped at three nails... Levivich ^harass/_hound 09:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Preservedmoose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HistoryofIran has a history of removing reliable sources. User could not provide rational for why sources were removed, despite repeated requests on Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orontid_dynasty#Uncertain_origins_of_Orontids_needs_to_be_addressed (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [130] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:

1. Removed seven WP:RS sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation.[131]
2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[132] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[133]

Looking at the evidence, it appears that user:Preservedmoose is persistently trying to "fix" what he doesn't like to see. Given that he tries to put news outlets and other non-WP:RS material[134][135] on par with academic scholars in order to push a pro-Armenian irredentist narrative, and even bluntly removes material written by academics specialized in the history of the region, I truly wonder if he's actually here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

4D4850, I've seen you 'disclose' that you're not an administrator a few times on this board. No worries; there's no need to do that. Everyone is invited to contribute, express their opinion, as well as propose (or oppose) what they think are appropriate actions to deal with problematic editing on this board. This is the "Administrators' Noticeboard", but it exists so that members of the community can get the attention of admins as well as the wider community, and seek administrator intervention on behalf of the project. With very few exceptions, at the end of the day, it's the community itself that decides what's appropriate and acceptable, including whether administrator actions are themselves appropriate. Yes, admins can [often] act unilaterally and impose sanctions using their best discretion, but they're ultimately just editors themselves, but who are also entrusted (by the community) with certain tools to protect the project, and help keep Wikipedia ticking. So like I said, you don't need to announce your non-admin status when posting a comment (everyone can see your user rights as well, if they wish; I don't think anyone will be confused as to whether you're an admin). Just letting you know. :) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal commentary and completely broken english

Cengizsogutlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Random personal attacks or commentary: From: Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2 and User talk:Cengizsogutlu

"If you're being harassed by words as manipulator or trolling for no goal, it's your problem."

"And why are you trying to cover up a terrorist execute?"

"What is written on your profile and thinking of some parts of my country in this way shows how sincere you are." (Thinks I'm a troll because I refer to Southern Turkey on my user page as "Northern Kurdistan.")

"We can complain about so called personal attacks, but if someone who has no knowledge of a topic they still don't say anything about it. Btw i wish the laws of physics would allow to destroy the mountain bunkers with a 5 kg drone bomb :D.."

"There was no personal attack claiming to blow up the entire cave with drone munitions is first class trolism"

"Des Valles if you gonna tell me they died by heart attack would be more convincing btw.. Someone is gibberish, another one is not open for to debate!"

"please stop manipulating articles you will be reported"

Incoherent Ramblings: From: Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2 and User talk:Cengizsogutlu

"Duduee this encyclopedia has become officially biased.. Now i see edits like DIED are you serious?I have never seen such a biased admin. Oops The admin, who is not open to criticism, will now ban me for a different reason."

"For ex put Nazi's claim victory in Normandy in info box etc cuz their propaganda radios tells lies ~to people in Berlin, while bombs were raining down on France. No one can admit defeat in an unfinished war, this is a golden rule."

"What i want to say even if you throw a nuclear bomb in an unfinished war, the sources of the other party will never accept defeat unless they surrender. But the truth is obvious. In this operation, the PKK lost its high level protected shelter and prison with dozens of hes mitilia The only thing they can claim as victory is their assassination of the hostages during the operation. For ex Its like isis claiming victory after losing one of the cities"

"This munition cannot blow up the bottom cave bunker structure. imp ossi ble in terms of engineering. Turkey has BLU-109 bomb If this had been used they wouldn't have been able to get bodies from that building"

"I'm not a no-brainer nationalist. Turkish soldier captured 2 militants, filled dead hostages into helicopter to deliver the bodies to their families. Finally, 4 militants who wanted to RUN off with a paramotor were nutralized."

"I really congratulate you btw cool way but again if you perceive those as insulting it will be your wrong view or different purpose to complain."

"What they want to do is showing their selfs as freedom fighters to world opinion but in fact they are a far right marxist communist terrorist. I'm sorry, but this is nothing but Asymmetric warfare strategies. Same as turkey is not accepting the Armenian genocide in order not to take responsibility for what happens in the next.Truths cannot be covered up with lies, and cant painted with their own fake sources" (I have no clue what this is about but I suspect it has to do with Turkish Armenian genocide denial, like most posts it's in broken English so I can't understand it)

He clearly doesn't have a basic understanding of English due the constant wording issues, spelling mistakes and broken grammar. Previously warned by Drimies here and by GirthSummit, so he decided to double down and state I am a vandal-troll and calling someone a troll and a vandal isn't a personal attack. Des Vallee (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

He clearly does have a good understanding of English. (You understand what he writes well enough to be offended by it.) Please stop exaggerating the rather minor aspect of problems in his English prose, and instead describe the other problem(s) dispassionately and concisely. Note that users are normally allowed to ramble incoherently (to a point) on their own user talk pages: if this user rambles incoherently, threateningly or otherwise unpleasantly in response to what you write on their user talk page, then stop writing there, and instead stick to the article talk page, where incoherent rambling (let alone obnoxious comments) can be stopped more quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I say block the reported user for repeated personal attacks. 4D4850 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021

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

The only disruptive user here is you, who vandalised a page for no reason, with a false edit object. I left a message on your talk too. My earlier accounts display an appropriate disclaimer, and they are listed on my userpage, so don't try changing the topic and let me assume good faith. About the name 'Agro nocerino-sarnese' I explained you twice already that this name is not in English, it's in Italian, hence it must follow Italian linguistic rules: adjectives in the names of Italian geographical regions are not capitalised, and there is always a dash between two of them (cf. Appennino tosco-romagnolo, Appennino tosco-emiliano). Don't pretend I didn't explain it three times already now. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That edit doesn't at all look like vandalism to me. — Czello 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: Have you compared the two versions of feast of Our Lady of the Hens? He deleted FOUR SECTIONS for no reason, including all the notes and references, with a false edit object. It does look like vandalism. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks far more like a content dispute issue to me than vandalism. Vandalism is deliberately attempting to harm Wikipedia for malicious reasons, which I don't think this edit is at all. — Czello 14:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not a content dispute. He talked about the name 'Agro nocerino-sarnese', but he didn't say a word about the rest of the page he wholly deleted. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The dispute over the proper capitalisation is a WP:Content dispute. I suggest you re-read the policy if you think it isn't. As for the other reversions, it's not clear to me the reason for them but it's clearly not vandalism. At most, it was carelessly reverting a bunch of edits when you only dispute one. By incorrectly calling it vandalism, you discredit any argument you may have in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

User:Justlettersandnumbers

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

Page moved back to consensus version (even if by virtue of WP:SILENCE alone). Move protected indefinitely. Est. 2021, please do not move war. If you do so again, you may be sanctioned. Please propose move requests for any and all moves that are likely to be contested. Thank you. El_C 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I'd say the same to you. Move warring is ill-advised, especially when the title change isn't of an especially urgent or drastic nature. El_C 15:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, El C – in an ideal world I would not have moved it a second time; in an ideal world I wouldn't have needed to – the user would either have listened to advice or started a discussion. I'm still waiting for someone other than me to revert the dozen or so instances where he's downcased the name of this place. But as you say, it's not particularly urgent or drastic. Thanks for at least partly resolving this ridiculous dispute. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Don't pretend being a victim, you made it ridiculous reverting tens of edits without a doubt, deleting multiple paragraphs from the article feast of Our Lady of the Hens for no reason and defaming me several times because of your illogical tantrum. Three explanations didn't suffice for you, so I followed El C's advice. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Personal Attacks and Disruptive Editing.

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

I believe this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thamesinfotech/Archive, and the AfD of an article the OP created (and which I edited), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeyan Shafiq. The accounts are not named here, but Hums4r you need to do so, provide evidence of disruption, and inform the users of this discussion. Note I have been mentoring Hums4r and did not advise coming here. Fences&Windows 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I did freak out momentarily at seeing someone named "Imtiyaaz" dragged to ANI. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol M Imtiaz bro; even I was accused of being a sockpuppet by these people but I didn't prefer raising this noneissue to ANI. Their comments are available on my talk page. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 06:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

the user who opened this thread has been globally blocked for abusing multiple accounts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, this situation calls for a mandatory meme. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Spamming Aberystwyth University template to alumni bios

Most of Sabikptah edits, more than 100 in the last hour, have been adding {{Aberystwyth University}} to pages of alumni and other loosely related subjects. I posted multiple times on their talk page to stop[136] but they keep doing it without replying to my posts. I think it's likely spamming, although I suppose it could be a well intentioned editor who simply hasn't got the hang of talk pages yet, but is there some way to stop them and get them to discuss? (t · c) buidhe 11:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's rather odd that the university never had its own nav box before though; Sabikptah had to create it. Definitely odd. ——Serial 11:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked them (12 hours) so as to get their attention to these outstanding matters. Note that they may not have been aware of these notices if they were using certain mobile devices. A perennial problem which, incidentally, I brought up on Jimbo's talk page just yesterday (diff). El_C 13:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Pnginitiator

Judging from their recent post on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, this editor appears to be running a business creating and editing articles on Papua New Guinea firms, but has never disclosed their status as a paid editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've left a template to explain the requirements. Though they've been an editor since 2018 they've only created one innocuous article, so in effect they've disclosed being paid before they did any harm. User:Pnginitiator/sandbox is clearly paid for. Fences&Windows 00:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Bender the Bot

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

---

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

Seems to be doing routine stuff, changing http to https. Anything specific that caught your eye? Fram (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It is doing what it is supposed to, I think it might be concerns with the rate? Changing *thousands* of http-https for whitehouse.gov may be hitting some people's watchlists heavily if they are interested in US politics (or in fact anything the US has opined on). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If the cluttering up of one's watchlist is an issue, one can filter out bot edits. Paul August ☎ 19:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be edits like this which replaced "|url=http..." with "|url https..." (i.e. omitting the "=", breaking the template - I think the bot has stopped doing this now.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem was caused by a coding error on my part. It affected about 150 pages, which I fixed manually. Thanks to Lotje and Bsherr for pointing this out, and for fixing some of the mistakes as well. --bender235 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

125.167.113.0/16

An user from Indonesia with the range 125.167.113.0/16 (talk · contribs) has been disrupting lately with stub templates and hatnotes in unrelated articles (example of the most disruptive constant edit) other less-subtle examples include [137][138][139]. This started around January. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/125.167.113.19 and Special:Contributions/125.167.112.156 for a month each. Let me know if any other IPs seem to be exhibiting the stub problem. Trying to block a /16 range would be too large, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Genre-warring blocked(?) IP

IP user 2600:1003:B02B:B502:0:56:970B:E001 is aggressively changing genres to unsourced values, in particualr at Bon Jovi articles (see Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B02B:B502:0:56:970B:E001 for the current list. As I've reverted their edits, I've noticed that User:Binksternet has previously reverted similar/identical changes to the same articles, with an edit summary like Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1003:B0AA:4459:0:1D:378B:2901 (talk): Rv... Genre warring, block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B003:822D:0:14:6A0A:501. or Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1003:B003:822D:0:14:6A0A:501 (talk): Block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B0A0:0:0:0:0:0/44.. I don't understand/see the full block info, but the pattern is unmistakeable. Can somebody please shut this user down for a while? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And while I was fashioning this report, I received this NPA violation on my Talk.

But then, nevermind; user has now been blocked. Thanks — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

A user with the range 2800:810:486:9A0B:C5EC:544F:B817:A84/48 (talk · contribs) has a really long history (2 years) of disruptive edits that has intensified lately. The uses "fixes typos" but it is actually removing credits and personnel from pages,[140][141][142][143] removing sourced content,[144][145][146] or directly violating the BLP policy.[147][148][149] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism across various articles

See also: Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Common vandalism: Among us??

1. Valentinian I: [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157],
2. Theodosius I: [158], [159], [160],
3. Valentinian III: [161],
4. the mess that is Valentinian II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some pages have been protected and some accounts blocked but this continues over I don't know how many pages. Valentinian III is unprotected. These emperors are on my watchlist but there may be (many) others. GPinkerton (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the Sususs Amongus meme, isn’t it. Perhaps an edit filter might help here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the Sususs Amongus meme, isn’t it - Malcolmxl5, no doubt it is, whatever that means! GPinkerton (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Something to do with the Among Us game, GPinkerton. It has, I think, flowed out of that as has the Sus Imposter meme, which has been hitting articles with the word "Sus" in the title. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, here we are[162]. A gamers' meme that’s gone viral and some gamers evidently think it’s fun to despoil Wikipedia articles featuring Emperor Valentinian. As there are only four articles involved, a coordinated strategy of protection for one month ought hold the gamers back until they move on to the next thing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Among Us meme? See the history of Sus, Iran for another one and the corresponding talk page for explanation. Pahunkat (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, several 'Sus' articles have been hit, including the SUS dab page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Now [163] List of Roman emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) GPinkerton (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the picture on Valentinian II (much better with the whole sculpture). Maybe that will dampen it? GPinkerton (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fingers crossed! Now Loyola Catholic Secondary School[164][165]. This will be school kids stuff. I’ve put pending changes protection on this one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Impostor syndrome being hit by the Sus Imposter meme and protected for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin

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

---

• The Lincoln Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WGFinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muboshgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WGFinley has unprotected The Lincoln Project against the wishes of the protecting administrator, cherrypicking his comments and ignoring where Muboshgu wrote "I am strongly against unprotecting that page" (see User talk:Muboshgu#The Lincoln Project Semi-Protection) This is in violation of the protection policy which specifies that Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should, in the first instance, ask the administrator who applied the protection unless the administrator is inactive or no longer an administrator; thereafter, requests may be made at Requests for unprotection. He has declined to reinstate the protection so it can be properly discussed. His reason for unprotecting apparently was the news coverage of the protection in Fox News, which seems to me to be a terrible reason to unprotect a page, particularly given the news coverage doesn't actually say anything about the protection being inappropriate (it wasn't). He also wrote that "I took a look at its history and it appears there was only one vandalism edit between its last protection and when you protected it." This is not true; a skim of the page history plainly shows multiple vandalism edits ([166], [167], [168], [169], [170]) between the previous protection expiring at 14:15, 9 January 2021 and the new protection being applied at 19:16, 10 January 2021‎.

He also has said that "I'm not seeing a level of activity that merits protection", which is absurd given the page has been protected. Prior to the protection, there was vandalism almost immediately after protection expired, warranting the action.

He has also inaccurately described Muboshgu as WP:INVOLVED, which he is not: Muboshgu's prior actions on the page were to revert obvious vandalism ([171], [172]), and his engagement on the talk page postdates his protection. WGFinley also seems to have thought I was involved as well despite the fact that I have taken no admin action on the page (though he has since said he was just warning me against doing so, for some reason).

Please see the discussions at Talk:The Lincoln Project#Page Protection, Talk:The Lincoln Project#Current tag, and User talk:Muboshgu#The Lincoln Project Semi-Protection for background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see suboptimal actions by all 3 admins here, but it's all really, really low grade stuff, with the worst registering a 3.6/100 on my Crisis Meter. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, I'll amend that slightly: WGF's baseless accusation that M and GW are violating WP:INVOLVED here registers higher; it's actually a 13.5/100 on the Crisis Meter, and a 38.5/100 on the Wrongheaded Aggression Meter. But still, don't sweat the small stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Suboptimal behaviors:

  • WGF: Do not baselessly throw around accusations of "INVOLVED", it's a serious accusation. M protected the page to prevent vandalism, anyone can do that, whether or not they are a contributor. And GW didn't do anything admin-wise, it's rude to presume to "warn" her because she might. This is the most serious thing here. In a more perfect world, M and GW would have just laughed at you and ignored that, but I can see how it would stick in their craw.
  • WGF: Don't use {{current}} here, it doesn't apply. You don't add things, re-add them when reverted, insisting on a talk page discussion in order to remove them.
  • WGF: Please be more careful about edit conflicts.
  • M: If you tell someone they can unprotect a page even though you don't agree, you can't very well strike out your grudging acceptance after they do it, when you've had a chance to think about it more.
  • G: Please don't bring minor issues to ANI, which blows everything out of proportion all the time. Including me blowing edit conflict handling out of proportion, earlier. Or people mentioning WP:WHEEL, which does not apply here. My careless comments are an inadvertent but perfect example of what goes on here all the time, and why we should avoid ANI where possible.
  • M&G: this experiment in unprotection is easily undone if vandalism returns. M's protection was perfectly reasonable, and I would have likely done the same, but unprotection is worth a shot.

  Reminding all 3 admins of these things is really all I think needs to be done here. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I think you're referring to Muboshgu's striking of the comment on their talk page, but just in case it's not also clear, Muboshgu's comment that he was strongly against unprotection occurred prior to WGF choosing to unprotect anyway. I don't think it's improper for me to bring this to ANI when WGF unprotected without clear agreement from the protecting admin, and declined to reinstate the protection for discussion. Where else would I take it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: I guess my opinion, which no one else seems to be agreeing with so I suppose can be ignored, is to not take it anywhere. Just let it go, perhaps be momentarily annoyed with WGF being slightly rude (like 1,000 other editors today have probably momentarily annoyed other people), and just re-protect if vandalism resumes. Someone was rude to me today; I left them a brief note on their talk page and went on with my life. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: It is not the rudeness that bothers me; if they'd only accused me of being involved I'd have replied as I did on the talk page and left it at that, not brought it here. I am more than acquainted with people being rude to me on this project, and if I came to ANI each time, this board would be a lot busier than it is. It is the unprotection against policy that I am unhappy with and think needs review here. But, points taken. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I could have been clearer, I agree that I am not entirely without fault. But. my first response with the since struck portion and the second response where I took that back and said I explicitly opposed unprotection both came before WGF's first reply to me, and a few exchanges before it was unprotected. I wish I had struck it at the time, before they had the chance to reply. I am glad there hasn't been any edits of vandalism since unprotection, as of this timestamp, and I hope that holds. To me the issue isn't rudeness, it's the cherrypicking of comments, misconstrual of facts, and unprotection despite two admins arguing against it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, completely accept your summary here with a few caveats. I think I did follow process by bringing the issue to M's talk page. I'm pretty sure I was miffed after M reverted my tag without at least discussing it with me. M clearly said there wasn't agreement but it was up to me to unprotect, and I did. I accept I may be thinking of a long-ago template we would use to tag articles that had a lot of volatility due to news coverage, a better way to handle the wrong tag would be to at least discuss it. I accept I didn't check the dates on the edit history were after the protection occurred and while M may not have been involved at the time it was protected, and while there may be disagreement as to whether protection is merited, M was clearly involved at the time I initiated the discussion to remove the protection. That was my impetus for making the change, that and the simple fact that if I'm wrong and the article becomes subject to a lot of vandalism, I would be the first one to say it should, indeed, be protected. All of that said, the rapid escalation of this and disagreement over something that's a pretty simple difference of opinion and instant analysis of my edit history may be the reason many contributors decide to reduce their participation. --WGFinley (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Differences of opinion are fine, however this "difference of opinion" involved you reversing another admin's action against their wishes. You said I'd like to remove the protection and monitor and I think you should let other admins who are not involved in the editing of it to make a decision on if it needs protection again. Regardless of the "involvement" issue, what you should have done, of course, is brought the issue to WP:AN without undoing it to see if there was a consensus for doing so. Analysis of your edit history is appropriate in this case, as it reveals that you only have 19 logged admin actions in the last eight years which possibly explains why you are unclear about what you actually should have done. However, in the end, there is no great harm done here - but I suggest you should consider gaining consensus before performing what could be a contentious action in the future. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm disappointed in this response. If anything, it makes me think your unprotection was "involved", since it happened after you got annoyed that your tag was reverted. It's tone deaf to say you completely accept my view and then say you were right and they were wrong. You were, IMHO, much more in the wrong than they were. Which, in the grad scheme of things, wouldn't matter on an issue this small, except you keep saying Muboshgu did something wrong. You might notice that nobody commenting here thought that there was anything wrong with Mubushgu's protection. You might notice that nobody thinks they were INVOLVED. You might notice that, independent of how active you are right now, cumulatively Muboshgu has roughly 40 times the experience you do, and they might, just might, have a better grasp on current policy than you do. Don't play the "this is why no one wants to contribute anymore" card. Your - understandable and completely acceptable - level of activity does not make you immune to criticism when you do a crappy thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Remark: WGFinley's last edit before today was in December; their last 50 edits go back to April; their last 100 go back to 2018; their last 250 go back to 2012 (!). --JBL (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see how that matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I take that back; If WGF thinks it's OK to change someone else's comments, then perhaps they lack the experience to be an admin here. What the actual fuck was this? Starting to think that bringing this to ANI wasn't a mistake after all; was this a momentary lack of competence, or evidence of a deeper problem? WGF, can you reassure me that editing GW's comments was a one-off mistake? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I think it was a mistake, though it is a three-off mistake and not a one-off. See my comment below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Yes, likely misunderstanding how to handle edit conflicts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue it's relevant to show that often what I call "woodwork" admins lack the understanding and knowledge of current policy and norms and thus make big boo-boos, such as this. But I won't get into my feelings on all of that here. CUPIDICAE💕 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• If nothing else, it drives home the fact that they saw the protection on Fox and came here to lift it as a result. That's not inherently wrong but I'd be concerned that coverage from those sorts of sources is often hyperbolic and exaggerated - admins shouldn't be making decisions based on that. Even if they take the time to try and research it, it's hard to avoid the initial framing or the basic implication of "admin sees something that seems outrageous on the news, logs on to Wikipedia and immediately uses their tools to fix it" - it's not great to have an admin who has barely edited coming back based on something they saw in an axe-grindy culture-war piece in the media to immediately use their tools. While WGFinley cites WP:INVOLVED, the principle behind that policy is that This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings; coming to an article in reaction to a patiently axe-grindy piece like this, immediately accusing another administrator of being involved, and offering themselves as an uninvolved administrator to watch over the page seems a bit eyebrow-raising if nothing else. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yikes. WP:WHEELWAR was a thing when WGF became an admin and still is now. Perhaps they should refamiliarize themselves with Wikipedia's current policies and norms before diving headfirst into controversial areas and violating policy. CUPIDICAE💕 19:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am the fourth admin to protect this page from vandalism / disruptive editing for any length of time. The first protection was for three days in May 2020. The second was for a month in October, overlapping with the 2020 election. About ten days after unprotection, it was protected again for another month. The third protection could have (and should have) been longer, as within a day of its unprotection, vandalism resumed, and so I protected it for three months. This was on January 10, four days after the insurrection at the US Capitol, and the edits requiring my to reprotect the page were primarily Stop the Steal-related vandalism. Given that people had just died for that lie four days prior, and we had an inauguration under threat of worse disruption ten days later, semiprotection was indeed necessary. The edits that led me to reprotect the page had nothing to do with John Weaver and that situation, in spite of the narrative that Fox News chose to invent in their article. WGFinley did indeed cherrypick from my comments. I was much more amenable to another admin unprotecting the page when they started the thread on my talk page saying that I protected the page after one edit of vandalism, but that didn't sound like what I would do, and indeed there were four edits of vandalism in quick succession within a day of automatic unprotection, which led me to reprotect the page. WGFinley also doesn't seem to understand that the {{current}} template has nothing to do with if a subject is in the news, but if the article is being heavily edited. And, their insistence on putting the template back on in spite of what GW and I said and not going to RFPP, as protection policy says, is inappropriate as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Response

While I came to this article while reading articles on this topic and having the Fox News article come up in my search, it has nothing to do with my reasons for unprotecting the article. When I saw the article my thought was "wow, there must be a big vandalism issue on that page!" My review found, there really hasn't been a great deal of vandalism on this page. I then took a look at the protection log and the admin's reasoning, I thought the three months that was opted, along with prior protection of the page, to be a bit long.

The final factor in my reasoning for unprotecting was the protecting admin's heavy activity in editing the article. In particular the pretty snarky comment on this removal[173] along with this comment on the article's talk page[174] led me to believe the protecting admin was clearly involved in the editing of this article and the disputes surrounding it and shouldn't be taking administrative actions on it.

Nonetheless, I posted to the protecting admin's talk page to discuss it further[175] and added the CURRENT tag to the article with the intent of unprotecting the article shortly. My tag was reverted and we had some discussion of the talk page ensued. I made it pretty clear I would not be opposed to adding it back if the activity merited it and that I, as an uninvolved admin, would be happy to monitor it and elected to unprotect the article despite the disagreement the protecting admin acknowledged.[176] --WGFinley (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen the argument that WP:INVOLVED retroactively applies. The talk page comment you link is from more than a month after the protection was applied.

You are again cherrypicking Muboshgu's comments, and not quoting where he said "I am strongly against unprotecting this page". It was clear more discussion was needed.

As an aside, you have now three times undone other users' edits when leaving a comment: [177], [178], [179]. Please try to be a bit more careful when saving your changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: He didn't just accidentally delete the other comments, he also deliberately edited your original comment, removing references to cherrypicking for instance. That, I think is unacceptable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Hemiauchenia. I don't know if this was maliciously done or out of sheer incompetence but it certainly looks like WGF's current tool use is a disaster in the making. CUPIDICAE💕 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be something off with the board today - there seems to be a lot of edit conflicts (2 x with this comment).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I don't actually think he did, it looks like it was this edit of mine, where I added the cherrypicking info, that was accidentally undone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I realised this going through the diffs afterwards. My apologies. The fact that he has no idea how to resolve edit conflicts properly though is concerning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I resolve edit conflicts as I always have, copy what I wanted to add, abandon the edit, refresh the page, and try again. I didn't intentionally try to remove anything and it now seems there's some admission that I didn't. --WGFinley (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make any intentional attempt to remove anyone's comments. --WGFinley (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My review found, there really hasn't been a great deal of vandalism on this page. The article was semi-protected for a month on December 9 due to a spate of vandalism. So, obviously there wasn't much vandalism in that month because it was semi-protected. After the semi-protection expired late on January 9, it was vandalised six times in one day before Muboshgu restored it. And there hasn't been any vandalism since, because it's been semi-protected. I would have done exactly the same (a spate of vandalism immediately when an article comes off a long protection is a big red flag that it should be restored) and I'm sure a lot of other admins would too. This seems like a very sub-optimal chain of events, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection restored

WGFinley, this key WP:AP2 page has seen continuous disruption, including recent revisions that had to be deleted. It is a prime candidate for an indef AE protection (which is par for the course for me). Not intending to WHEELWAR: please feel free to re-lift the protection again without incident (from me), but I ask that you do take what I said into account. Also, note that I will be registering this protection in the log, regardless, but will update as needed. Hope everything else gets otherwise resolved amicably. Thank you. El_C 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to Close

It appears pretty clearly that I have lost touch with the current norms within the community and I was too hasty in my actions here. I would request for this incident to be closed, I intend to take no further action in it. Since I've lost touch, I have voluntarily requested removal of my access to admin tools. --WGFinley (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Yuta Watanabe

WP:BLP. Needs protection ASAP. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mz7. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent promotional editing at Hobby School

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

---

Persistent addition of unsourced, promotional and copyright violation content. I've requested a user block of the original account at AIV; since then, other accounts have gotten involved. More eyes, please. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of accounts involved with this page, Air Force 129 was confirmed to be a sock of a long-term sockpuppeteer last week (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Maglasang) but hasn't been blocked yet, and has been accumulating copyvio warnings and other disruptive behavior since then. Help from an admin would be appreciated here, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Air Force 129 blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Undisclosed paid editors

Hello. I am a WP-fr user. Please note that we strongly believe that Tagcivil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an undisclosed paid editor, following Karl ant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cédal Nadric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I detailed it in Talk:Civil registration and vital statistics (may be not the good procedure). The main object of their contributions is to promote a bubble tag powered by a french company, Prooftag. Tagcivil is blocked on WP-fr until disclosure. Cheers. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:AntonBoyad

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

---

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

1. Removed sourced content from the Armenian Apostolic Church article that showed Iranian links.[180]
2. Removed sourced content from the Kurdish Christians article that showed Kurdish roots of an Armenian dynasty.[181]
3. Removed sourced content from the Aramazd article that showed Iranian links.[182]
4. Added "Armenian" to the Parthian Empire link, even though the Parthians were of Iranian origins. No edit summary/explanation.[183]
5. Added "Armenian architecture" to the Palatine Chapel, Aachen article. No edit summary/explanation.[184]
6. Changed "Oriental" into "Armenian" on Erato of Armenia. No edit summary/explanation.[185]
7. Added "Armenians" to the Circassians in Iran article. No edit summary/explanation.[186]
8. Added "Armenians" to the Mazandaran Province article. No edit summary/explanation.[187]
9. Removed "Kurds and Qajar Turks" from the Mazandaran Province article. No edit summary/explanation.[188]
10. Added unsourced content ("Kurds originate around northern and southern Iran and arrived in Anatolia as nomads.") to existing sourced content on the Zazas article. No edit summary/explanation.[189]
11. Ignores warnings on his talk page.[190]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that "user:AntonBoyad" is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They are deleting referenced material, and inserting their own unreferenced material, in topics related to Armenia. Borderline WP:AIV case. Britishfinance (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Multiple IPs adding porn or offensive image in supposedly TFA article

• Evelyn Mase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please give attention to this article, because today it has posted as TFA. But unfournately, as time progressed, instead the purpose of TFA are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, many vandals take advantage it to vandalize the article with adding an offensive thing. Today, multiple IPs like 37.40.110.129, 5.21.242.196, and endless other IPs adding offensive or porn images to this article, even many IPs replace to people's article with pennis article, which should be deleted. It is clear violation of Biographics of living person policy. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:GuyFawkes289: sockpuppet

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

---

this user is a sockpuppet of recently indeffed User:Tarik289, both users have similar editing styles on the same articles. And after checking his global account information Guyfawkes289 has been identified and blocked as a puppet of Tarik289 on tr.wiki. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Baffling and likely NOTHERE edits by Text mdnp

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

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

Background: This user first came to my attention for their edits on Talk:Alex Jones in which they suggested that the language used in the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia ([191]). Their use of 5-dollar wordsalads makes it especially hard to parse and take seriously. E.g.:

1. Proposing we replace text in Alex Jones with ""Infowars postulates dialectical discourse on news events (based on historical insights to treason/lies/veils) - to widen scope of media coverage, outside of embedded media ("propaganda"), greater good statist military industrial complex mass media bottlenecks"" ([192])
2. "... deserve better than short sighted zeitgeist agenda-lexicons" ([193])
3. "Terms like "conspiracy theories"/"fake news" to wholly describe Infowars/Jones in the intro section - do Wikipedia & Jones a disservice. We need to put words like "postulated media/culture dialectical values/studies" &c. ([194])

Unusual behavior: Reviewing this user's recent edits, the above pattern persists. I found few edits I would consider constructive (e.g. [195]). Some of the more unusual edits included:

1. "Santa Claus as the acceptable bogeyman (swartz piet) "murder in the quantum ghost house"" ([196])
2. "Sub-tabloid type websites as sources for main text is what negated my interest in Wikipedia as anything other than a really good search engine type hyper-concordance &c." ([197])
3. "I did feel I was only changing a para-semantical psi fold issue, ergo a "minor edit"" ([198])
4. "Any sources for ethnicity used as a boogeyman to enforce deals? There is a rarely discussed concept in society, where fear of the "other" (african/asian/mongol), is used as an impetus chaser/driver to strangely deform/enforce deals via "off the books", implied, & "word of mouth" adjuncts to that deal. Does anyone have some sources about this to add to any relevant section of the article? See Taboo; unspoken rule; Zwarte Piet; "Deal with the Devil"; "Blood oath"; Deadline; Penalty (Mormonism)." ([199])
5. ""Jew" is a zeitgeist slang term that must be reframed. There have been many attempts to delegate "Jew"/"Jewish" to a non official name which describes better Levantine/Silkroad migration & politics. This talk archive must have a set of these attempts, so we can collate right sources into a final argument so Wikipedia can use proper nouns rather than contentious colloquial slang as an actual article title. "Yhudeen" type words would be the psi clean ideal? "Jew (word)" &c would remain of course. I am non trying to be controversial or a para-forum weirdo." ([200])
6. "...how the word "Jew" is a oddly ironic anti-Semitic slang term & should be delegated to a section of "Yudheen" type articles/word. The always superstitious cone fade of language over history, delegated the J & Jdr & Dji sound into a esoteric priestly tongue (gate keeper lexicon/jargon). Source in your local frames the words/sounds "Djra Rua" compared to "Ya/Yu" words as what people are always morphing "wind worship" spooky long-psi taurus-field concepts ideas into." ([201])
7. "Using a dialectical lens to explore zeitgeist taboos, ..." ([202])
8. "I appreciate your editing prowess anyway without you resorting to any critique via pazuzu slander politics?" ([203])
9. ""Seiðr" as the ancient learning of sly seething to seek & sort & sleuth. This is a taboo word behind civilisation (seth/semitic/"scyth"/"cyber"/"sino") ... that this word is non in the articles etymology - even as a possibility - is proof at the psi wraparound sets of the very subject that Lucas was exploring with "Sith" in Palpatine-Vader-Skywalker story-arc." ([204])
10. "UNESCO "Intangible heritage rights" to cannibalism, pederasty, kinder-eros, blood oaths/initiation, mystery cults/schools, human sacrifice, torture, inquisitional dialectical training (Satanic ritual abuse)" ([205])

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

Their user page ([206]) contained nearly incomprehensible content about "Goo" and magic and

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

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

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

EvergreenFir, I mean, while I suppose it can be somewhat entertaining trying to find whatever the logical thread is behind any of that esoteric stream of consciousness, I think, ultimately, that sidesteps from the heart of the matter. Which is that Text mdnp seems singularly determined to push WP:FRINGE views, doing so by advancing conspiracy theories as well as trying to soften the mainstream definitions of known conspiracists as conspiracists. That, in my view, fails to meet minimal standards for retaining editing privileges. El_C 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• In looking for this editor's contributions to articles in order to judge their quality, I came across this one frpom 2014, in which they admit to having a previous editing identity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:MPN 1994 and unsourced stadium claims

• MPN 1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group H (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think this user understands the importance of discussion, and instead insists on reverting to their preferred version of this article, which contains WP:TOOSOON unsourced claims of future matches held at certain stadiums, specifically Malta home games. I've already notified the user of the ongoing discussion about this issue at WT:FOOTY#Source for stadiums?, but I already know that the user is going to revert again ignoring the discussion. It's obvious from their edit history that they have never used a Talk page before (apart from a single User talk page post in 2013 which has since been archived). At this point, I have a feeling WP:CIR applies here. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit war their preferred version after being formally informed of this and the ongoing discussion, which gives the impression of a refusal to discuss. WP:COMMUNICATE applies as well. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Things I notice about MPN 1994 - no edit summaries, no talk page posts, lots of addition of unsourced content, lots of OWNership vibes. GiantSnowman 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Tisquesusa

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

---

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

Those 8 edit summaries from today are extremely offensive. That is unquestionably unacceptable behavior that should not need to be pointed out and discussed with the editor. Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) and ASK ME FIRST. Instead of destroying my hard work. GTFO}} Tisquesusa (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You might want to strike out those personal attacks, Tisquesusa. It's not going to reflect well on you. Oh, it seems that they've already been indefinitely blocked for that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They've already been blocked, so I've taken the liberty of redacting it myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• Previous ANI threads relating to Tisquesusa's personal attacks: October 2019, November 2019, October 2020. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is this user advertising commercial Más Muisca trips on their User page? Maybe I am getting this wrong? Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. The page User:Tisquesusa/Más Muisca looks like straightforward G11/U5 stuff to me. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• This seems to be a long time very productive editor, who may have simply have blown a gasket. Can we not try somehow to rescue them? Paul August ☎ 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tisquesusa was for the most part a productive editor, but they have a consistent penchant for engaging in henious personal attacks when angered, which has happened on several occasions, separated by months of editing without incident. An indef block was inevitable, in retrospect. Take this from the editor who probably has the most charitable opinion of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for looking into this, although it's sad that an indef block was the conclusion, their productive edits looked good but I didn't realise it was a repeating issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But that this may well have been a "repeating issue", that doesn't mean that their indefinite block is not a net negative for the project. Paul August ☎ 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has far too high a tolerance for personal attacks as is. It is weird though that a long term editor with over 38,000 edits gets indeffed blocked with about as much fanfare as a newly registered vandal, so I may as well give a bit of an euology. Tisquesusa for the most part got quietly on with his work and did not interact with the wider community, which may explain the lack of defenders. His work expanding Muisca and geology related topics is considerable and cannot be ignored, though I won't exactly miss his unique citation style. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I hear the more I think we should reconsider the indefinite block. A net positive is a still a positive. @El C: ? Paul August ☎ 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The contents of the previous personal attacks were just as bad, but because they get have gotten revdel'd you can't dig them up for comparison. For instance, in one previous attack which got him a one month block [[207]], Tisquesusa referred to BHG as a "creature" and a "freak" and suggested that they might be a man. They also referred to the deletion of portals as the "shoah", a frankly idiotic and horrific comparison. Tisquesusa is a productive editor, but he is also neurotic and cannot be expected to reasonably respond to disagreement. In order for Tisquesusa to be unblocked, he must acknowedge that he cannot make henious personal attacks against other editors he disagrees with, he must not add categories that do not exist to articles, and that he understands that if he makes henious personal attacks again he will be indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

[208] relevant page for admins to see redacted personal attacks by Tisquesusa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to see Tisquesusa's contributions to the encyclopedia, I think User:Tisquesusa/Proud pieces and User:Tisquesusa/New articles speak for themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Hemiauchenia. Yes, I already got the sense that they are quite accomplished. But, as for their conduct otherwise, I think I've seen enough — which is to say, having viewed the first diff in these Nov 2019 revdeleted series only (revdel diff). Questioning BrownHairedGirl's (ping) sexual identity, and stating about her that: This creature has a mental issue, and so on. That's too much for me. I don't care that it happened two years ago. For it to happen even just a second time is too beyond the pale for me. So, put me firmly on the record as opposing any unblocking for the foreseeable future (if ever). We should not tolerate egregious misconduct of that nature in the form of a 3rd (?) chance. El_C 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, even as the editor who has had the most positive interactions with Tisquesusa and collaborated with them on several occasions, the fact that he has after repeated personal attacks, never apologised or acknowledged that they are wrong means that an indefinite block is the only realistic option, which is sad, but entirely due to Tisquesusa's own conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, just noticed this. Calling portal deletion Shoah! I have no words — or rather, the words I have are not fit to publish. El_C 18:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On an emotional level, I'm all for getting rid of this $%@##*$. But ... on a more pragmatic what-will-make-our-encyclopedic-content-better level, he seems to be a NET POSITIVE. Look, many of our most productive editors are ... how shall I put this ... prickly assholes. If I recall correctly the greatest volunteer contributer—by far—to the OED was a complete asocial nut case. We need to do everything we can to keep such hyper-productive editors. If that entails a more nuanced approach, so be it. Paul August ☎ 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul August, indef just means he needs to acknowledge what he did wrong and commit to not doing it again in the future. There should be no consideration of reducing or removing the block without that assurance. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So we won't let them go on making massive contributions to our encyclopedia, unless they publicly admit that they've been an asshole. Well yes that is what a mature adult would do, a good person who cares about other people's feelings. But that may not be who we are dealing with here. If we only allowed mature adults and good people to edit well ... who among us would be left? Paul August ☎ 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You, for one, Paul! El_C 17:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Well, that's kind of you to say so. But, given this mother f'ing virus trying to kill us all, I'm just about to blow a few gaskets myself. Also recently I've been working more on a long time aspirational goal of mine to become more of a curmudgeon, so watch the fuck out! Paul August ☎ 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a mighty fine lawn you have there, Paul. Mind if I, erm, get on it? El_C 18:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul, this isn't about the occasional "go fuck yourself" outbursts and variations therein — I have a fairly high tolerance for that, among admins, I think. This is on a whole other galaxy. El_C 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I get that ... Nevertheless ... Paul August ☎ 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a pity given the contributions, but there are some heavy behavioral issues there. Pity we didn't have a bot that just scanned every published edit (and edit summary) for profanities, and prevented an edit being published that contained them. Won't solve it all, but would solve a lot, and underline this is not acceptable? Worst case scenario, it would increase the thought and art-form behind finding new profanities that would get around the bot ... so at least there would be entertainment. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Range block

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

Will block /24 range. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: now back at 107.77.223.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)... GiantSnowman 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard and Scott Siskind

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

I urge all to read the linked discussion, and the following section.

A group of editors, including Mo Billings, who appear to be fans of the subject, are claiming a COI that doesn't fit any requirement of WP:COI, and keep not putting together any complaint in a proper form, preferring to cast aspersions.

One has raised an off-wiki tweet. In the course of the existing discussion, I have linked an email from 2014 from the author of the blog, in which he literally says he is an advocate of "human biodiversity" and wishes to use the blog to propagate this going forward - not yet in an RS so not usable on the article, but arguably supporting my off-wiki tweeted summary of the author's views with the author's own words.

Not that an off-wiki tweet is a WP:COI at Wikipedia, and Mo Billings should understand this. We have a group of Slate Star Codex fans who seem to think not being a fan constitutes a COI, and editors of opposing views should be voted off the article.

There is also an effort to get non-RSes into the article.

Various editors casting aspersions, including Mo Billings, have been asked to properly substantiate their claims of COI in the accepted manner, or stop casting aspersions. Instead, they have continued casting aspersions - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a fan of Slate Star Codex. I have no particular interest in it. I am not a contributor there. I am not even a reader of the blog (although I did read some pieces of Siskind's earlier work because of a dispute about including his name in the article here). My two edits to the COI discussion are this and this. I have already stated that David Gerard's involvement did not constitute a COI based on our guidelines. This ANI discussion is about his specific comments about Scott Siskind in that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You're claiming a COI, but not a COI per policy? That is literally WP:ASPERSIONS, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I am reporting that you called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue. Mo Billings (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It turns out I'm allowed to have off-wiki opinions about article subjects, including that the scientific racism advocate who sought out scientific racists for his blog and was famous for his prolixity could be summarised as "why say in a million words what you can say in 14" - and that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and does not constitute any sort of COI, either in Wikipedia terms or in colloquial terms, and that you're making a bizarre claim saying it does - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The allegation by Mo Billings notes that you have defended these allegations on Wikipedia, so this is not about your off-wiki behavior Aapjes (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a significant controversy or dispute in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to note here, I'm the editor who most recently brought up an apparent COI on the article talk page, and I realized now that I handled it incorrectly and acted in a way more like casting aspersion than I intended (I thought I was handling it correctly but realize now that I misread the guidelines on handling COIs). Gbear605 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is now one of those discussions that are going across the wiki. Here's the RSN section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_and_WaPo_on_NYT_on_Slate_Star_Codex - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

NYT is rated Generally Reliable at WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to the diffs - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Per your wider online activities. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Do you have diffs from Wikipedia? If you don't have those, then your findings are unlikely to be, for example, WP:COIN material. Being a critic of an article subject is not a COI - David Gerard (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

        You regularly make your personal dislike of Scott Siskind known throughout the internet. This is beyond having a run-of-the-mill personal opinion -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The NYT article is, of course, support for this claim, as I noted on the talk page at length, also citing the SSC article the NYT linked as their evidence for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article doesn't claim that Siskind is a Neo-Nazi or a supporter of "scientific racism" (which is not the same thing, anyway). You argued that the part on Murray proves this, but the NYT article only makes the vague assertion that Siskind aligned himself with Charles Murray, but doesn't say how. Surely this cannot be interpreted as a claim that Murray and Siskind have identical beliefs on all topics, which would be an absurd claim to make about two different people. If you follow the link they provide, he only did so on class differences, not racial differences. The page on Murray also merely claims that one of his works, The Bell Curve, has been accused of supporting "scientific racism", not that it is an established fact, or that any of his many other publications have been accused of such. The blog post by Siskind that the NYT article uses as evidence also makes no mention of The Bell Curve.

On the topic of Siskind, you seem to believe that we should treat highly contentious claims as fact, without any need for proper WP:RS to support those claims. In general, you seem to have far, far lower standards of proof for allegations against Siskind than for other claims. Aapjes (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The talk page section linked at the top of this section has me and Grayfell asking for proper cites for these claims of COI, including me asking one claimant directly for diffs. They reply that they don't like noticeboards, but they saw the edits going past. I suggest that this would not pass muster at WP:COIN.

This is an effort by fans of the article subject to vote non-fans off the article - David Gerard (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I started this discussion and I started it for one reason alone - your "14 words" comments. You can try to to frame this as something else if you like, but I have no particular interest in that blog, its supporters, or its enemies. This is about your actions. Mo Billings (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valeince: I linked it above, but I will quote here: Siskind has literally admitted 14 words in one million was his strategy for SSC. David Gerard called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi, here, on Wikipedia. How is that not sanctionable? Mo Billings (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings:The phrase “Neo-Nazi” does not appear in that diff so I think you need to retract that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I believe uninvolved editors will have no difficulty understanding what David Gerard was saying with his "14 words" reference. He was calling Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Feel free to ask David Gerard what he meant if you have trouble seeing that. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, I had no edits anywhere related to this subject before stumbling across this discussion. He may certainly have been implying that but he does not actually appear to have said the exact words you said he said... Implying may still be an issue, but you not sticking to reality when describing the actions of another editor is also an issue. Again I suggest you re-write the claims you’re making to more accuracy reflect reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You should also note that I agree on your larger point, it might swim in a pond, have feathers, quack like a duck look like a duck smell like a duck have 100% duck DNA, shit duck shit, lay duck eggs, but unless multiple WP:RS call it a duck we need to avoid doing so in any wikispace (all assuming that BLP applies to this duck of course). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• After reading what DG has written about the subject over the last year or so on his blog and twitter, there is no doubt in my mind there's a WP:BLPCOI here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Yes and no, and it depends on the subject. A subject matter expert who happens to be a wikipedia editor being quoted/interviewed/published in a reliable source is useable. Albeit its frowned upon if they do it themselves. It comes up a lot with academics who want to use themselves as sources, and then get annoyed when we come back "Come and talk to us when you get published." On the wider issue, I am also of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI regarding Siskind here. If you are acting as a source for off-wiki newspapers on a topic, tweeting negatively (and frankly, I would also apply it even if it was positively) about that subject, you shouldnt necessarily be prevented from editing the article but you should certainly not be throwing around accusations of a living person being a neo-nazi. If they are a neo-nazi and reliable sources back that up, plenty of other editors are available to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This implies I have stated that in the article, which I absolutely have not. However, this is about me expressing an opinion in a tweet, rather than in article space - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I really dont care if you express it by fucking carrier pigeon. That you use off-wiki methods of denigrating people because you are prohibited from doing so on-wiki is not a plus point in your favour. If you want to off-wiki indulge in your freedom to express your opinions, you dont also get to on-wiki pretend that they dont matter. Freedom of expression is not freedom of consequences when on-wiki policies clearly state off-wiki actions will be considered. Why dont you tell everyone how you lost your CU rights after posts on your blog? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who've said that David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. I find the requests for diffs or the claims it must be on-wiki to demonstrate a COI bizarre. Most COIs are off-wiki. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Ivanka Trump has a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. No I don't need diffs to demonstrate Barack Obama and George Conway have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. The only issue is whether we are able to discuss it, or it needs to go to arbcom lest we run foul of WP:Outing which is separate from whether it's a COI. Since no suggested redacting parts of the opening comment, and indeed David Gerard has effectively confirmed they made those comments, I'm assuming that they've previously confirmed a connection to said Twitter account. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  One more comment. I'm not suggesting any action against David Gerard at this time. I'm strongly opposed to blocking people just because they continue to edit articles directly when they have a COI if their edits aren't actually harmful in and of themselves. And to be clear, this includes any edits even ones which aren't simple corrections. If no one can find a reason to revert the edit which isn't some variant of 'COI editor' or find some problem with the edit, then don't revert and don't block. I don't believe doing so is justified by our policy. Paid editors are a little different. However, as with all editors with a COI, I'd strongly urge David Gerard to stop editing the article directly, and they should consider they may be subject to a harsher sanction than they normally would if they continue to do so and their editing is found to be problematic. Demonstrating a problem with David Gerard's edits would require diffs, maybe that part of the source of confusion, I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard, will you agree not to edit about this topic going forward? Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is it just me or do others find that this particular situation have similarities to this particular case? spryde | talk 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough not to edit directly re: the NYT article, actually - so sure. Though discussion of it is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." (spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences&Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• On due contemplation, and with my respect for Levivich, he's right. I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we discuss your on-wiki comments about Scott Siskind now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

    What do you mean? David has agreed to not edit that page going forward. His problematic behaviour is hopefully over, move on now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting scientific racism) were violations of WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV ^(talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are "prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

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

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe you missed it but he agreed to stop voluntarily in his comment above at 16:49, 21 February 2021? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  It seems overly hasty to go down the "topic ban, broadly construed" path. First, in practice, what articles would not actually be covered by the voluntary stop he already agreed to? Second, I'd suggest that assuming good faith in this case means not leaping to the conclusion that he won't immediately try to worm through a loophole. Third, WP:BLP cuts both ways: if David Gerard is forbidden from editing a topic because he is an external participant, then by the same token, he might well be discussed at Talk:Slate Star Codex as a figure in that kerfuffle, in which case he ought to be able to make non-self-serving statements there, just as we allow anyone to do on the Talk page of the article about them. For example, if the article Slate Star Codex mentioned him and made some biographical statement that became outdated, he ought to be able to suggest an update and provide an appropriate source. I'm concerned that "broadly construed" would impede that. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I can see significant value to a tban in the sense of actual enforcement; in terms of people actually staying away from aspects of the project they've sworn they'll quit, if wishes were horses we'd all own stables. The talk page considerations are reasonable, and I think 'broadly constructed' here can be interpreted or explicitly stated to permit the self-referential talk page editing traditionally offered to COI subjects unless he becomes tendentious on it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose even article subjects can generally edit the talk page. Now that DG has agreed not to edit Slate Star Codex directly, I can't support this without some diff of inappropriate behavior. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an enforcement method, not a punishment -- to use the traditional line, "preventative not punitive", or the actual reason we impose these at all. David Gerard's choice to step away is laudable, but as a heavy contributor to the topic it's completely understandable that detachment might be neither immediate nor easy; the project has a long, long history of people having difficulty staying away from topics that trouble them. David Gerard is a valuable contributor to other areas of the project, and I think a tban is the soft option here -- it ensures he can continue editing in those areas without being dogged by the desire to return to an issue where he has COI problems, possibly raising more serious sanctions against him. I reiterate my point earlier about trial-permitting talk page access if he desires it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. Given the editor's agreement to step away, this seems premature, and maybe a bit punitive (or at least overly harsh, even if meant to preempt further disruption). Since they've agreed not to repeat their behaviour, and have agreed to what essentially amounts to a voluntary and self-imposed topic ban (of sorts), the issue seems to be dealt with. I'd support a formal (and logged) final warning with the agreement that any further disruption will be met with this particular sanction, which can be imposed by any administrator as a normal admin action, without community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If we can not trust the word of one that's been given the admin bit then we have already lost. Also, any formal warning is just punitive at this point as I think David realizes this thread and his promise will be diff'ed should he stray from his self-imposed topic ban. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonable application of WP:GOLDLOCK

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

---

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

Seems like there has been quite a bit of reversion and edit warring on that article the last month and a half, not just by this new user. Anyway the first stop for this is to ask CambridgeBayWeather as they're the admin that placed the protection. You shouldn't bring it here until you've had a response from them. Canterbury Tail talk 02:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Canterbury Tail. So why not just WP:BLUELOCK the page? Regular contributors should not be locked out until March because of the poor behavior of others, locking the entire article is way over the top, IMO. Bacondrum 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NPA violation at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spiderland/archive1

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

---

For some reason, Ceoil (talk · contribs) has taken to attacking me for quite literally no reason.

• This edit has Ceoil saying " dont have to deal with Ten Pound Hammer's unthinking, unresearched, brutalist, "impressions" things."

• I asked for a reasoning behind this unnecessarily harsh language and got in response, "It means what it means, and don't play innocent, but is irrelevant to keeping or demoing this page."

I have no idea what caused this whatsoever. Prior to nominating Spiderland for FAR, I don't think this editor and I have ever crossed paths before. I am at a total loss as to what has set them off. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonsense complaint and reeks of an abrasive personality who spends all day, every day dishing out coldly but is unwilling to accept any level of reaction. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to back that up? PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but cant be bothered as [1] this is trivial [2] didnt start this crying to mammy. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Because I have to say I am not terribly impressed by your follow up comment to their section diff. It means what it means...ie shut the fuck up and let others comment, and don't play innocent as to why I dont want to engage; but if other come in it will happily be irrelevant in our either keeping or demoing this page.[209] PackMecEng (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

An "abrasive personality" sounds more like the kind of person who comes the fuck out of nowhere to attack me, an editor who has been on this site nearly 16 years without ever crossing your path once as far as I know. And who keeps dodging the issue and resorts to further name-calling whenever asked to elucidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Except it wasn't out of nowhere, it was within a structured review process, that I think you had by then little to contribute to, having had a number of false claims rebuted...ie that the early summer complaints about the lead had not been addressed. This mistake is obviously carless due dilligence before opening a FAR and frankly typical. PackMecEn, have long noticed that if you advise someone to walk to the far right to avoid beasties, then should prob lean left to escape being eaten...ie I don't, and never have, trusted your judgement. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In all seriousness. Are you drunk at the moment or something? PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I raised a fair point, and I wonder what brought you to this dispute. It just have always judged you as somebody who is always, so consistently wrong; and now you you question me with words that would lead others AN indefinite block. My impression of you however is: low horizons, low IQ, read a lot of shit books, big opinions. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil. Please sign off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, not helpful, time to push back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saying it would explain a lot here. Things like this are broadline nonsensical. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't "false claims" to say that the article had [citation needed] tags and reliance on user-submitted sources like genius.com. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a silly side-question, but what on earth is meant by brutalist in this context? Is Ten Pound Hammer a minimalist construction that showcases bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design? My first thought on reading it was that this was an argument about some sort of bizarre architectural style that merges brutalism with impressionism. --Aquillion (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what caused this whatsoever. [...] I don't think this editor and I have ever crossed paths before. I am at a total loss as to what has set them off. Maybe from 1 week ago? [210][211]. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A good-faith removal of unsourced content and an equally good-faith concern about troubling behavior between two users? Hardly seems worth picking a fight over. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are mixing up the past and present to suite your current needs. Try and focus on the current Spirerland FAR, although your involvement has been discredited there. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bison X. Ceoil (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself a Wikifriend of Ceoil, so my input is not neutral. A) TenPoundHammer, might you consider that you may be missing the big picture in ways that deeply hurt real people? B) Ceoil, please take the rest of the day off; it’s not good to be posting when emotions are involved. I seriously apologize for asking for your feedback on that FAR; I should have contemplated the overall situation better, and I apologize for being so inconsiderate. C) Could some kind admin please consult with Deepfriedokra about the history behind this dispute? D) ANI is perhaps not the best place to deal with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ok Ceoil (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To both of you (TPH and Ceoil), be well ... best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Letting the FAR Coords know about this thread: @WP:FAR coordinators: . And off for the night; I hope everyone will see things better in the light of a new day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Wiki on Sky

• Wiki on Sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Angelica di Silvestri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_di_Silvestri

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

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

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

Possible case of Gaming the system and Undisclosed paid content

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

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

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

Therfore, I ask to:

Permanently block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia.

Below I attach the edits that made sundayclose as proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• He's not deleting your contributions for any reason other than things like "In January 2021 was published a study that shows a possible link between climate change and specifically the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the study due to climate change in some places of the world were concentrated more types of bats harboring corona viruses." are really poor English; yes, it's understandable, but it has at least five grammatical errors in it. (it should be "In January 2021, a study was published that showed a possible link between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the study, in some areas of the world climate change had led to a higher concentration of types of bats harbouring coronaviruses" or similar).
• Similarly "Officially, China declared as a target to build 285 Eco cities. The implementation is not always successful.". Spelling and grammar checkers may produce understandable English, but they rarely produce good English. Also, you shouldn't be using Forbes contributor pages as sources - see WP:FORBESCON. So to sum up, reverting poorly written English isn't disruptive editing, nor gaming the system, nor uncivil, nor sockpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @אלכסנדר סעודה: what Black Kite said. You have edit-warred to reinstate your edits, without even changing the access-dates on the references, after running a spell-check on them. It's not your spelling that is unacceptably bad, it's your grammar. I and others have now had to fix your English (and note that no English spell-checker will pick up mistakes in non-English words like Deutsche Welle), and you have apparently missed Black Kite's other point, that blogs by Forbes "contributors" are not an acceptable source. I'm sorry to say that a certificate for participating in an editathon is not a guarantee that your edits will not be changed, or even reverted; see the statement that appears above the edit window in the skin I'm using: "Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Sundayclose was maintaining the encyclopedia. Thank you for the update at Climate change in the United States. But please make your future additions short and simple, use accurate access-dates, and let other editors fix them. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the two comments made before me. The request to block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia on these grounds needs to be denied for sure. However, I would kindly suggest that in future, the talk pages of the articles could be used to work out better English for those text additions. So if I was Sundayclose I would perhaps revert the edit but also put in the edit summary "see talk page". Then on the talk page I would start a new section where I would copy the deleted text in question and say to the user "this paragraph is not clear, can you please clarify what you were trying to say?". It is a bit more time consuming but I think this particular editor means well and deserves a bit of extra time, not just a straight revert. For comparison, this is how I did it on an article talk page with another editor: here. EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: I appreciate your comment and will give it all due consideration. I should point out, however, that if I start the numerous talk page discussions myself, I might as well just fix the edits. I certainly don't mind fixing edits for occasional grammar and stylistic problems, but most of this editor's edits are abundant with such problems, as has been noted by others here and on their talk page. I have suggested that this editor post proposed edits on the articles' talk pages. That is much simpler and puts the responsibility on the editor making the edit. But my suggestion fell on deaf ears, as did my suggestion to edit the Hebrew Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia. I also suggested that the editor seek a Wikipedia mentor, which often can help both the editor and Wikipedia improve; but again, refusal to consider it. I agree this editor usually has good intentions (except when trying to discuss their problem edits), but as we all know who have encountered this type of editor, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There's only so much we can do to rescue an editor who simply doesn't have the English writing skills to competently edit, and that's what we're up against here. Thanks again for your comment. Sundayclose (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• אלכסנדר סעודה, as noted by Black Kite above, unfortunately your contributions are poorly written. No worries, though. All this means is that you should probably think about proposing some of your edits on the talk page first, rather than making them directly in the article space. I know this can be annoying and burdensome, and causes arbitrary delays for some edits that seem otherwise acceptable and straight-forward, but if you post something that's poorly worded and/or has grammatical errors, someone else (like Sundayclose) has to clean them up. They're not being disruptive, and it's not personal, even though it might feel that way at first. And as Yngvadottir said, any contribution to the encyclopedia can be deleted or modified, and they often are. Rarely does anyone's work stand as is, in the same form as it was submitted. I empathize with those who want to contribute to the English Wikipedia when English isn't their first language, and their language ability is perhaps not as polished as the community expects. But there are always people willing to help, and your English language ability will improve as you contribute (from what I've seen of others in the past). Don't be disheartened. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by Abdul afghan

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

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" five times at Sur Empire [212] [213] [214] [215] [216]

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" twice at Amir Suri [217] [218]

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" twice at Muhammad ibn Suri [219] [220]

This is most likely his IP, which has done the exact same disruptive edits as him [221]

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

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

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

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

Uncivil/hostile disruptive behavior by IP

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

---

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

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

Violation of TBAN by GPinkerton

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

---

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

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Please make sure you notify the editor you are discussing, per the big red box at the top of the page, and the big notice that you get when you edit the page. I've taken care of this for you this time. SQL^{Query me!} 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that, my bad. Thanks SQL. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can we revert all the edits and comments made by GPinkerton in violation of their TBAN? Does WP:BANEVASION apply to TBANs too? Can the RfC they started at Hagia Sophia (Talk:Hagia Sophia#RfC on conquest legend) be annulled? VR _talk 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Vice regent, why should it be annulled? Neither Islam not the middle east after 1453 are mentioned. The RfC I have begun applies to Hagia Sophia, which is in Europe, and was, at the relevant time, nothing whatever to do with Islam. I'll ask again: why are you so keen to try and contort every edit of mine into a violation of the irrelevant and unnecessary topic ban you have taken it upon yourself to seek to enforce? Surely it can have nothing to do with your strident opposition to the subject of the RfC?

  I am thinking of asking for an interaction ban with Vice regent. This is third time in as many days they have falsely accuse me of violating this topic ban. GPinkerton (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton the intent of "post-1453 Middle East" was to prevent you from making edits relating to the Muslim conquest of Hagia Sophia. Cullen328 chose "post-1453 Middle East" because of your "highly problematic" edits to Hagia Sophia; Cullen's rationale was cited by Guerillero in their offer of "post-1953 Middle East", and Guerillero's offer was cited by El_C who unblocked you. In fact, GPinkerton, you acknowledged that such a restriction would stifle your edits to Hagia Sophia. But now you say your topic ban has nothing to do with Hagia Sophia?VR _talk 01:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, you have claimed: the intent of "post-1453 Middle East" was to prevent you from making edits relating to the Muslim conquest of Hagia Sophia. No it wasn't, that is simply untrue. Hagia Sophia is nowhere near the middle east, being as it is in Europe. Your interpretation of my comment is false. No-one has ever topic-banned me from editing articles about churches in Europe; that is simply wrong of you to claim. GPinkerton (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked them from the article and talk name spaces. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sorry it didn't work out, truly. I really did think it would, but I guess there you have it. El_C 01:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  El C, what do you mean? GPinkerton (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, from Guerillero's action as stated above, I've understood that you've violated the agreed-upon topic ban. El_C 01:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I added the text, opposition to which has now evaporated given the topic-bans of the POV-pushing ethno-nationalists, and [222] another editor has violated his own topic ban by adding various POV deletions. Doubtless my confidence they will now be site-banned is misplaced … GPinkerton (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think, given the imminent outcome of the ArbCom case, this is going to be moot anyway regarding GPinkerton, though I note that at least one of the other editors that is about to be topic-banned is still edit-warring as well. Black Kite (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Historica IP

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

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

Their draft pages also probably require speedy deletions. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Improperly sourced accusations at Wael Abbas

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