Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy

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

TL;DR on BunnyyHop's soap-boxing behavior

BunnyyHop is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He constantly posts fringe theories. Denies the Uyghur genocide is real instead believing it to be created by by Adrian Zenz, denies that the Crimear Tatar genocide or deportation is real, constantly tries to get around consensus, edit wars when he doesn't get his way, misuses quotes to give a soapbox to whoever Marxist-Leninists, adds "accuse" to proven atrocities by Stalin and Mao, tags edit as minor that removes entire sections, removes images he dislikes when leaders like Stalin show up, removes any information he dislikes, as wel as removing sourced content numerous times, doesn't read citations, and has wanted to post text like "The liquidation of exploiters" and "Success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades" to articles. In short BunnyyHop clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and to spread his POV, other users have also realized this from him being here. He in short is a committed POV pusher. BunnyyHop is a single use account meaning he only edits relating to Marxism-Leninism and only posts his pro Marxist-Leninist, pro-Stalinist POV. The proposal details topic banning BunnyyHop from all articles relating to Marxism-Leninism and politics, due to disruption on said articles. Des Vallee (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removal of properly sourced content:

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

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

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

Example 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example 5: Marxist-Leninism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of quotes to give a soapbox to Marxist-Leninists

Example 1: Marxist-Leninism

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

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

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

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

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

Example 10 More Soapboxing for the PCP:

Edit Warring

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994482550
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994038201

On Marxist-Leninism, Various reasons mostly POV pushing sections

(Diffs of the user's reverts)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990118272&oldid=990010040
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989930588&oldid=989928847
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989778280&oldid=989491769
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983018922&oldid=982981007
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991572836&oldid=991544582
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991576614&oldid=991572836
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995632561&oldid=995631219
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995620412&oldid=995617862
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995464036&oldid=995461186

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

WP:TLDR. You need to be far more concise. GiantSnowman 11:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSER: User:Des Vallee was not originally listed at the top of the thread. Only Bunnyyhop was listed by the reporter and there for many or most of the comments. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll deal with these one by one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6- Not backed by source after verification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I will be very clear about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently, you did not even check the page which includes big section Genocide_question_and_recognition and well sourced, while arguing with everyone here and on article talk page. This is a disruptive behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism - yes, that is exactly why. Glad to see it admitted. Davide King is also heavily involved in the controversy at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Glad to see it admitted there is indeed a double standard, even if held by reliable sources; that is not what I disputed, so I do not get what your point was. As for being "heavily involved in the controversy", I do not see that is relevant any more than you and others, when I have agreed and disagreed with both users on some issues and others. In addition, I believe a good solution to the controversy, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, has been settled here by Czar. Davide King (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reply Since this entire thread is more about content than behaviour and all feel so strongly about their "beliefs" I would like to point out that the USA has killed more people both directly and indirectly in the name of setting up "democracies" in different parts of the world and there is enough of data to show that. Does that make democracy a problematic concept? No. The point I am trying to make is that if you have a problem with the content then go to the content talk page and hash it out till the cows come home. WP:ANI is about behaviour and the editor in question cannot be penalised for holding a different view point even if dont like it for very stoeng reasons. Vikram Vincent 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• See my longer comment here. Going back to the topic of this thread, the bottom line is that the user in question is not a Stalinist and they do not advocate or support the "Intensification of the class struggle under socialism" theory, so I think the point is moot. There is not a single ideology that is without atrocities and violence in practice, and the user in question has not advocated or supported the extermination of races or classes. They can be redirected to read scholarly books that reflect consensus on a given topic, so that they understand what the consensus is and whether their proposed edits goes against it; and if so, is it a minority or fringe view? In general, let us make them better understand our policies and guidelines; they have shown they have learned from some guidelines they did not know about it. At Talk:Slavery, they have shown there can be a respectful discussion with them. I see a permanent ban as far too punitive for the time being. Davide King (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

  Sorry, but I think you are strawmanning me now. You stated as fact implications I never made, as any neutral observer would note, so I am not going to comment further here. Let us go back to the main topic. I repeat and agree with Vincentvikram that this is a content dispute, that BunnyyHopp acknowledged their mistakes and that they are trying to get better and avoid their mistakes. Davide King (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  See my comment here and please reply me there, so as not to go off topic. Davide King (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• My final comment: This [13] and the follow up here [14], plus this and this elevate the seriousness of these POV edits. This is going down a very bad path.   // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A new topic was opened in Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour. For the last diff, one has to look at TFD's comment. After looking at the «cultural genocide» citation on the current article, I opened a new topic on the Talk:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#Cultural_Genocide. The removal of a journalist's opinion from a WP:BLP stated as fact is POV pushing? BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support BunnyHop is clearly here to push a POV, and isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as demonstrated by the vast amount of diffs provided by Des Vallee. Also, I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology, but either way, POV pushing cannot be tolerated no matter what the POV is. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just another political content dispute. I see, however, that this ANI report crosses the line on political discrimination. First, a supposed (and unproven) political affiliation is used as a one of the points justifying a block (note this is not a COI dispute). A supposed (and unproven) political affiliation to a party that is legal and with parliamentary representation in Portugal and the European Union. Not that this matter for the main jurisdiction of Wikipedia, since discrimination against communists is codified in US law, but a lot of us are used to live in countries where this kind of discrimination is illegal (not a legal threat: I know this has no standing in the US). --MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  MarioGom, I did not think about this but you are right. Apparently, just because Communism is held as equal as Nazism, even though scholars disagree on this and the few who support it are "revisionists", political discrimination against real and alleged communists is perfectly fine. This is false equivalency and Holocaust trivialisation and obfuscation at worse. This really is a political content dispute, which has been magnified by the fact these are controversial articles; we all hold "strong opinions one way or another w.r.t. certain topics and this is one of them." Let these two users solve their issues with a mediator through the respective talk page of the disputed articles in question. Davide King (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  MarioGom This user has denied mass killings by the NKVD, denied the Crimean Tatar Genocide, denied the Uyghur genocide, pushes fringe theories on Stalin, denies the Holodomor even happened, constantly adds POV sections, removes any section he dislikes and tags those edits as minor, promotes known Stalinist fringe theorists, and is constantly warned on his behavior. This user clearly isn't here to build an Encyclopedia, has been constantly been warned but he still keeps up his disruptive edits. These edits constantly break rules regarding towards towards fringe theories, original research, genocidal denial. Genocidal denial and creating an open encyclopedia are impossible. Des Vallee (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  These are all strong claims, which from what I have seen do not actually represents reality. They never edited Holodomor and the only comment they made was here, where they stated "[p]lease read the guidelines. WP:Criticism; There's an open discussing on the Holodomor, since there's no academic consensus whether it was intentional or not. Cold war research backs the former, more modern ones generally backs the latter. Your attitude shows really well you aren't here to have a WP:NPV. This isn't discussable, you have to follow the guidelines." I do not see how that is denialism. In addition, you really need to stop falsely accusing users of genocide denial as you did here. As we write at List of genocides by death toll, "[t]he term genocide is contentious and as a result its academic definition varies." There is also a difference between the many definitions of genocide and its legal definition as outlined by the Genocide Convention. Not thinking an event, for which there is no clear consensus among scholars, fits the genocide definition is not denialism; denialism is denying the events happened in the first place; and not considering something a genocide may constitute denialism only for these events for which there is overwhelming consensus they were genocide such as the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, among others. Genocide requires intentional action and genocidal intent. Davide King (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I have added Des Vallee logs to the top of the page as they have already been blocked on three occassions for edit warring on other pages and the complaint has to be taken with that in mind. Vikram Vincent 06:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Support Des Vallee part in this wall of text drama should be reviewed by the closing admins.   // Timothy :: talk  07:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Des Vallee, listen to Timothy. Even reporters have no immunity, regardless an editor spotted you and a few who is opposing sanctions agains Bunnyhoop are supporting, just let it go. The reviewing admin likely will check everything, so you don't have to be afraid or desperately prove your innocence, do not feed anyone to draw away the attention of the real issue of this thread. For every neutral reviewer is clear there have been serious problems with Bunnyhoop since his/her appearance in WP, and of course you do not even approach such problems like the reported user. I think Timothy has been a bit harsh with you in his previous comment, but if he wanted to scare you :), the earlier the better. Just drop the stick, and let admins wo work, they have already enough information. I can assure/reinforce anyway, shall anything you did in the past and anyone blame for you that for now, I consider you are recently a decent, collaborative editor, at least this is my experience in the recent months. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC))
• Comment Des Vallee, I will double back by saying listen to KIENGIR. I was harsh in my tone, and I apologize. I agree with KIENGIR, you are a good, collaborative editor. One thing I have learned at ANI and on talk is use the minimum number of words possible to make your point; once made let the quality of your arguement, not your tenacity and word count, make the point.   // Timothy :: talk  01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and also support restriction for anyone engaged with the BunnyHop in any similar conduct, should it exist. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Additional information: See [15] regarding the removal of information regarding the genocide of the Crimean Tartars. I have reverted the edit and added refs.   // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  TimothyBlue, the edit you reverted was by me, and not by any of the editors being discussed here. My contribution is explained in the talk page and I haven't warred over it. If you think my contributions should be subject to examination at WP:ANI, please, feel free to report me. In any case, please, I would ask you to avoid referring to my contributions at any WP:ANI without properly notifying me at my talk page. MarioGom (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per Davide King, I don't have the energy to further explain my thoughts on this issue after reading the entirety of the discussion above, but they put it far better than I could. I also agree with their proposal for BunnyHop to step back for the time being. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 05:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Close please Can an admin please close this thread. It is to large and too painful to read :-) Vikram Vincent 08:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for BH. POV editing including whitewashing of the situation in western China or making a subtantial removal marked as a minor edit (as examples) is not acceptable. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

diff for the warning about misuse of the minor tag. I don't recall any misusage by me after such warning. I don't think complying with neutral editing by adding proper attribution and stating things in the respective voice is "whitewashing". BBC - «Xinjiang cotton sparks concern over 'forced labour' claims»; Wikipedia - «In March 2020, the Chinese government was found to be using the Uyghur minority for forced labour, inside sweat shops.»; My edit - «The Australian Strategic Policy Institute reported that from 2017 to 2019 more than 80,000 Uyghurs were shipped elsewhere in China for factory jobs that "strongly suggest forced labour"». Anyone who finds this, looking to comply with WP:NPOV, immediately sees that as it currently stands, this section I'm "whitewashing" is in violation of neutral editing principles. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on BH. We tolerate POV pushers far too much. They are a massive time sink and rarely improve articles. Show some commitment to the encyclopeda by working on articles you are less emotionally involved in and then ask to come back here if you wish. Trying to teach someone our policies and guidelines on controversial articles is hard enough with good faith editors, let alone those looking to advocate. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• More very problematic editing: Here] Bunnyhop removes a citation about slave labor in Communist China. The url needed to be updated, but it was not a dead link as they stated and was easily fixed.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  @ 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for BH. This thread is long and tedious but the pov-pushing and whitewashing clearly evident in the diffs above is unacceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. This thread has become a mess, and so far BunnyyHop seems to be willing to engage with consensus-building and make compromises, with this diff as an example. Though I may be a socialist (an MLM, actually) and therefore may be biased, I genuinely believe that BunnyyHop is here to help us in building an encyclopedia. Though I must note other concerns by users that BunnyyHop should take a break from editing on articles related to socialism, and improve their use of edit summaries. --pandakekok9 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no. This is old diff. I recently had a discussion with BH here [17], and he did not show any signs of that. He is making sure that the last word in each discussion is "his", and in that example insists that the forced labor has nothing to do with slavery This is contrary to sources. The Unfree labour is a part of a series on Slavery according the template on the page - correctly. An why did he waste our time? Because he wants to exclude any mentioning of Gulag on page Slavery. Why? Becase of his political views, and I would rather not define what they are. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop should take a break from editing on articles related to socialism, and improve their use of edit summaries - Agreed, but this is exactly what a topic ban is for. Strange that you opposed it. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, as your source stated, forced labour was another form of servitude. Servitude however, is not the main scope of the article, and hence the need for other articles such as Child labour, Penal labour, Wage slavery, Conscription, and so on. Unless academic sources describe it as a «system of slavery» instead of a «system of forced labour», it should not be included in the article. This is something simple, yet your will to include forced labour camps is contradictory. Here, you remove the section on penal labour in the United States because the cited sources do not say slavery. However, inmates state that the system is a modern form of slavery, which is enough for you if it's referrent to the Gulag. I also find it curious how Irving Howe, which is not an academic, you label him as an «expert» because he sustains your POV, but actual academics are too gullible to fall in «Soviet propaganda», diff. You have also quoted a book (same diff), which would make it fit to be called slavery just because the title is «"Slavery in the Modern World"» and «it lists Gulag as an example». I, however, checked the source, and verified that it does not mention the GULAG as a form of slavery but as «forced labor» and «expansive network of corrective labor camps, corrective labor colonies, and special settlements», which you choose to ignore. Now you have been caught on your own web. Why are you wasting my time just to «POV push» the «GULAG» as a system of slavery? You use twists and turns to evade the use of sources that link the GULAG to slavery, and even say «Your first source simply does not say anything about slavery and therefore can not be used on this page». --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: It's not strange. Maybe I should've clarified that one a bit. Bunnyy should take a short break, which is something an indefinite topic ban can't do. Sure, indefinite doesn't mean forever, but I doubt that you can get an indef ban revoked after just a month. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Funny that you say that the diff I used was old, when in fact most of the diffs linked here that is used against Bunnyy are old too, with many even dating from November, and some from October. Double standard much? pandakekok9 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because I linked to disussion that BH started on article talk page on January 2, i.e. after this ANI discussion was started. It is usually helpful to check what the user is doing during the ongoing ANI discussion about him. In this example, BH continued his WP:TE editing, continued his disagreements with other contributors, etc. Therefore, one should expect exactly the same (and worse) if this discussion will be closed with any action. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support; I think that people of all political persuasions ought to be welcomed on Wikipedia, and I'm willing to accept that diffs can be taken out of context to make someone look bad, but this is too many for it to be an accident. While any well-meaning person who edits political articles can be forgiven for occasionally slipping up and writing something a little slanted, this seems more like a deliberate, constant attempt to spin content in a disingenuous way. jp×g 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Possible socking: Today I saw this edit [18] and this edit [19] from an account named AxderWraith Crimson. Very similar to Bunnyhop's MO for POV pushing; edit summary and talk page comments sound very much like things BH has said.

I checked the account history. This was their first edit [20], the edit summary is very unusual for a new user.

About an hour after they created their account, AxderWraith Crimson post's this to BH's userpage [21].

Remarkable that a new editor that sounds so similar to BH, with the same subject interests, found BH's user page within an hour of being created, without editing on the same page.

If an admin feels a SPI should be opened I will, otherwise I will just post here for consideration.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no need to socketpuppet, I try my best when editing, and when I see have I have wronged, I have absolutely no problem to apologise and immediately back down. I stand in good-faith that whoever has the courage to see through the content disputes will make the best decision possible. I encourage you to open a SPI case, nothing will come out of it. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I'm not an admin, but sockpuppetry is a separate offense from tendentious editing; there is no reason not to open an SPI now and I strongly encourage you to do so. I just took a cursory look and that user is definitely someone's sock at minimum. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Everyone can see that your only here to push your POV and try to soapbox.

Blanking text and then then defending it is a pure example of this. You clearly know about Wikipedia policies on using "minor edit" because you quote Wiki policies. You have been warned so many times on this. Editors have given you enough good faith, you have been given so many chances on this. You won't back down because you clearly recognize your disruptive behavior, and knew about Wikipedia policies.

I have no question that you are most likely going to create new sockpuppets. As you clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a tool to try to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the 3rd time you use the same diff of October 5th (!!!) to make a point. My 16th edit on an article (see the pattern of minor edits). This rambling on is just completely misleading, and even plain false - «you have been warned so many times on this» - no, I have not, I was warned once and then the misusage of minor edits ceased. All these reports on «minor edits» date back from this friendly warning, by another colleague, to instruct me on how to use them. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly knew it was against Wikipedia policies as there is no way you expect people to beleive you genuinely knew about NPOV but didn't know what's a minor edit. Yes you have BunnyyHop numerous times for removing sources, possible sanctions, canvassing, copyright violations, topic bans etc.. In fact you were blocked for edit warring on the page Marxism-Leninism before you were blocked you were warned for edit warring, you haven't changed your editing behavior. Des Vallee (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV together with WP:NOR and WP:V are the basic articles everyone reads in Wikipedia. Those and WP:MINOR are not mutually exclusive. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — This thread goes waaay further than TL;DNR. The original complaint is a guarantee that resolution is not going to be found here. The incessant tit-for-tat among the principals blocks the possibility of progress here. My idea of a workable solution is a one edit per day limit for each of the major actors in this contretemps for each article on which they conflict (self-imposed). Wikipedia editors are expected to put energy into reaching consensus—not compel other editors to solve their conflicts. This is a squabble over content with plenty of suboptimal behavior all around. — Neonorange (Phil) 21:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WatanWatan2020

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

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

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

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

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

I'm surprised by that baseless SPI report, because I specifically explained to WatanWatan2020 that making sockpuppetry accusations without evidence violates multiple guidelines [22]. I have no idea what's going on with the airline stuff, but WatanWatan2020 came to my attention when I noticed some very disturbing edits: [23], [24], and several similar ones around that date. I left a discretionary sanctions alert regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Since then I haven't seen anything else like that... but still. --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that this editor has started editing again today and is once again back to adding the same old promotional text to airline articles example. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To Oshwah, What kind of statement is that? i approached this matter and provided the sequence, along with evidence in it, of events which took place that would indicate some sort of puppetry taking place. in fact, it seems that other people launch SPI investigations with absolutely much less evidence and description, yet those SPIs are taken seriously and looked into. But with this one, you seem you "will not entertain it" and immediately close it. If you dont want to entertain this, why not allow another clerk to look into this matter then? you then turn the entire matter on to me and say look at "my disruptive history of editing" and that it should be discussed to see if i need further santions etc. Why dont you look at Ahunt's history, just even recently? There are plenty of users accusing this user of edit warring with others. In fact, another user just recently left a message accusing Ahunt of edit warring with him, and you actually deleted his comment. So why turn this on me? this is not fair even in the slightest.

To Ahunt, regarding your new accusation that i am back adding the same "promotional text" to airline articles, i am not. I simply added the information to only one airline which was the founding member of such. Also, no other editor who happens to be airplane enthusiasts take issue with my edits. You are the only one to approach this matter the way you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Making intentionally misleading claims here, which are easily verified to be untrue, is not going to help your case here. I would suggest you withdraw your continued personal attacks, rather than doubling down on them. - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@WatanWatan2020, You do realize that user @Ahunt, @The Bushranger, and @Oshwah have special user access levels right? You doubling down on your statements will only worsen your stance rather than help relieve the situation. You were blocked multiple times for edit warring and I don't see how disruptive editing helps either. PyroFloe (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWB #3 pretty much sums up where we are on this situation. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the time this report about WatanWatan2020 was filed, there has been a new discussion (on 13th January) at User talk:PyroFloe#Falsely accusing others which makes me think the editor won't be able to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. They will just get into edit wars wherever they go. The fact that their edits are frequently reverted will persuade them that others are in league against them, as suggested by the frivolous SPI that they filed on 7 January. I'd recomment an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Saflieni

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

---

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

Saflieni is disruptive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These repeated attempts to paint me into a corner are pure harrassment. HoC and Buidhe have taken turns to delete and revert my edit, one of the last remaining, to dodge 3RR.[25][26][27] Digging up old diffs and quoting me out of context? Please. Saflieni (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• The resumption by HoC and Buidhe of edit warring to get rid of my edits, even the old ones, and the continued posting of insults against scholars and me personally ...the posting of suggestive edit summaries accusing me of dishonesty, etc. I'm curious to learn what else the arbitrators expected would happen after handing them a free pass[28]
• They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule.[29]
• Please feel free to look at my edit summaries to see which ones are "suggestive" or accuse Saflieni of dishonesty. And feel free to compare Saflieni's edit summaries.HouseOfChange (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Detailed response by Saflieni:

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

• HoC says: Salfieni ignores our policy concerns. However, I followed the WP:NPOV guidelines. HoC doesn't agree with a brief content summary I made according to RS and the author herself. HoC and Buidhe for some reason only known to them do not want to give the aspects I mentioned a place in the article. Because they can't argue with RS, they either dismiss them as "anti-Rever militants" or worse [30], or they accuse me of biased editing and start dissecting every phrase, demanding that an exact match of the phrase must be somewhere in the book. So this is not about a "new analysis" or "synthesis" or ignoring a policy at all. My only "sin" here is to fairly represent the book's content based on ... carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
• HoC says: Saflieni is defensive about "his" edits and contemptuous of criticism. This refers to an old dispute where they falsely accused me of deliberately misquoting the literature. I have explained the truth of the matter several times in a civil tone, such as here: [31] and have invited others to check for themselves. However, this behaviour is more contemptuous: When HoC realizes they can't "win" a debate they respond by attacking scholars and dismissing my patient and careful explanations as: you've explained your reasons for not caring, so perhaps we are done here. [32]
• HoC says: But Saflieni does not want the article to mention RPF crimes. This is the type of framing they use all the time. The truth is that I have asked HoC several times to note that nobody contests RPF crimes, not the scholars I cite, nor me personally.[33][34] However, there's a difference between acknowledging the fact that criminal acts happened and quoting "guilty" verdicts against individuals or groups who have not been convicted by a court of law.
• HoC says: He insists that The main topic of the book is double genocide. More framing. Most subject matter experts regard the book as an indictment intended to prove a second genocide (making it a double genocide theory). It doesn't matter what I think about it. According to WP:DUE We have to represent the majority view of RS in this matter: ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
• HoC says: he chose to provide no evidence for his opinion but instead attacked me for requesting evidence. But I did provide evidence, here for instance: [35]. HoC responded to it so he knows. Besides, RS listed by HoC support my argument, not his. I have shown this by quoting directly from one of the articles on HoC's short list (Claudine Vidal) which, by the way, is titled "Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide", but if that's not clear enough I can do the same thing with other RS.
• I could make a list of personal attacks and expressions of sarcasm by HoC and Buidhe on the Talk page as well as in the edit summaries, but just look at tendentious section titles like this one: Caplan's "little doubt that the RPF under President Kagame is indeed guilty of war crimes" is more relevant to this article than disputes about funerary arrangements. Completely disrespectful. They themselves deserve a ban. Saflieni (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban from Rwanda-related articles, if only because maybe then we won't have to come back here again and face these Walls of Text. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies should disclose their personal feelings in this case and on the subject of the book. For awhile I couldn't understand their uncivil outbursts that follow me wherever I go, their false accusations, using words like bullshit while providing diffs that actually contradict their argument [36], until I saw their description of my careful efforts to explain the scholarly literature and improve the article: To see someone shit on that in that way, that's more than a bit hurtful. [37]. Besides incredibly rude, they're not leading by example WP:ADMINCOND, and it's definitely not a neutral approach of the subject.Saflieni (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Saflieni:: Clearly DrMies was upset that, instead of recognizing his efforts to inform himself and provide helpful input, you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources, eg Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification. Also, please re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • My personal feelings? It's a ridiculous amount of butter, but these are the best scones I ever made. I also have strong feelings about Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, and I wish you did. And your "careful edits to explain the scholarly literature"? Pshaw. And now I am here again, explaining for the third time to the ANI audience that you are the problem.

        a. My strong language was prompted by your dismissive and untruthful statement in that ridiculous arbitration case you filed, one of your many time sinks; again I'll say that you dismissed the good-faith effort I made for In Praise of Blood at a time when I disagreed with your opponents' claims, not yours. b. The actual edit in that diff contains yet another misrepresentation: my assessment of your misconduct was based on someone else's comment? Hell no--you did that all by yourself, on In Praise of Blood. c. You managed to upset a whole bunch of even-keeled people along the way, including EdJohnston, with your wikilawyering and your incessant complaints. d. Your fishing for my "opinion" on the book is just another example of bad faith. I'll give you my opinion: it is published, on paper and printed with ink, by a reputable publisher and got positive and negative reviews, and spawned an extensive discussion. There. Finally, "incredibly rude"--I bite my tongue every time I type yet another response to some wordy and false accusation by you. I'll change my mind about the topic ban I supported: you are NOTHERE to improve the project, and your very actions are toxic and destroy any desire to collaborate in order to improve articles. Do not ping me again, not even to notify me next time you pull an ANI or ArbCom stunt. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• If editors get so upset by the majority view among reliable sources that they resort to insulting main stream scholars and their work, and an editor who wants to give that majority view due weight, there is a bigger problem than my alleged "walls of text". For the record: my arbitration request was not "a stunt" but supported by 25 diffs; evidence of polarizing remarks and insults against scientists, mainly - not an exhaustive list.[38] Saflieni (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: Your ArbCom request was declined 0/7/0. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what HoC is implying but this information is not true. HoC has received the notification that I had withdrawn the request. I did that after three days (2 January) because the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies. Some arbitrators who had missed the email voted to decline because they regarded the case - about fringe theories and advocacy - as a content issue. None of them has commented on the evidence.Saflieni (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: On Jan 5, I got a notice on my talk page that "The case request Rwandan genocide has been declined by the Committee...<0/7/0>". Your having withdrawn your request does not change the fact that Your ArbCom request was declined 0/7/0 just as I stated. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've asked HoC to be honest. I'm asking again. This is the notification on HoC's Talk page: Rwandan genocide case request withdrawn by filing party [39] Saflieni (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-involved party with no interest in getting involved: Saflieni, this sort of bad-faith argumentation looks really bad for you. Regardless of whether formally the case ended because you withdrew it, it closed with 7 declines and no other votes; of all the claims in this uninteresting tangent, by far the most unreasonable is that HoC's description is in some way dishonest. --JBL (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to me first why all the bad faith assumptions against me by HoC, Drmies and others are endorsed, and second what good intentions might have been in HoC's suggestive edit? I had just been pointing at my evidence for advocacy. HoC's response post suggests that this evidence was rejected, which is not true. This is all part of the framing I've explained in my detailed response on this page. And while we're on that subject, let me flag this one too: you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources. That's a distortion again. I've asked them to check a specific section in a specific source because Drmies repeatedly accused me of misconduct based on something HoC had posted on the Talk page. I even provided a link to the (open) source. [40]. They never did but continue to accuse me of the same imaginary misconduct whenever they get a chance. Anyone can check this. Unfortunately nobody ever does. Saflieni (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please understand my role in this discussion: I sometimes browse ANI for amusement, and sometimes comment if I feel there is a simple, clear point to be made. Here is the simple, clear point: you made a specific claim that something HoC said was dishonest. But, it wasn't -- at absolute worst, it was technically incorrect. It's an extremely bad look to be accusing others of dishonesty in a situation where they were, at worst, technically incorrect; in particular, it will cause people not involved (like me) to view your comments with suspicion, and so it is counter-productive to whatever goals you might have in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your initial impression, and am even grateful that you took an interest in the case. But since I've explained the context and provided additional evidence I expected that to mean something. WP:GF says This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. I grant that this wasn't the best example, but it's the totality of the evidence that should be taken into consideration. It's all rather one-sided. Btw, HoC is still continuing the argument on their Talk page [41] Saflieni (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the article talk page, and the ArbCom case filing, I agree as an uninvolved administrator that a topic ban is appropriate. That having been said, I agree with Robert McClenon's comments at ArbCom when he says that this conflict could potentially be diffused by resolving the content dispute with the help of either DRN or RfC. If Saflieni is willing to comply with those processes and refrain from making allegations against other editors, a topic ban would likely be unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to know on what grounds people support or reject complaints. Last time I was blocked by an administrator who was involved in the content dispute and had posted a couple of verifiably (!) untrue accusations. Another one hounds me with false accusations and foul language, disrupting every procedure including this one. The editors who keep complaining are polarizing and confrontational, are uncooperative (they enforce their POV with 2:1 voting majority), they insult scientists, me, and use activists and other unreliable sources to inform the article, they downplay the fringe theories, and so on. I'm not aware of any significant wrongs on my part, especially after my block, that come anywhere near such behaviour. If anyone has questions they're welcome on my Talk page.
• On 3 January I responded to Robert McClenon's suggestion by posting this message on their Talk page: I would welcome an effort as suggested by you "to moderate a discussion to lead to a possible compromise, or (more likely) to facilitate a neutrally worded RFC." I foresee a limiting factor though which has hampered earlier attempts, which is a continuous distortion of the facts and the unwillingness by third parties to verify evidence. They didn't reply to it yet. Saflieni (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Saflieni, inasmuch as reaching out to Robert McClenon for mediation was a step in the right direction, the place to discuss setting up an RfC is on the talk page of the article in question, with the other editors involved in the dispute. If you take steps to do so now, keep your comments focused on the article content at issue rather than other editors' motives, and refrain from editing the article in the meantime, then I think that a topic ban will be unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Rosguill. I will do that. However, it is really tiresome to get the advice to not edit, when I have explained on this page and during other complaints that my edits keep disappearing, being deleted or reverted, never for a good reason. This started with my first edit of the article and the last time was just a few days ago. Whenever I start restoring, I find myself on this or that Noticeboard as a disruptive editor. Sometimes they leave some edits for awhile or even pretend to insert a part of my draft "verbatim", but soon afterwards they go again, one sentence after the other. It's vandalism in slow motion. But I'll try. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: It is the NORMAL Wikipedia process, not vandalism in slow motion for other editors to dispute, re-word, or even remove your edits. It is not normal to get angry if others don't want to keep, word for word, POV-pushing edits such as "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert" or your latest WP:SYNTH claim "The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi" (when the book never compares the scale of the two events, and also never conjoins the two concepts of "scale and cruelty"). My warm wishes to all the kind editors who imagine that Saflieni will become a collaborative and civil user if only he spends time at DRN or RfC. I myself don't believe it. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat my POV again, which is still very simple: It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. What matters is what subject matter experts have published in RS. Why is this still a matter of debate after two months of misery? It will also have to be the subject of an RfC although the overall state of articles on this subject suggests there are few experts left here on Wikipedia who might be able to help out. We'll see. Saflieni (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: In Praise of Blood is an article about a book, which is "about" crimes by the Rwandan Patriotic Front, some of which were related to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Your repeated claim that only experts on Rwandan genocide have anything worthwhile to say about this book is misguided. Furthermore, claims you cherrypick out of these "expert" writings are often POV-pushing. For example, Gerald Caplan is a respected academic whose opinion on IPOB is well worth hearing. Consider this edit by Saflieni:

• Saflieni removes from the article "According to Caplan: the book 'had an immediate, destabilizing influence on the world of orthodox Rwandan scholarship', even though many of the accusations are not new." (p. 218)
• Saflieni inserts instead (and not a bad replacement except that it wrongly implies that Caplan's reservations about the book are what he "concludes") "Caplan acknowledges that Rever’s book "... presses all of us to give the uglier aspects of the RPF’s record the prominence they deserve," but he concludes: ... there are too many unnamed informants; too many confidential, unavailable leaked documents; too much unexamined credulity about some of the accusations; too little corroboration from foreigners who were eyewitnesses to history."
• Saflieni at the same time introduces a non-expert opinion from Caplan about Helen Epstein, "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert."
• Saflieni at the same time introduces a PEACOCKy description of a group criticizing Rever (not the book but the author) and quotes on their behalf a completely false claim against the book: 'During a promotional tour in Belgium which included speeches at three universities, a group of sixty scientists, researchers, journalists, historians and eye-witnesses such as Romeo Dallaire, published an open letter in Le Soir criticizing the universities for giving the impression that by promoting Judi Rever's book they supported her conspiracy theories and denial, noting that 'Whenever the author agrees to admit that Tutsi were massacred in Rwanda in 1994, it is in reality to affirm that they were massacred by other Tutsi!'" In conclusion, one can infer Saflieni's POV from his editing choices at IPOB. Also, people Saflieni agrees with always "note" things or "point out" things, unlike Judi Rever who "claims" things. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

These misrepresentations are personal attacks, not my POV. Moreover, most of the issues here have been discussed at length. Posting a warped one-sided version to discredit me again is uncivil and says more about HoC than about me. I'm not going to respond to them again. Saflieni (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As suggested by others, I am taking one of the content disputes with Saflieni to a content-dispute noticeboard, where people discuss content rather than other editors' behavior. I have tried to present our disagreement fairly, but no doubt Saflieni can present his own side better than I can, so I notified him on his talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Update Discussion proceeds at WP:NORN, with predictably uncivil remarks by Saflieni followed by more typically ad hominem claims. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• General remark: ANIs are pointless when they're used as a tool by hostile editors to railroad another one, when the defence of the accused is ignored, when evidence is misinterpreted, when relevant Wikipedia guidelines are neglected, when double standards are applied, and some editors come here to condemn me for old offenses that were already punished. I won't respond to any further harrassment on this page.Saflieni (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that Saflieni and HoC were able to resolve the content dispute through the ORN thread. While there were a few comments here and there that could be taken as personal attacks, it's somewhat understandable given the level of animosity on display here, and given that the content dispute appears to have been resolved and there have been no attempts to edit war since this discussion was opened, I think that this may be closed without action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill: Respectfully, this ANI is not about one instance of edit-warring but about the fact that it is sheer torture to try to collaborate with Saflieni. The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. Getting compromise on just one sentence took hours of my time and the help of two other editors. And of course he concludes with another blast of PAs: HoC and Buidhe reported me on ANI over the very issue that we've just solved here, which they wrapped in a bundle of fake facts that nobody is going to verify. If there really is a spirit to cooperate they'd have dropped that case by now. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight in anyone's BATTLEGROUND. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Rosguill while the issue is around content, I still do have concerns about Saflieni being able to work WP:CIVILly with other editors. A detailed examination of the conversations on the article talk page, ANI threads and OR thread show that they tend to use a bully approach with other editors by attacking them personally during content discussions and then tend to use a victim approach when cornered by the community. When this was pointed out to Saflieni they equated it to labelling them a liar. See Special:MobileDiff/1000466500, which is a complete mischaracterisation. A WP:TBAN will be appropriate until Saflieni can spend some time to reflect on their self-defeating approach. Vikram Vincent 07:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Vikram Vincent, In order to clear the air I've invited you and others who accuse me of something to come and discuss peacefully the facts of claims such as a bully approach with other editors by attacking them personally during content discussions and then tend to use a victim approach when cornered by the community.. Instead you come here and just repeat the same accusations. Another one responded by making general assertions about "some editors" to avoid having to examine the evidence and facing the possibility they might be wrong. Another one dismisses every factual explanation as "walls of text" or "bullshit" or "shitting on that" or "who the hell cares" etc. and posts one insult after the other without evidence. Who's bullying? Saflieni (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Saflieni I am no longer interested in mediating as I see no substantial behavioural changes on your part. Kindly don't tag me in any more replies. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 09:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Mediation requires taking the arguments of both sides into consideration. You did that on the OR Noticeboard for which I'm very grateful. But on this case you've made yourself part of the dispute last month. Don't pin that on me please. Once people form an opinion, there never seems to be a way back to reality. No amount of evidence is ever enough to change people's minds.Saflieni (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• NB: It is against Wikipedia policy to post falsehoods and insults about someone else, according to WP:IUC. Untrue statements like: The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. violate that policy. The discussion at NORN did not conclude that I violated WP:SYNTH. The edit-war to remove my contribution from the article [42][43][44], should not be twisted into the opposite story. My contribution was already there, so nobody tried to "insert" it. A good example of wasting everyone's time: pretending that a paraphrased sentence from a peer reviewed article is original research of the editor; that a simple list of two concepts is somehow a newly synthesized thesis; starting an edit war over it; starting an ANI over it; having a lengthy discussion at NORN and then misrepresenting the result. Saflieni (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• • @Saflieni: it is not "you" but your text that I said violated SYNTH. As was explained to you, "I do not see the concepts of 'scale' and 'cruelty' in your citations' and later my personal interpretation of WP:NOR is that you should not add any information that is not explicitly stated in the source: you should just restate what the source says. The expressions were kindly and tactful but the meaning was clear: the sentence in dispute violated SYNTH. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

More falsehoods. Quoting someone's error from halfway into the discussion - they overlooked the three examples of RS that explicitly mention 'scale' and 'cruelty' - is disrepectful to that helpful editor and to the readers of this ANI. That same helpful editor concluded: There is ample room for compromise here: the relevant policies do not give a clear answer and it's probably somewhere in between both of your ideas. Last time I asked HoC to stop posting falsehoods I was blocked for that remark. However, the falsehoods never stopped, there are hundreds of examples by now. WP:AGF says: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. So I am asking the same question again. If others keep endorsing that behaviour and prefer to punish me for bringing it up, so be it. Saflieni (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can read the NORN discussion, where less than 24 hours ago Saflieni was accusing Vincentvikram of dishonesty: "accusations that are objectively false" and "calling me a liar ...Endorsing falsehoods and adding to the pile yourself is not helpful towards resolving the problem." Saflieni's response to Robert McClenon's kindly remark about "some editors" is just classic NOTHERE-ism: "Not sure what you're referring to, but a civil way to handle a complaint would be to go over the evidence together and try to resolve the issue. I'm not 'some editors'. I'm an actual person with feelings, thank you.." CS Lewis had a description for this kind of "actual person": someone who bleeds at a touch but scratches like a wildcat. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature. Saflieni has continued to deflect appropriate requests for sources ([45]) and to snipe at HoC ([46] ). I also reviewed the discussion at that talk page in its entirety, and affirm the assessment of other editors that Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. Saflieni has at this point been given more than enough opportunities to bury the hatchet and it seems like a topic ban is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Do it, User:Rosguill! Drmies (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Logged and notified. I've set the scope as "Rwandan history, broadly construed", splitting the difference between calls to t-ban from Rwanda in general and In Praise of Blood specifically. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Can you all please pause and take a look at what you're saying?

1. Vincentvikram: Your repeated accusation of bullying has no evidence. That makes it a personal attack. Besides, read WP:CRYBULLYING please. You refused my offer to discuss the matter peacefully.
2. Robert McClenon's "kindly remarks" (according to HoC) are textbook examples of depersonalizing. That's one step away from dehumanizing. He too did not produce any evidence and refused my offer to discuss the facts of the matter.
3. Rosguill: Your two diffs are not evidence at all. That's misleading. The first diff is me asking HoC why they ask questions that I've already answered many times, latest here: [47]. So your accusation that I deflect requests for sources is a false accusation. The second diff is my response to HoC misrepresenting Claudine Vidal's article, the one I had used as evidence. HoC twisted her information to make it look as though it supports their argument instead of mine. I'm sorry, but that's what HoC specializes in: endless circular discussions, twisting and massaging and inventing facts to push their POV. I don't think that's being cooperative, no.
4. Drmies: You should be ashamed of yourself. Consistently dismissing my contributions and explanations as "walls of text" and "only adding bytes" to make sure everyone knows how worthless you think I am, that nothing I do could ever have any value. Other expression of your demeaning attitude are "bullshit", "shit on that", "who the hell cares", "incessant whining", "gaslighting", and so on, not to mention your evidenceless accusations of misconduct. The worst part of it is that you're an admin in dispute resolution. I'm not claiming innocence to our differences but your routinely jumping to the wrong conclusions and dumping your - pardon my french - merde on me has gone way too far. Just like HoC's persistent attacks against scientists, I can't believe why such hatred is tolerated here on Wikipedia. Saflieni (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, Your insistence that the diff you shared in your response to me was an adequate example of evidence in response HoC's question is the reason that I decided to pull the trigger on this. The article cited in the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda. On its own, this could be taken as a forgivable mistake. Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC, it crosses the line. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Vidal explains carefully how the book develops the double genocide theory. The title is:

Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide. If that's not enough, I'll repeat the quote I used to prove the point:

"It reads like a prosecutor’s closing argument: the massacres are described in such a way as to classify them as genocide. Rever begins with hints, such as a quote from a former RPA soldier stating that the massacre of thousands of people perpetrated in October 1997 was meant to eliminate as much of the Hutu population as possible. Regarding the large-scale killings carried out in 1994 in the Byumba region, in North-eastern Rwanda, another former RPA soldier claims that the leaders of the RPF had settled on the killings as a way to make the land available for Tutsi refugees, formerly exiled in Uganda. According to Rever, the military authorities who organised and committed the massacres therefore took part in a joint criminal enterprise. This legal notion, introduced by the ICTY, was retained by the ICTR. By the conclusion of the book, the hints become an unequivocal statement: “[The] darkest secret that the FPR hid from the international community is that its troops continued to commit genocide against the Hutus in 1994 and throughout the following years.”"

Besides, you ignore every piece of evidence I have posted here and elsewhere. Your diffs aren't valid as I've explained with evidence. What's the point of an ANI if you only have ears for one side? Saflieni (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

One Editor's Comments

Since I was mentioned, I reviewed this ongoing dispute again and will comment. On 22 December, Saflieni was blocked for one week for personal attacks. On 30 December, Saflieni, coming off block, filed a request for arbitration. I said that the dispute appeared to be a content dispute complicated by conduct, and that, at the time, I was not ready to say whose conduct was problematic. I said that there was no need at the time for arbitration because other remedies could be attempted. I recommended at least one Request for Comments. Saflieni made an addendum to their request for arbitration, in which they said that there was no content dispute, but that update was incomprehensible. I had been about to offer to mediate, but then declined to make such an offer. I see that User:Vincentvikram and User:Rosguill have also tried to mediate. Having researched the dispute further, I see that it has been dragging on since the end of November 2020, and it is clear that the editor who is being tendentious and disruptive is Saflieni, who has long lists of grievances, while claiming to be the victim of lies and of personal attacks.

Saflieni claims that I was depersonalizing when I said that some editors who complain about admin abuse are editors who don't want to compromise. I made that statement for two reasons. First, it is true. There are many new editors who complain about admin abuse. Most of them discover that they and Wikipedia don't get along. Second, if anyone says anything specific about User:Saflieni, they complain that they are being personally attacked.

I see that Saflieni has now been topic-banned from Rwandan history, and I concur with that action. I was about to suggest a one-way interaction ban against HouseOfChange and Buidhe, but closing this thread is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In view of the most recent diatribe by User:Saflieni, I recommend a three-day block for incivility and wasting pixels. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• None of you provide any evidence. And none of you address mine. According to WP:NPA some types of comments are never acceptable, such as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Saflieni (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill. You can't ban me over a content dispute, especially since you're ignoring my explanation - again. That's abusing your privileges.Saflieni (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Saflieni - User:Rosguill said:

• • • • They are imposing the ban as a community ban.
      • So the ban can be appealed to the community at WP:AN. That is what Rosguill said.
      • You told the ArbCom that this was not a content dispute. Now you are saying that you should not be banned because this is a content dispute.
      • That inconsistency supports my statement to the ArbCom, which still seems to be valid, that you, User:Saflieni, do not have a clue.
      • One way that clueless editors are dealt with is an indefinite competency block.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Can this thread be closed, please. Vikram Vincent 05:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Query @Rosguill: Is the tban in place already? I find Saflieni making statements like this I think a block may also be necessary as per Robert McClenon Vikram Vincent 12:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Vikram Vincent: the disruption is ongoing in that conversation on User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, with "if regular people back away each time bullies and/or advocates make life difficult it becomes a process of natural selection favouring those attitudes and ideologies"--a set of personal attacks with a demonstrative lack of good faith--and "an admin who had previously inserted themselves as parties in the discussion who blocked/banned me"--a personal attack coupled with a demonstrative lie, since EdJohnston, who blocked Saflieni for personal attacks and harassment, has not ever inserted himself as a party. This is toxic, and it's been going on for way too long. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Vincentvikram, yes, as Drmies stated the ban is already in effect and the comments that Saflieni is making are pushing it. I'm not going to enforce the ban if the discussion stays on Ser Amantio di Nicolao's page, as I think that would be interpreted as vindictive and unnecessary coming from me, but other admins may feel free to impose consequences. If the disruption makes its way to other pages then the need for a block becomes clearer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive and tendentious editing by Mikola22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply

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

Reply II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply III

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

Reply IIII

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

Comment by Peacemaker67

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by WEBDuB

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

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

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

This whole report will remain as a good archive and proof of the existence of a orchestrated smear campaign against the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian. Admins have a great opportunity to show their consistency, impartiality and professionalism. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply

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

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

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

Reply II

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

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

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

Comment by Aca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aca that you are not a WEBDuB her past name is Aca Srbin (in English it means Aca Serb) but he change to WEBDuB to disguise nationalism, [[75]]. You are talking about right-wing administrators in Croatian wikipedia and why don't you say something about the Serbian wikipedia what it says there .So if you are the editor of sr.wikipedia, why don't you write something about Chetnik crimes as it says here [[76]] there is no such thing in [[77]] there is nothing that has been killed: 50,000–68,000 Sandžak: over 5,000 people. It is nowhere in the Serbian wikipedia while in the Croatian wikipedia there is about Ustasha crimes. As for the user WEBDuB, he is also bothered by the pictures of Catholic churches in Croatia, and he tried to erase [[78]] so I have no comment for that editor, and the editor Sadko now put a woman of Croatian origin who went to live in Serbia and got married there, put it as a Serb woman of Serbian origin from Croatia [[79]] and it clearly says that she has Croatian origin on her page [[80]].These are your editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.115.239 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone put a picture of a 19th century church in the chapter about WW2, but they certainly did a good job when they replaced it with a Victory Monument.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What bothers you from Russia is the picture of the cathedral with a landscaped park from the 19th and 20th centuries.It's a 20th century section not just about ww2. If it was a picture of the Orthodox Church, then you wouldn't mind, just as he wouldn't have removed it.93.136.115.239 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you agree. Thanks for your comments.93.136.115.239 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the above IP for 24 hours for hounding WEBDuB and others at Slavonia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: This is likely the long-term abusive IP with a dynamic range that's reported here. --Griboski (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Griboski, noted, if the abuse continues from this address it can be reblocked. I'm not super well-versed in range blocks, but my impression from looking at the listed IP addresses is that the variation in IPs may be too wide to attempt a range block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: @93.136.115.239: I understand your suspicion – I also find it interesting that his account used to be called Aca Srbin. However, the connection between us is practically impossible. You see, WEBDuB (or Aca Srbin) registered on Wikipedia on June 22, 2009, when I was 3 years old. Maybe I'm a prodigy, but to edit Wikipedia at the age of three 😁? Nah. Of course, checkusers are free to conduct investigation if you still doubt. – Aca ^💬 06:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply

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

Arbitrary break

• I'm reviewing past discussions involving Mikola22 at ANI, and it appears that they came very close to receiving a TBAN last time they were brought here, a little under a year ago. My impression of them from having moderated a DRN discussion that they were involved in was that their behavior was consistent with POV-pushing, prioritizing coming to a given conclusion on the content over an evaluation of evidence, and that they continued to advocate for their stances even after their arguments were decisively refuted. Their responses in this thread make it pretty clear that they're more interested in POV tit-for-tat than they are in building an encyclopedia. I think that a topic ban from Balkan topics, broadly construed, would be beneficial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: I agree with you, but first we must see the evidence that I do Pov-pushing. You make request to all(with ping) that this evidence be clearly presented and by numbers to see how many of these edits there are. The last time when editor Sadko report me with 40 diff, administrators also started with some T-Ban suggestions until editor Peacemaker came who concluded that there was nothing or very little in the report. Therefore I would ask that impression be put to one side and that the evidence of mine Pov-pushing be clearly presented in diff of each edit. I think that would be fair. Thanks. Otherwise if I got T-ban based on the same argument which you exposed from a year earlier, the editor Sadko must get the same block since I know his edits which sure go under Pov-pushing. If the final decision after presentation of mine Pov-pushing edits be T-ban please allow me a few days to put all that evidence to talk page of editor Peacemaker because here I only trust him. Mikola22 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• As far as the Balkans, Peacemaker67 primarily edits in the area of WWII Yugoslavia, an area in which Mikola22 doesn't edit very often. His preoccupation is Serbian Medieval and Middle Ages history and Vlachs, which PM isn't involved in. So to be fair, I don't think PM in this case has a good grasp of his editing history or behavior, as Mikola22 might only occasionally appear on his radar. I'd also like to point out that throughout this whole thread, Mikola22 has not actually denied being a SPA devoted to a narrow field of interest. He just continues to argue that he's right in his crusade, but there's no self-reflection on his behavior and the tendentious editing concerns raised here. His comment above that "Serbian POV pushing are slowly breaking down" and others shows how he sees and uses the encyclopedia; as a battleground. --Griboski (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Griboski: It was explained to you in the answer for OyMosby. You promote or defend information's out of context which used and Serbian radicals in Serbian Pov-pushing with claim that Serbs are in Croatia from 822. Second, in your report you listed my three specific Pov-pushing examples which are not Pov-pushing. You did not and exposed my Nazi information's which I enter in the articles. Therefore you have nothing for proving your accusations. Same case and with report of editor Sadko. You too make false accusations. And what I said somewhere I don't know how much that has to do with my editing of articles. Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: Editor Griboski has no evidence in report obout my Pov-pushing or Nazi edits. Therefore, please ask all editors to submit diff evidence of my edits which are Pov-pushing or Nazi promotion edits. There is nothing here. Mikola22 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by OyMosby

Took a long read of this report. I find canvasing that went on here fascinating as an editor account rarely used just appears here, and like the obvious boomeranging happening ignored. Then N IP appears each time another editors claims an IP appears with buse. There is a bigger thing going on then this small part it seems. Being that reports have been weaponized against Mikola22 and other Balkn editors in the past as admins warned his accuser off, and going by the standards used to potentially ban Mikola22, then a number of other editors easily meet the criteria for TBAN “ pretty clear that they're more interested in POV tit-for-tat than they are in building an encyclopedia.” Dig deeper and you will be in shock of what plagued the Balkan Wikipedia for years.

Mikola22 definitely isn’t neutral and has vested interests. But @Peacemaker: was spot on in their take. Except I would not equate @Griboski: with other problematic editors. As I can personally vouch I have worked with them on articles before. Doespite our own pov and biases. We improved a number of articles together. Mikola22 does not fail to completely address all issue put forth. I disagree with Mikola’s “walls of text” style but to be fair when accusing a person of countless things in big walls of text, you have a lot to answer for. I am not defending their hyperfocus on Serbian articles as of late, and obsession with Vlachs which I don’t get as well as roadblocking or bludgeoning a topic as others have poinyed out. Nor am I familiar with non English Wikipedia activities as I don’t speak or read Serbi-Croatian fully. But there are far greater problems on here if this editor is meeting the criteria of topic ban. If Mikola22 is a pro Ustase pro Nazi Genocide denier pov pushing based on such toxic principles then they definitely should be banned. I can’t stand ultranationalists. But if this narrative is not acctually as claimed, then no. Just my take. Honestly I wish professional outsiders could be hired to comb through this part of Wikipedia as are apparently for other Balkan Wikipedias far worse as Griboski correctly mentions. As this drama is tiring. Just my two sense. @Rosguill: I respect your input but I don’t think a T Ban is warranted. As POV pushing is common in the Balkan articles and again, this sets a precedent. Again WP:BOOMERANG is a potential issue for some of the commentors here. (Not the initial reporter however]] and I’m surpised it isn’t seen more obviously. OyMosby (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No OyMosby, @Rosguill is right, we promised a year ago ie we are forgiven for Balkan edit wars(I and editor Sadko). Let be open a new section with specific diff with numbers of my edit Pov-pushing, and I will not have long answers, I only will list the sources which I used and I exposed my motive for edit in a few words. And I'm interested to see mine Pov-pushing but specific edit, and not fairy tales. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OyMosby, I think that setting such a precedent would only be beneficial, as it would allow less combative editors to participate in these topics more easily. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The arguments of the defense, which boil down to WP:BOOMERANG warnings and making a false balance, are all the time misleading. It is natural that everyone has a topic of interest, so there are editors who are pro-Serbian, pro-Croatian, pro-French, etc. The problem arises when someone deals with topics about one ethnic group and country exclusively in a negative context. Maybe pro-Serbian bias can be equated with pro-Croatian, but we must not be equated with anti-Serbian! Especially if the same theories advocated by racial ideologues and fascists are used as arguments. (WP:NONAZIS) From his history of contributions, it can be seen that since the summer, Mikola22 has been constantly editing only Serb-related articles. (WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE) When arguments and messages he wrote on other Wikipedia services are added to that, the matter becomes even more shocking and worrying. Did I, Griboski or anyone else say that someone's entire history is a fabrication, deny the existence of a nation or something like that? Therefore, I ask everyone to stop with the false balance and the story about the existence of some two constantly opposing sides, a possible WP:BOOMERANG, etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: Please let the stories go, list my specific Pov-pushing edits. See below. Thank you in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@WEBuB: please read what I said and not what you think I said. You are ironicly lumping me into a group and equalizing as all the same. I did not ise the boomerang term to defend the accused. I said it in general of the side comments I see. I mention WP BOOMERANG as there are those that preach on a pedestal but only to then expose their own problems. So no I will not shut up about it. I know as a certain someone wrote a horrid attack report against me and it WP:BOOMERANGED right in there face. I won’t go into the toxic details. They know who they are. I wasn’t using it to defend Mikola22. If you read closely I don’t condone his behavior on the article areas and am not defending for Christ sake. I said a T-Ban seemed over the top IF the the Nazi claims are NOT true. I don’t speak the language so I can’t say on other language WP. Editors in this areas keep trying to get the other banned. It’s an ongoing thing. It was general commentary. I’m not equating Mikola22 with everyone. Nor using BOOMERANG as a defense for him or a threat for anyone as I specifically said Griborksi the reporter would not face such issue. I also did not equalize Griboski with anyone. I did the opposite and spoke of their accolades. Please stop going on the offensive and barking and assuming bad faith as usual while telling people to do the opposite. I’ve about had it with all people doing this. It is a fact that PoV pushers of all backgrounds exist in the Balkan area. Sorry but it’s true. Don’t put words in my mouth or twist them. I hope in your section your talk of “smearing of accusing pro-Serbian” editors is not lumping me in. Or Peacemaker67. That just leaves Mikola and the IP so hmm are you smearing Peacemaker and I? That is equalization and smearing itself I will not just sit here and allow. Only if that is what you meant. Perhaps you mean in general but why? The IP and Mikola22 are the only possible explanations you can have. I did not outright defend terrible actions @Rosguill: between your explanation and the replies in example I’m reading under me with people putting words in my mouth and wanting me to be quiet, perhaps you make a very strong case. I’m sure admin @Peacemaker67: would agree. I would also advise Mikola22 to stop writing essays and get to the point. They seem willing now so let’s see them address the issue put forth in clear bullet points. As I had a hard time keeping track. Not sure if you want them to do so here or open a separate case. As this page is a mess. Again to WEBDuB: I AM NOT DEFENDING MIKOLA22’s ACTIONS BUT ABOUT THE FORM OF PUNISHMENT THAT MEETS THE CRIME. Perhaps a temp block for example. Again depends on the what he is accused of as being true and to what extent as there are multiple different events brought up. OyMosby (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I would also advise Mikola22 to stop writing essays and get to the point. What can I say? I edit articles according to the sources, there is not one Pov-pushing edit. And as for the Nazi story, it's a fabrication. For all this claims there is no evidence in Wikipedia articles. Did you and the others understand now? Which Nazi? Show me one information entered in an article which promoting Nazism, there is none. Short and clear. Mikola22 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I don't know if you know what pov-pushing in this case is? This primary information from 822 "and fled over to the Serbs, for which is "said to be as holding the large part of Dalmatia (Roman province)" is Serbian pov-pushing, this is constantly claimed by the Greater Serbian ideologue Vojislav Šešelj that the inhabitants of the Balkan area (Croatia, Bosnia, Croat, Bosniaks) are Catholic and Muslim Serbs and uses this primary source from 822 taken out of context, just as it was in a dozen articles on Wikipedia (out of context). And here editor Griboski claim that my edit for NPOV is pov-pushing. This information from the article without my NPOV edit which defend Griboski is promotion of Greater Serbia ideology and actual Serbian pov-pushing. Mikola22 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby Again WP:BOOMERANG is a potential issue for some of the commentors here. (Not the initial reporter however]] Therefore, with my alleged pov-pushing edits, they are actually protecting their edits and their Serbian pov-pushing and this is actually WP:BOOMERANG issue in report of editor Griboski also. The proof is above. Mikola22 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper of the Serbian Radical Party of Vojislav Seselj, Greater Serbia page 6, and information out of context, as she was in the English Wikipedia supported by Griboski ("the first known historical source(822) which mention Serbs in the territory of Republic of Serbian Krajina"), [81]. This means that Serbs from Croatia are from 822 in Croatia. But history teaches us that they come only 4 or 5 centuries ago. Mikola22 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pov-pushing edit in the articles made by Mikola22

1 through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible [82][83][84][85]

• This information "and fled over to the Serbs, for which is "said to be as holding the large part of (Roman) Dalmatia" is WP:PRIMARY information from 822 which is used out of context. The information's which I entered is for NPOV, and from three RS, one RS is also from Serbian academic. The proof is in diffs.

2 Some scholars based on the claim of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus suggest that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave". English word "slave"

• Information from three RS and historian Colin Wells claim in the RS that it is the opinion of half of scholars. This information is confirmed with edit of editor TU-nor evidence [86], also administrator Vanjagenije was on this article and there was no problem with this edit(see history page)

3Vlachs

• There is nothing for comment here, academic Noel Malcolm(Vlach origin of Serbs), best American book for 1984(Vlachs which become Serbs), Austrian historian Karl Kaser expert for Croatian Military Frontier (Vlachs which become Serbs), Polish historian Ilona Czamańska (Vlach origin of Serbs)etc etc. Article Military Frontier and 10 sources(all RS) which speak that with Serbs and Vlachs are coming to Croatia. These three numbers are concrete Pov-pushing edit according to report of editor Griboski.Mikola22 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

All interested editors can continue exposed my Pov-pushing edits from various articles(with numbers). Edits must be after 20 January 2020 and warning which I and editor Sadko received according to @Rosguill statement. Mikola22 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Ahmet Q.

Reports like this one are better discussed at AE. It is chaotic to go through all the arguments. The accusations against Mikola seem to focus on two aspects of his editing: one is that he edits many Serbia-related articles, the other that he does so solely based on POV pushing. Mikola has made mistakes in the past, but has grown since then and in 2020 his sanctions were lifted. WEBDuB claims that with this edit [87] Mikola violated 1RR sanctions, but that is simply not true because by that time they had been lifted. @Rosguill: some diffs used in this report are just wrong and clearly misleading, that's why I would recommend to take this discussion to AE because it'll allow for them to be reviewed by other admins without the disorganized nature of this report. The fact that the sanctions were lifted shows that Mikola is seen as a user who is good enough for his editing rights to be restored to the level of everyone else.

In 2020, Mikola edited a lot of Serbia-related articles, but not only them and for the most part his edits tackled real problems. Most Serbia-related articles suffer from awful sourcing which I assume is what Peacemaker has called in the report the "Serbian POV". Mikola's attempt to remove such "sources" were unsurprisingly met with opposition from Serbian POV editors, who have unsuccessfully tried, on multiple times, to ban him in the past. WEBDuB and Griboski accuse Mikola of trying to "diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia", but the diffs they provided actually show several POV editors who try to prevent dubious sourcing from being removed. In the diffs about Časlav Mikola is not wrong. He is removing WP:FRINGE content about a Serb presence all over the Balkans, in fact that rhetoric belongs to Greater Serbia propaganda and shouldn't be part of Wikipedia. Mikola has done a lot to correct that, despite the fact that he should have a more civil approach in how he interacts with some editors. It also speaks volumes that the people who cite far right politics in this thread in relation to Mikola are the same people who try to relativize or diminish from various articles the war crimes committed by the Chetniks, a Serb entity of Nazi collaborators in WWII. [88] [89] [90] [91] Peacemaker67 and others have done an excellent job in reducing the POV pushing but if it weren't for them war crimes committed by Serbian armed bands against the other nations and ethnic minorities in ex-Yugoslavia would have been removed a long time ago from Wikipedia. Mikola has improved and keeps improving and has done a lot of good by removing awful sourcing which some users are defending here. Topic Banning him will not help the situation, on the contrary it will give the opportunity to the POV editors to restore fringe content on Wikipedia. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to explain my preoccupation with Serbian articles, there are a lot of problems in them, and whenever I read some article I always come across a problem, or there is no source, or page, or it is not according to the source, original research, information's which need additional NPOV information's, articles which need additional NPOV information's, etc. And our job here is to improve the articles and I do that. Mikola22 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and for looking into this more closely. Needless to say, I endorse these observations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I think that moving to close this discussion and referring editors to AE for any further dispute is likely appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

if it weren't for them war crimes committed by Serbian armed bands against the other nations and ethnic minorities in ex-Yugoslavia would have been removed a long time ago from Wikipedia. Please don't make such slanderous accusations. I can't speak for WEBDuB but I believe his intentions are in good-faith. The idea that the Chetniks committed genocide is something that was added less than a year ago and is a source of legitimate debate whether most historians see it that way and whether Wikpedia should reflect the wider historiographical consensus or what a handful of mainly Balkan historians say. In fact, Buidhe, a user who is a valuable contributor to the topic of genocide on the encyclopedia is against it. For myself, if I ever intended to hide Serbian war crimes, I would not be making edits like this, which put Serbian forces or regimes in a bad light. 1 2 3 Furthermore, the way Mikola's editing is depicted here, in my opinion, is actually a whitewash of the reality, as presented in the thread. --Griboski (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t believe Buidhe was “against” acknowledging that it was a genocide but hesitant in the beginning. When removing genocides from the Genocide list he didn’t remove that one. As there are multiple RS cited for it. He is also not a sole historian. @Peacemaker67: is a major contributor and practically an expert of WWI Yugoslavia and supports the notion it was genocide. Calling out editors as examples isn’t really serving a purpose here. I also don’t get this “brought up this year” only as relevant or a counter argument to change or evolution of articles as the Genocide of Serbs page was “The persecution of Serbs” only a couple years ago. (Not comparing the two as the same at all : Disclaimer) Wikipedia is ever evolving. This is about Mikola22. OyMosby (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chetniks topic was brought up, therefore it deserved a reply. Buidhe's stance is clear 1 2 3 If only non-Partisan and non-Balkan editors participated, it would be 1-1 and no consensus. --Griboski (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am saying the topic in general shouldn’t even be brought up in the first place. And weight and number of RS sources matter not votes or number of determined “non-Partisan” editors. I would say Peacemaker is non-Partisan and he is not connected to the Balkans. A number of other uninvolved editors agree with it being labeled genocide. So it really wouldn’t be 1-1. Peacemaker has been accused of being Pro Serb, Pro Croat, you name it he’s been labeled it. Buidhe has been involved in the subject matter of WWII Yugoslavia crimes for the past year now. So he is as involved as well. I see your point that Buidhe has a stance of it being a conflicting topic. But he doesn’t deny it. As a diffs of yours show he says it has conflicting sources. Again as I said, he doesn’t seem necessarily deny it in totality. I didn’t imply or mean to imply he was for it completely either. Again, lets stick with the topic of this thread. This goes for everyone. Including me so I will shut up now about this off topic matter. OyMosby (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion on the Chetniks war crimes page, although on the List of Genocides talk page, there are more editors who have expressed concerns via the "thank" button but didn't participate. The reality is that the number of votes alone are still highly valued in discussions. The issue was on how much weight to put on the sources specifying genocide. My only concern was for NPOV and that the encyclopedia reflects the general academic view on it. This is indeed neither here nor there for this discussion though. --Griboski (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of “thank” button specifically. And this pertains to anyone, Per the Wiki Like page description, “ It should not be taken as a stamp of approval or as public endorsement of the edit. It does not mean your edit is "right" or that it represents consensus. It does not replace the need to discuss on Talk pages.” So the one uninvolved editor that did not partake in the conversation thanking you during that time about listing on the death toll page isn’t a strong metric. And seems they didn’t agree enough to say anything. A number of Serbian and other Balkn editors would always remind on talk pages that this is not a democratic vote. It doesn’t go by majority rule. Same as delete pages. Vote can be 20:1, but the 20 can still lose the discussion. It’s why canvassing has always been a ridiculous tool. I have received thanks from uninvolved editors on the same page but really it means little as it doesn’t help the talk page. I would contact them asking what they are tanking me for exactly or what part. Engagement does. Same thing here. I’ve thanked some of your edits but also engage to express what I agree with you about. Again, I am talking strictly about the thanking and using it as a metric for consensus or a argument. I wish people would partake instead of simply thanking. It doesn’t help much and frustrates me as I wish the person(s) thanking me would participate. I think we would both agree on that. Might as well put up an anonymous poll RfC. Here I am going off a new track. My OCD I guess. Hehe. OyMosby (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Tezwoo

This is yet another attempt to remove an editor that the users in question (who have been a subject of reports regarding nationalistic pro-Serbian POV pushing recently, both Griboski and WEBDuB [92]) have disputes with and gain an advantage in this topic area, with cherrypicked and misinterpreted diffs. I'll just take one example as a lot has already been written. Taking advantage of the fact that Mikola's English is not the best in the world, Griboski in point number 3 cut Mikola's sentence in half and gave it a completely different meaning, as Mikola also wrote that the same thing would apply to Croats if we followed historical documents to the word: "also it would not be and and small part of Croats. We would have Vlachs." This patern is evident across this report. And this attempt to paint Mikola as a fascist is ridiculous as he is the editor that in the last year probably wrote most about the anti-fascist struggle during WW2 in Yugoslavia of all of Balkan editors. Anyway, I agree with what Peacemaker, Ahmet Q, and OyMosby wrote. Tezwoo (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The information he's added regarding the anti-fascist struggle have all been about Croatia's contribution. Meanwhile, his edits to the Yugoslav Partisans article regarding Serbia's contribution has been about diminishing its contribution. 1 2 Even though he was told that brigades and detachments aren't a good metric for measuring contributions to the movement. 3

My point regarding the fascism aspect here is not that Mikola22 is a fascist but that far-right sentiments and poor sourcing on CW have clearly had an impact on him as that's where he first edited, even by his own admission. That has bled into the English Wikipedia and his POV is clearly demonstrated here. Denying the CW's historical revisionism and negation and far-right slant is ridiculous since it has been well covered.

The report you linked to shows Tuvixer with one problematic diff of mine, which for all intents and purpose was a misunderstanding and a mistake on my part when there wasn't a citation to the text. Regarding nationalistic POV-pushing, you yourself have removed negative information in the past from Croatian right-wing and far right individuals but let's not go there. --Griboski (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

his edits to the Yugoslav Partisans article regarding Serbia's contribution has been about diminishing its contribution. What would you like, that I invent a larger number of anti-fascists in Serbia or more Partisan units ie write something which is not true? I found this information and sources and there are no others. You find those sources and edit the article. It is not my fault that there was less anti-fascist resistance in Serbia. I will stick to the source and you increase the contribution of the anti-fascist struggle in Serbia. Mikola22 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic composition of Partisans during the entire course of the war: 53% Serb, 18.6% Croat. Shame you can't distort that. I'm sure you'll do your best. --Griboski (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Griborski: I think he is talking about Serbia. There isn’t much of a Croat population in Serbia. Also per capita, it’s all relative as there were more than twice as many Serbs than Croats if we look at all of Yugoslavia’s population. As for the number of Yugoslav Serbs outside Serbia vs in Serbia I have no clue and this can be taken by Mikola22 to the relevant page. Admins don’t care about this here. However @Mikola22: is not understating the non-Partisan Anti Fascist movement in Serbia through the Chetniks of which many Serbs joined. So to say the anti fascist movement by Serbs in Serbia was anything short of massive is ridiculous. Germans were massacring Serbs en mass. Commen sense alone can tell him there was a huge Serb anti fascist movement as they were one of the biggest targets and number of victims killed. I don’t get his logic or what he is trying to say. Mikola22 the hell are you talking about? OyMosby (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:Commen sense alone can tell him there was a huge Serb anti fascist movement as they were one of the biggest targets and number of victims killed What does that have to do with my edit about the Anti-Fascist movement in Serbia? Find sources and put information to the article. Who is stopping you? I found nothing except what writes in Yugoslav sources. I don't know what you're interested in? As for @Griboski, "According to Tito, by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croats"...shame you for distort that, and shame of editor Sadko and his Pov-pushing(support in edit)which make a minority out of the great contribution and sacrifice of the Croatian anti-fascists. Do not diminish the Croatian anti-fascist contribution and portray us as Nazis and Fascists. And in that sense, I entered a lot of new information's, which obviously bothers you because the image that Croats are exclusively Nazis is collapsing. Mikola22 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Theonewithreason additional diffs

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 After very quick search it is easy to find that Mikola22 shoved multiple times a behaviour that already blocked him 5 times. About Serbs are Slaves theory. First additional diff shows that Mikola22 just recently tried to edit this on main article about Serbia. Imagine to go and search on Wikipedia basic information about some country and one of the first information you read is that its inhabitants are slaves. This was followed by numerous interventions of Croatian and Serbian editors on different pages and TP who tried to explain that this theory is false but Mikola22 still does not give up which can been seen even in this report. Griboski pointed out that perfectly in his report. Second diff shows that Mikola22 removes any mention of Serbs in Croatia even if they are reliable. He still tries to prove that Serbs are Vlachs even though this theory was frequently used against Serbs in WW2 by Ustasa and Nazi regime. Third diff is particularly troublesome. Mikola22 posted information that does not exists in sources about population of one Serbian province during Ottoman rule. Source only speaks about 15% Vlach inhabitants, additional info about 85% Turcoman population is made up and only proves that Mikola22 supports idea that Serbs do not exists as a nation but are combination of Turcs and Vlachs. This theory is widespread among Balkan far right extremists. Editor Nicoljaus noticed it and removed it. Red flags are everywhere Mikola22 is WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopaedia but to use it as a battlefield which can been seen even in this report. Not to mention WP:Bludgeon behaviour he shows on every TP and even here I support administrator @Rosguill: that topic ban regarding related Balkan topics, broadly constructed, would be beneficial. This WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour needs to be stopped.Theonewithreason (talk) 12 January 2021 (UTC)

He still tries to prove that Serbs are Vlachs even though this theory was frequently used against Serbs in WW2 by Ustasa and Nazi regime. Unfortunately, this is what academics and various historians say, and we must respect and that information for NPOV. You must also know that the Croats in the sources(primary and secondary) are Vlachs, in the area of central Croatia, the whole Dalmatia, Herzegovina etc. Therefore, by promoting the thesis that the Vlachs are Serbs we denied part of Croats and Bosniaks as a nation. Even Serbian radical and anti Croat, anti Ustaša, Vojislav Šešelj says himself that we must "respect the Vlachs as our ancestors, because, as he said, we are "all a bit Vlachs". [93] Mikola22 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Maleschreiber

Methodology: Reports which aren't filed at AE often spiral out of control because they face no admin oversight about comment size limit, diff relevance, WP:NOTFORUM and use of examples. The main characteristic of Balkan reports is the instrumentalization of the report, sources, diffs and arguments.

Examples: Mikola22 - who has since changed course - once put forward the idea that most Serbs of Bosnia are of Vlach origin and Serbian editors claimed that most are of Serb origin. What bibliography discusses is somewhere in the middle. To take a part of Mikola's comments - as Tezwoo highlighted - and claim that he was putting forward an "anti-Serbian" theory is misleading. The other example cited by all Serbian editors is that Mikola22 used as a reference the 10th century document De Administrando Imperio (DAI) and claimed that the ethnonym "Serbs" means "serfs". I strongly opposed the use of DAI without secondary bibliography. But what's interesting is that now the editors who hold a Serbian POV are using the same DAI to put forward fringe theories which suit their POV. Theonewithreason has a recent editing history of almost only reverts of DAI after Mikola22 removed them [94]. This is the instrumentalization of bibliography. Mikola22's past mistakes in the use of bibliography which don't justify a topic ban in themselves are used as arguments against him in the present, but bad use of the same WP:PRIMARY document is spreading via edit-warring in support of a particular POV. The difference is that Mikola22 now knows that he shouldn't use it and is trying to improve the project by removing it.

Ahmet Q. highlighted that editors who accuse Mikola22 and try to link him to a particular political line are the same people who try to relativize or diminish from various articles the war crimes committed by the Chetniks, a Serb entity of Nazi collaborators in WWII. Griboski argued that just based on the sentiments expressed by Mikola22, WP:NONAZIS should have been applied to him a long time ago. but now that Ahmet Q. challenged him, Griboski claims that The information he's added regarding the anti-fascist struggle have all been about Croatia's contribution. and My point regarding the fascism aspect here is not that Mikola22 is a fascist but that far-right sentiments and poor sourcing on CW have clearly had an impact on him. I don't think that in the context of an AE report, these accusations and their later refactoring would ever emerge because editors who file reports at AE are aware of the potential consequences of the arguments they put forward. ANI is rather unrestricted in what is and what isn't allowed - the reason why all Balkan editors use ANI to ask for other Balkan editors to get topic banned, but nobody uses WP:AE (except for Peacemaker67!). The discussion should be closed as "no action". A report with diffs and an organized discussion under strict admin oversight for all those involved may be filed at AE, if any editor decides to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Aca, Griboski and I showed more than enough diffs and evidence that Mikola22 behaviour has not changed. Almost all of them happened in 2020. It is easy to find even more. This behaviour is much different than usual and should not be supported Theonewithreason (talk) 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber The part about Mikola22 adding content about the anti-fascist struggle in Yugoslavia was mentioned by Tezwoo and my response was to him; it has nothing to do with Ahmet's comment. So that's misleading to frame it the way you did. The point was that even that is done through a POV (to demonstrate somehow that Croats were bigger anti-fascist than Serbs) as shown above and doesn't make him look any better. Most of the stuff on meta.wiki is old and stale yes, but the equivalent of the Draganović and Jasenovac diffs for a non-Balkan person would be citing someone like Hans-Ulrich Rudel and then agreeing that about 10,000 people died at Auschwitz based on the writings of a far-right wacko because no one has disproven his stats. --Griboski (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Vlachs Article Statuta Valachorum which concerns Croatian history is in the English Wikipedia until I came in fact introduced as "Serbian Statutes" although in reality majority of the population under that law is the non-Serb population(Croatian local population also under Vlach name). The question is whether Serbs as Serbs or Racs were mentioned there(in larger numbers) at that time at all (lack of primary sources in historiography). And guess who's talking about Statuta Valachorum as "Serbian Statutes", Serbian radical and war criminal Vojislav Šešelj. It is a one-sided history which is also being promoted on the English Wikipedia. Newspaper of the Serbian Radical Party, Greater Serbia (2009) page 4, (Serbian laws ie in Latin Statuta Valachorum) [95] Mikola22 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Griboski: You called for a tban linked to WP:NONAZIS and refactored it after it became clear that it's a very shaky narrative. A report at AE wouldn't accept such arguments or refactoring. You have to bring diffs that justify a particular topic ban or not file the report at all. You can't refactor your arguments as it progresses. And you still haven't removed from your report the false narrative that Mikola22 is under 1RR sanctions.

Some Serbs in Bosnia are of Vlach origin, some aren't. It isn't "anti-Serbian" or "pro-Serbian" propaganda and reports can't be filed based on how some editors perceive some theories which challenge their own national narratives. I know that it's hard to accept some things - the Balkans produce more history than they can consume - but try to see things from the other side. Many edits which you are putting forward about Mikola22 are either edits you too have made or edits which Mikola22 hasn't put forward in a long time or edits about which Mikola22 is right and you are wrong like when you put forward the fringe theory about Serbs becoming Catholics in Croatia in the 1990s[96][97]. These are avoidable mistakes - there was no need for Peacemaker67 to intervene and remind everyone that there have to be WP:RS[98].

And don't take my comment as meaning that Mikola22 is generally right and you are generally wrong. It's not about the "right narrative", but about how to use bibliography. If you want to discuss it at AE, file a report and admins will discuss it without the background noise of ANI. Side comment: By replying to every comment, you're making the report TL;DR and inaccessible. There's no need for that. Good day to you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm and Polish historian Ilona Czamańska claim that Serbs are of Vlachs origin but also they claim that ( Czamańska.."majority of the population from Bosnia and Herzegovina in general are Vlachs origin") (Malcolm.. "Vlachs mostly in Croatia converted to the Catholic faith, and many of them in Bosnia converted to Islam".) The historical fact is that part of the Croats are also originally of Vlach origin but Vlachs are not Serbs and promotion of one-sided information(Vlachs are Serbs) in articles must be in the NPOV. For this we have 10 quality sources from strong historians which must be presented and this NPOV bothers someone and for that reason they invents some "Nazi" motives. Mikola22 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Santasa

I have experienced quite a few problematic encounters with Mikola when he first appeared in early fall of 2019. However, Mikola today is much different editor from Mikola back then, in a sense that he significantly improved his knowledge and understanding about dynamics and inner workings of the project, and changed his attitude both in editing and communication in positive direction. If he sometimes still show signs which could be interpreted either as passionate engagement, or stubbornness, or disruption, it depends on who looks at it and how, but ultimately evidence(s) should be presented, nevertheless, that still is not a reason for unilateral TBAN (regardless of duration). This editing and behavioral progression line clearly shows in the very diffs posted by reporting party - good portion of diff's are taken from Mikola's beginnings in a fall of 2019 to early 2020, while more recent ones don't show much evidence of some transgression. So, it took relatively long time and few ANI's like this for him to straighten himself, and learn and understand that all those hundreds of pages of guidelines and policies are not there for decoration, and that other editors and admins really read them and rely on them for work on the project, and not using them to scare editors with whom they may disagree. As he was realizing that fact along the way, it was obvious that he was also starting to read policies and guidelines and apply them. His knowledge of English is also a limiting factor for him, and he probably (I actually witnessed first hand that he does) writes, from time to time, something that gets misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, while he misinterpret and misunderstand some things. Important thing should be that after this ANI is over, and if Mikola does not get banned, that he does not gets away from here with a sense of victory, instead to understand this as a reason to discipline himself even further. And those old diff's may have already been used in ANI's at the time, so it would be highly inappropriate to reuse them again and again, and base any new discussion on already discussed diff's every time someone experiencing inconvenience encountering Mikola on article and TP. I experienced some hard time in trying to resolve issues with him for months back in 2019, however that gradually, slowly and steadily, discontinued.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

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

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

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

Dinglelingy you didn't "notify" me. And I didn't "accuse" you of being a sockpuppet, but asked you (once) whether you were the same as another user[99] -- it just struck me as odd you appeared from nowhere in the middle of an exchange and seemed to be responding as if continuing that user's conversation. Sometimes new users don't understand that it's problematic having multiple accounts, and have a less thorough grasp of the WP:PAGs, when new, than you evidently did.[100] Anyway, I was happy to accept your response, which you already gave. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is ridiculous.

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

Statement from Britishfinance

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely not. There is a proper procedure for handling socketpuppet concerns. Bringing them up in the middle of a discussion is not one of them and was a blatant action to discredit my account and the other editor. Your motive is irrelevant. In fact, you repeating your motive here and attempting to add my name to the topic ban discussion below makes the case. I'd suggest the only bans to be handed out are to those editors who continue to use threats of bans in discussions, make accusations of sockpuppetry in discussions, and who advocate POV with bullying tactics instead of sources in discussions.

The proper response is sorry, I should not have done that. I understand how that can stifle discussion and consensus making. Not weasel words claiming you did not do what you did, that it was justified anyway, and I want you banned from the topic in the future.

And I will remind other editors, that Alexbrn has now made sockpuppet accusations again in open discussion after being warned here. Neither him nor Britishfinance seem to get it.

I will not withdraw the accurate description of your actions nor my complaint. In fact, based on your response, I suggest harsh penalties.Dinglelingy (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a disappointing response. Your allegation has been shown to be incorrect, but you double down and look for "harsh penalties". Your response underlines my concern that you are not suited to editing on the area of WP:FRINGE, where you, and ScrupulousScribe, have adopted the same approach of ignoring what other editors have tried to exhaustively explain to you regarding sourcing, and WP:MEDRS in particular, to advocate your own POV. The subject is an important and evolving topic area, however, I believe you are not suited to it. Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for ScrupulousScribe

• ScrupulousScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support as proposer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
• Support. This user has some other concerning behavioral issues, but a topic ban is a good start. If you take a look at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user has issues with responding to every comment, responding verbosely, and not respecting consensus. He is taking up a large amount of editor time and talk page space. I would also support a broader topic ban on all COVID-19 topics. I also support investigating this user's sockpuppet behavior. I also support a topic ban for Dinglelingy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and agree with Novem_Linguae on their extension to all COVID topics, and include Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that this user has barely participated in the discussion, other than to "rubbish" my claims with strong language, and accusations of sock puppetry; indicating a clear bias. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per my clear statement above, I accused nobody of sockpuppetry or used strong language (or did I use the word "rubbish"). I am (largely) uninvolved, but from a reading of ScrupulousScribe, and Dinglelingy, in Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, it is clear that they are on a single issue crusade to override WP:MEDRS to get their WP:FRINGE theory legitimized via Wikipedia. They will confront anybody who gets in their way (hence this bogus ANI). There is a consistent and sustained use of WP:IDHT and WP:SEALIONING. This is an important and evolving topic area (i.e. origins of COVID), but ScrupulousScribe, and Dinglelingy, are not suited to editing on it. Britishfinance (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, this user appears to me to have followed the community guidelines and engaged in civil discussion. I fail to see how a topic ban is deserved in this case, since it should only be awarded on clear cases of disruptive behaviour. ScrupulousScribe behavior seems constructive, productive, and well intentioned, at least in my opinion. Forich (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Comment. ScrupulousScribe has been blocked indefinitely for copyvio by an admin. I wouldn't mind keeping this discussion going though, because of possible socks and other issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Indefinite might not be very long - it just means the duration is currently, well, not defined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

  I've unblocked now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose There is nothing wrong with an editor focusing on a specific topic or category of articles. Also, the editor seems to be working in good faith and clearly has found some WP:RS (Bloomberg for example is a Wikipedia perennial reliable source) despite this appearing like a fringe theory on its face. Stricter sourcing might be needed but this is not egregious enough to warrant a ban. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Bloomberg story cited above describes it as a conspiracy theory. It's as fringe now as it ever was, and the existence of news stories talking about it doesn't change that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. ScrupulousScribe has made some new user mistakes but I am outraged by the bullying he has been subjected to. Its the whole reason I got involved in this discussion. He seems to have been working in good faith and trying to follow the rules while being subjected to an onslaught of ban threats and personal attacks by other editors failing to follow the rules. If there are any bans to be handed out they should be to the experienced editors who should know better. Dinglelingy (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This user only made 13 edits to two pages since their account creation prior to the 6th of January, when they also became fixated on advocating the lab leak theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support orginal tban proposal. SS has certainly engaged in a civil manner, but the ban reason is not incivility, and WP:Civil POV pushing is a thing. SS is, in my view, a disruptive presence on that article. They link to sources they haven't read, make points that blatantly fail Wikipedia policies, and that's okay (editors aren't expected to know everything) as long as they listen to arguments that tell them what the issue is, and either amend their argument to address, say why that argument is wrong, or simply walk away/ignore. They do not. They ignore the points, make a different point, let that point get refuted, and then come back to the same original refuted point, force editors to refute that again, and then rinse and repeat. This is simply disruptive, and a waste of editors' time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I forget to mention: there's also misrepresentation of sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support, per ProcrastinatingReader above. Note only is WP:Civil POV pushing unacceptable, but in this case it concerns a loony discredited conspirancy theory regarding COVID. We should have zero tolerance policy regarding trying to use Wikipedia for propagarting this kind of harmful gargbage, and people who try to peddle it here absolutely don't deserve WP:ROPE. A note to the admins reviewing this thread. The pages in question, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic are already subject to WP:ACDS, as notices at the top of their talk pages indicate. If this thread does not result in a formal community topic ban, any uninvolved admin still can, and in my opinion should, issue page and talk page blocks using the discretionary sanctions available. Also, a formal notification notice probably needs to be left at the user talk page of ScrupulousScribe regarding the existence of discretionary sanctions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case. Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  The GS for COVID certainly applies, under the same regime rules, and the editor is aware. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92, you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should go down the route taken by Twitter, Facebook and Google, and ban certain views. Such a course of action would be a very dangerous development and would be at odds with WP:NOTCENSORED. Arcturus (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is about material that some may find objectionable like language or images, although the encyclopedia is also not a WP:FREESPEECH platform. This is not about censorship but about preventing disruption and unnecessary time loss. Talk page posts are to be eventually archived not suppressed, as for article content it should reflect the conclusions of reliable sources without unduely promoting speculation. —PaleoNeonate – 22:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• We don't ban views per se, but we absolutely place sharp restrictions on how WP:FRINGE topics can be covered to prevent Wikipedia from being used to promote them, and more broadly our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and so on functionally place restrictions on how we can cover certain topics (eg. things that are clearly identified as conspiracy theories in the sources have to be covered as such, and can't be covered in a way that risks promoting them.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Nsk92 is making a false claim by saying that I propagated "loony discredited conspiracy" theories, and likely hasn't read the discussion on the abovementioned talk pages. From the very start of the conversation, I have only ever held that the lab leak theory be considered with due weight as per WP:DUE, based on reliable sources, as per WP:RS. The accidental release of a virus of natural origin should not be conflated with fringe claims that the virus was created in a laboratory as a bioweapon and deliberately leaked, as proposed by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, and Luc Montagnier, which have been disproven and retracted, respectively.

In the past twenty-four hours, a number of new reports from reliable sources, including The Australian (here), have confirmed that the WHO will consider a lab leak as part of its investigations. There is also a report in the Financial Times and an opinion piece in Bloomberg.

This is a controversial issue folks, and we would all do well not to conflate legitimate scientific inquiry with "loony discredited conspiracy" theories.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As I understand it, there were at least two lab leaks for the original SARS and the possibility has not been ruled out for the current SARS 2. There's a WHO team assembled to investigate this on the ground but they have not yet been admitted by China. The topic is therefore still a work-in-progress and it is too soon to be making definitive findings and statements. As this is a high-profile and developing topic, new editors should therefore be given reasonable freedom to hash this out without heavy-handed sanctions. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: per ProcrastinatingReader and Novem Linguae. They summed this up well and no need to repeat it. Editors that are here with a POV mission are almost always counterproductive in that area and often timesinks.   // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that ProcrastinatingReader and Novem Linguae have barely participated in the discussion, which is about the lab leak theory and whether it should be considered misinformation or conspiracy, or not. There is a virbant discussion as to whether WP:MEDRS applies, as the topic should not be considered Wikipedia:Biomedical information (its not a medical claim). Furthermore, the only two WP:MEDRS sources provided to support the claim that the lab leak theory is misinformation and or conspiracy are here and here, and while the authors of these papers consider a zoonotic jump to be the most likely scenario, they specifically say that lacking evidence for the former scenario, other scenarios, such as an "accidental laboratory escape", do in fact "remain reasonable". I have repeatedly stuck to my position that calling the lab leak theory "misinformation" and/or a "conspiracy theory", is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I hope this clarifies the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I see some opposed votes on the basis that the editor is new, but this is precisely why a topic ban remains a better approach than a more general WP:NOTHERE block that could eventually result. It would allow the opportunity to edit on less sensitive topics. While my participation at related articles was limited, it was not difficult to predict eventual trouble considering the sustained advocacy at several related articles (after the multiple-declined Draft). —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't need a topic ban to enable him to edit on less sensitive topics. This topic ban proposal is quite bizarre. The editor has not disrupted any articles, save for one minor case of 'edit warring', which was hardly edit warring at all. It seems the main argument for the ban revolves around material on Talk pages. Well, no one is forced to respond to content placed on article Talk pages. If anyone feels it's disruptive they are free to ignore it. Arcturus (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest would be a better way for them to move on to another topic and hopefully beyond WP:TE? Is source misrepresentation acceptable on Wikipedia, for instance? —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, My draft was declined twice on copyright grounds, and twice on grounds that it should be merged with the "Misinformation" page, where I took up the discussion on if/how to spin off the topic covered there. The discussion has turned into a debate on Wikipedia Policy, as to which sources are considered reliable, given that it is a controversial subject with very fine nuances, and the main participants in that discussion continue to engage, and I trust that we will soon reach a consensus. However, there are editors who have dropped into the discussion only to offer rebuke, such as Britishfinance and ProcrastinatingReader, dismissing my views with derogative statements, rubbishing my sources without reason, and then show up here to support a topic ban proposed by another uninvolved party (who dropped in only to claim that he has swatted away other users on this topic). As for my draft, it was reviewed by two admins yesterday, and they have it will be undeleted soon. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note ScrupulousScribe now seems to have given up on WP:AFC and is creating new articles directly in mainspace. The latest is The Cambridge Working Group, about a "biosafety" group, which is largely unsourced. From a quick look, apparently only one of the cited sources makes a brief mention of this group. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from COVID-19 topics. I was unsure about this, but following the latest screed[101] it's evident that ScrupulousScribe is in full-on WP:BATTLEGROUND mode and either ignoring or not-comprehending the WP:PAGs (specifically, WP:MEDRS) to further their (yes) crusade to push the lab leak "theory" into Wikipedia with undue prominence. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You accused me of "casting around" to find sources to fit my POV, and question me and another users of being socks, since we dared to have a different POV as you.

"The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step."

When I call you out on doing the same thing (providing two very poorly selected sources that do not supersede existing sources provided already on the page), you resort retire from the conversation, and support a topic ban.

Though I have always found you abrasive, in how you rubbished my sources from the start, I always tried to remain polite and explain my position.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How are recent, secondary, academic, peer-reviewed journal articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals, specifically on the topic of the origin of the virus (e.g. PMID 32920565.) "very poorly selected sources"? This distortion of basic facts about sourcing is concerning - you just seem to be switched to transmit and saying anything - and at great length - to try to advance your POV. Editors are already stretched thin on the COVID topics without having to waste time dealing with this kind of BS. This a reason why the topic is under sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Egads what a massive sealion campaign, yes topic-ban from all covid19-related pages. Let's see if they can contribute meaningfully in other topics areas. ValarianB (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note. It seems increasingly when ScrupulousScribe supposes an editor an opponent, they go personal. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And you don't get personal? You also accused me of being a possible sock of another user, said I was "casting around to find sources" to support my POV, and misrepresent sources to your position in clear violation of WP:NOR. It is completely impossible to reason with you as only you can determine what classifies as legitimate MEDRS sources, and what doesn't, and any attempt to provide a counter opinion is met with WP:CREEP. Currently, you are proposing two new WP:MEDRS sources, which contradict other WP:MEDRS sources, but which support your POV? At the core of the issue here is that you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources to support your position that Covid-19 should be considered "misinformation" and/or "conspiracy theory", while you discount WP:MEDRS sources offered to give a contrarian POV. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's so fucked-up for a moment I wonder whether it's deliberate trolling. Anyway, TBAN requested - an admin is going to need to consider all this. I shall not respond to you further here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe said, At the core of the issue here is that you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources to support your position that Covid-19 [lab leak theory] should be considered "misinformation" and/or "conspiracy theory"

The source that is currently in the article, a review article (meets WP:MEDRS) couldn't be clearer. Quote from the source:

The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.

WP:MEDRS is very important for determining how much weight to give this lab leak idea. This review article states as fact that COVID came from bats, and that all other ideas should be regarded as conspiracy theories. The lab leak idea should get a one paragraph mention in the misinformation article, and that's that. Not the ridiculous 19 paragraphs that it was at previously, and that people are edit warring to put back in as we speak. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fact: The virus is widely acknowledged have come from bats. You won't find anything in the Lab Leak Theory that would indicate otherwise. The excerpts you pasted from the paper that Alexbrn brought up, creates a false dichotomy of "bat origins vs lab origins", which isn't something I or anyone else proposed. The lab leak theory proposes that a bat coronavirus undergoing gain of function of studies at a laboratory in Wuhan, may have escaped (accidental leak). After all, it is well documented that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was performing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses, and it is also well documented that viruses have escaped from labs.

In Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology, I replied to Alexbrn, asking him why is digging up these papers and making this false association, to which he hasn't responded, and he is instead derailing the discussion by saying my questions are "fucked up", accusing me of trolling, and of course questioning my motives. Prior to that, Alexbrn proposed that we find the WP:BESTSOURCES so as to steer away from controversy, but instead of providing the two most cited papers on the topic, written by the most authoritative authors on the topic, provided by Thucydides411, namely the Anderson et al paper and Ralph Baric et al paper, he digs up two obscure papers from authors in Greece in India no one with no established authority, just because of some wordplay between "Covid-19" and "conspiracy" in their contents. Considering that the Anderson paper is very much the gold standard for those proposing the zoonitic jump theory, along with Baric's paper, it makes no sense to bring along these two new papers, unless it specifically to support a certain POV, which the former papers would otherwise not support. Indeed, neither Anderson or Baric's papers discount the possibility of a lab leak, and most definitely do not call the lab leak theory conspiracy (which I pointed out to Alexbrn earlier in the conversation).

It may very well be that Alexbrn has made significant contributions to Wikipedia and is more familiar with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines than I am, but the intellectual dishonesty on show here is simply astounding and not what I expected of Wikipedia. I do not believe that a capable and competent admin who reads the entire thread in Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic would miss what I am pointing out to you, and also catch on to his WP:CREEP. At almost every critical junction in our conversations, he has used his "superior" understanding of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to offer rebuke, discount contrarian views, and nullify reliable sources provided. It hasn't even been possible to discuss how WP:MEDRS fully applies to a subject that doesn't classify as Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Discussing policy requires a certain level of good faith and intellectual honesty that has been completely missing here from the very start of the conversion with him.

I wonder how much of our conversation you Novem_Linguae actually read, and why you are only chipping in now?

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The papers you keep saying are the "gold standard" are (for the nth time), not WP:MEDRS. We want review articles, and ... we have them now. We don't reject such high-quality sources because authors are Greek or Indian (what's your logic there?); as MEDRS says: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections". The fact you keep invoking WP:CREEP in a way which shows you either haven't read it or understood, at a very basic level, what it means, is is an informative exemplar of the problem here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Anderson et al paper and Ralph Baric et al are not WP:MEDRS sources? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PMID 32284615 is a letter to the editor; PMID 32392464 is classed as a comment. Neither is a secondary source as needed by WP:MEDRS. We want review articles (or better) - and there now at least 3 of these available on this topic, so no excuse to use these lesser sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, said PMID 32284615 and PMID 32392464 are MEDRS sources earlier in the conversation, and then you announced they're not, and instead you provide two other sources, which seem to indicate your POV, based on comments taken out of context. Whether MEDRS is even applicable here is a matter of debate, as there are no MEDRS sources that can fully prove or disprove any origin scenario of the virus, though there are a few like this one that make the case that it could have happened, without attempting to prove it (as it is but a theory). Based on your reply to Arcturus, I can see you are ready to dismiss the matter of how a lab leak of a virus with natural origin may be possible, which calls into question whether you acting in good faith. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet again you link to a much-discussed non-WP:MEDRS source, wrongly saying it is MEDRS, and then top it off with a personal attack. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban after reading this conversation and the discussion on the article talk page. This editor is a tenacious and tendentious POV pusher trying to draw greater attention to a fringe theory using poor sources. The editor refuses to listen to helpful input from experienced editors and engages in one of the most common tactics of tendentious editors - repeating the same point over and over and over again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is an effective method of persuasion. I suggest that the editor go work on articles about butterflies or asteroids or paint brushes or something else non-controversial. Not this topic, where their strongly held point of view overwhelms their good judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, your comments are at odds with WP:CIVIL and could be regarded as an ad-hominem attack. Arcturus (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support The moment a reasonable source is available, Wikipedia will tell the world the news about covid's origin. At the moment, no such source exists and single-purpose accounts should not suck up the time and energy of the editors trying to maintain policies at these pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The editor is having a civil discussion. I've enjoyed reading the discussion of the different editors. It is important to have an open discussion that presents the different sides of the topic. If the majority disagrees with the editor's suggested changes, the changes will not be made. Also, welcome to the new editors on these virology related articles. There are lots of calm and peaceful virology related articles to work on. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons that Forich and others have listed. JustStalin (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

JustStalin is also pretty much a SPA, having done nothing other than pushing the Wuhan Lab leak since the 29th of December, only having made 48 edits to 10 pages prior to then since their account creation in November. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is really a new user. Understandably, they are making mistakes with copyright and other aspects of editing around here. Yes, they are interested in one specific subject and have an opinion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this per se. As about COVID-19 lab leak theory, well, that might be a conspiracy theory, but we have a lot of pages about notable conspiracy theories. This page can be placed to an AfD whenever it is ready. End of story. I would suggest to create another page, Origins of Covid-19 where such controversies could be neutrally covered. Importantly, contrary to assertions by some participants, we do not need WP:MEDRS sources for pages about politics-related conspiracy theories. We would need MEDRS sources only if we wanted to say that the virus was in fact leaked from the lab. But we do not because there is no such evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support The draft article ScrupulousScribe created gives far more credence to the Lab Leak theory than reliable sources do, where it has been relegated to fringe. The statement in the lead is a clear violation of weight: "Some scientists, have said that the possibility of a lab leak is unlikely." In fact the consensus is that it is very unlikely if not totally ruled out. This approach inevitably leads to conflict. Until they are willing to accept Wikipedia policy, they cannot contribute constructively, at least on this topic. TFD (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, the lead of the first draft page by this new user is poorly written. Yes, it must be fixed. A reason for a topic ban? Wikipedia:Competence is required? Perhaps, but I am not convinced after looking at their edits. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support; their edit history strongly suggests they're here solely to push a particular fringe theory, and while editors above suggest they may improve or invoke WP:ROPE, there's no particular indication that that basic goal is going to change, which raises WP:NOTHERE concerns. If they are genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, or if they're just a new user grappling by our policies, then they would be better off taking an enforced break from that topic and contributing elsewhere; they can always appeal later after they've learned more and demonstrated that they're not here just to push one conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WHAT?

How did my complaint about a personal attack through accusations of sockpuppetry by Britishfinance, and now Alexbrn twice (once after being warned), and now followed again by Novem Linguae get turned into this?

Seems some editors here know full well what they are doing in using these tactics and are choosing to double down. Shameless.

I wonder if they have a history of this behavior and collusion? Any other complaints about bullying and failing to advocate for a NPOV?

You see how easy it is to discredit editors instead of following the rules yet?

You all should be embarrassed by your behavior. Dinglelingy (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

When you file at ANI, the conduct of everyone related to the situation, including yourself, is just as open to scrutiny as the editor you're bringing up. This isn't "behavior and collusion", this is how ANI works. For everyone. Your reaction to this speaks volumes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Dinglelingy: WP:BOOMERANG is a principle that affects admin noticeboards. I believe that it was originally conceived to prevent vexatious reports, but I could be wrong in that respect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To be 100% clear, I am not suggesting or accusing anyone with my "history of behavior and collusion" comment. It was a sample of how destructive those type of accusations are to productive collaboration. My apologies if anyone misinterpreted my point or I was not clear. Dinglelingy (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"You all should be embarrassed by your behavior" seems pretty clear. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Current behavior yesDinglelingy (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure everybody who has contributed will hear what you say. On behaviour, do you think avoiding WP:SCRUTINY is okay? Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For the last time. There is a procedure for reporting accounts you suspect of sockpuppetting and you have failed to follow it multiple times (even after being warned) by making the accusations in two different Talk pages. On one of those talk pages I have a combined total of 3 comments, two of which had to be used to refute sockpuppet allegations. Since WP:BOOMERANG applies to the admin noticeboard, you are free to repeat it here, but I maintain the position that the accusation is a discrediting tactic, which you are now using again, this time to avoid culpability for your bad behavior. As are the comments suggesting my name be added to the SS topic ban by two editors who have followed your lead in accusing me of sockpuppetting.

I think the following is a total distraction from the original complaint but I will respond.

In no way, shape, or form can my comments be associated with SS but for my suggestions that the topic of a 'lab leak scenario' no longer be labeled with the non NPOV tag of 'conspiracy theory' and in my opinion that SS is being treated unfairly, severely. Heck I was done with this topic and suggested CowHouse and SS work together since CowHouse seemed to be working in good faith, understood the logical fallacy of labeling it a conspiracy theory, but also understood the legitimate criticisms of some SS sources.

That was until I read the second accusation of sockpuppetting by britishfinance that prompted my complaint here. It was an unfounded, incorrect, and unfair personal attack on my reputation in blatant violation of the rules and procedure. It required administrative escalation due to it being a second sockpuppet accusation made quite literally in the next thread after alexbrn by britishfinance.

I will also note that after that complaint I tried to engage alexbrn in a good faith discussion of sourcing and NPOV that was a complete was of my time due his inability to respond to specific questions without changing the subject or moving the goalposts and culminated with alexbrn throwing out another accusation of sockpuppetting. It is an absurd dialogue and I recommend anyone commenting here read it. In fact I suggest all my comments be read.

I'd suggest britishfinance and especially alexbrn are 'projecting' in their criticism of SS and are absolutely in the wrong and out of line in their criticism of me.

I'll have no further comments here except in response to admins. The facts stand for themselves. Dinglelingy (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As admin already said (and you didn't respond): "it is pretty obvious to me that this is not a new user". Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That is three times Dinglelingy you have accused me of calling you a sock puppet, and twice after my statement (above) proves I did not. I do not see a future for you editing on Wikipedia when you persist in such behavior, and doubling-trebling down on it? Britishfinance (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy: I suggest editing the encyclopedia instead of accusing editors: your edit history will speak for itself over time (I too was one of the editors you accused earlier). Since the obvious answer to your loaded question was "no/your invention", I didn't bother replying then (and this comment is to show evidence of a pattern). —PaleoNeonate – 05:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrative abuse by User:Drmies

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

---

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

Diffs = 1 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just want to say that I consider Graceland one of the great albums of all time. EEng 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

  I have now given Drmies a notice on his talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Correction: Diannaa beat me to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think I'm missing something here. This is Drmies' original edit, removing ExplosiveResults' comment: [102]. It's unclear to me whether Drmies is acting as an editor or an administrator in doing so, and frankly the justification for it isn't as obvious to me as it is to some people. If Drmies is acting as editor, then revert-warring with PailSimon over the edit and then blocking him is absolutely an INVOLVED action and inappropriate, although I don't think much should come of it. If Drmies was acting as an administrator, then that's not at all clear from the context nor from the edit summary: 'not going to let you equate mostly peaceful protests with "riotous mobs"'. Again, perhaps I'm missing something. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  The accompanying user talk message seems to be a clear warning that DS will be applied and strikes me as being an admin action. - MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Drmies mopping. We don't need people adding political fake news to Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, but the talkpage guidelines are different to mainspace ones. This seems to be an issue that arose from the talk pages. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Some editors seem to be dismissing this complaint out of hand. I'm not sure removing the "riot" comment was in line with WP:TPO. The comment did not seem to be an obvious violation of the criteria there. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: First, I think Drmies's actions were good faith and the idea that they should be penalized in any way is wrong. However, I think the removed text was close enough to on topic and a direct and reasonable reply to the edit above. Thus I think NOTFORUM doesn't apply and the refactoring was improper. This is not endorsing the opinions in the view but there was an original !vote, a reply and then a reply to that reply. If reply to reply was FORUM then the reply was also FORUM. Either both the reply and reply to reply should stay or both should go. Springee (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm hearing you, Springee, but I don't fully agree. "Reply to reply"--not all replies are the same. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• We cannot have the equivocation and whataboutism in Wikipedia spaces that we find on social media. Equating mostly peaceful BLM protests with the seditious, violent behavior of a riotous mob intent on disrupting the very business of democracy is exactly that kind of thing. So yes, as far as I'm concerned it was a highly insulting FORUM post, which is why I removed it, and I explained why I did that here to ExplosiveResults and here to PailSimon. The latter's attempt to turn my repeated revert of unacceptable content into an editorial conflict about content is amusing but unconvincing: if that is upheld, then Recent changes patrollers should be very wary of the consequences. In addition, there's PailSimon's insults ("grow up" and taunting; if you want to know what this editor thinks Wikipedia is for, there's this edit summary. I encourage admins to look at their other work--edits like this for possible AP2 sanctions, and sections like this for ridiculous accusations. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that we routinely allow insults towards Trump and the alt/far right to go untouched on talk page discussions, I do think it's a bit disingenuous to try to combat one editor's opinion about the BLM protests being riots and not other things. We can flatly ignore that opinion or point out that no RS seriously considers the BLM events as riots, and thus invalidate the point if needed, or if the editor continued to fight on that point, then there's WP:TE aspects to engage. But starting to patrol on ideological aspects like this when we have a clear blind-eye patroling other areas is a bad approach. Taking blocking action against the editor, on the other hand, is well justified. --Masem (t) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Masem, I think you know that I block Trump-haters as much as I do Trump-lovers, and I have revdeleted quite a bit of insulting content from articles related to him--more than about Obama and Clinton, for instance--and blocked tons of Trump-insulting usernames. BLP violations and disruptive content cannot stand anywhere (and I actually think that the comment I removed from the talk page was a kind of BLP violation), and should be removed everywhere. I do not believe that we "routinely" just let everything slide if it insults Trump or whatever, but I don't see everything, of course: what I do see is editors and admins like GorillaWarfare and Neutrality deal very carefully with possible BLP violations and partisan content. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Masem, I think that is a problem of certain editors despite their experience, as they bring in their biases. However, that does not seem the issue here. Vikram Vincent 09:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• George Floyd protests covers rioting and looting, including in the lead, sourced, e.g. see [103]. The 2020 BLM protests were mostly peaceful, but not entirely peaceful. Comparing rioting at the Capitol with rioting that happened during the 2020 BLM protests is inapt, not a comparison I would make, an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's not FORUMing, it's directly related to discussing article content, and it's not a WP:BLP violation (no identifiable person or group of people were named in the comment that was removed). It's no cause to remove someone's comment under our PAGs. Drmies should not have removed ExplosiveResults's talk page comment, e.g. here, and should not have blocked PailSimon for restoring it. I don't think Drmies actions violate WP:INVOLVED because all the actions were made in an administrative capacity (anytime an admin issues warnings, it's as an admin, not as an editor; you can't take off that hat), but I just think they were not-policy-compliant admin actions in the first place (not compliant with WP:TPO and WP:BLOCKPOL) . Comparing the capitol riots with BLM protests may be inapt, even offensively inapt, but we shouldn't censor (nevermind block) editors for making comments we disagree with. WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (off-topic, but still): I don't agree that "anytime an admin issues warnings, it's as an admin". I sometimes issue warnings on articles where I would be precluded from taking admin action per INVOLVED. But surely I could still issue warnings in my capacity as an editor?— Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    That's a good point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an admin who is INVOLVED and issues warnings in their capacity as an editor would thereby be taking an admin action in violation of INVOLVED or any other PAG. So in that sense, yes, you could still issue warnings in your capacity as an editor. However, I don't think it's a good idea for admins to do so, because even if the warning is in their capacity as an editor, it will be perceived as coming from an admin, with all the implications of such. At best, it will confuse editors (as we see here) regarding whether a warning is made in an administrative capacity or not (I suppose that could be mitigated with an explicit disclaimer). Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    Hm. This is giving me furiously to think. I've definitely given warnings in cases where I was working as an editor and had no intention of taking admin action. I guess I should start making disclaimers. This message provided as a nonadministrative warning. Wonder if there's a template for that? —valereee (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, there's a template for that: {{burma-shave-notice|involved}}. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm partly with Sphilbrick and Ymblater here. Partly because I'm not opposed to strict WP:NOTFORUM enforcement on highly active talk pages on emotive issues. But if we are going to strictly enforce it with talk page deletions, we need to be fair about it. Plenty of people have compared the attack on the US Capitol to BLM protests both supporters and opponents of each in various ways e.g. police treatment. The contested comment no matter how much we may disagree with it is not so far beyond the pale that it warrants deletion while leaving other forumish comments alone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  BTW @PailSimon: I don't see that anyone has made this explicit yet but please re-read the orange box you see when editing this page or the red text at the top of this page. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." I.E. no one cares if you pinged Drmies in the section title, it's not a valid response to that part of Reyk's comment. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, noted.PailSimon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, that the comparison between the two police responses is compared doesn't mean that therefore the demonstrators need to be compared (I mean, that seems obvious to me), and certainly not in those terms. If anything has been made clear these past few years, and this past week, it's that majority-Black groups of people are treated (and called) very differently from majority-white groups. We should not be doing that. Masem also commented on this idea that "we leave other comments alone", but I call bullshit on that. First of all, OTHERSTUFF. Secondly, I don't believe that we do; it's a red herring, and I showed Masem on their talk page that I certainly don't look the other way when there are violations by "the other side". Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Drmies: It's impossible to compare the police responses without comparing the demonstrations in some way. As I said, you've already left alone the plenty of forumish responses while deleting that one, so sorry you did "look the other way when there are violations by "the other side"'. That's very harmful to Wikipedia since effectively you've appointed yourself the censor of what sort of off-topic responses are okay, only allowing those that fit your personal PoV. While you are entitled that PoV as am I, we shouldn't be only allowing people with certain viewpoints on Wikipedia, except for certain viewpoints that are so beyond the pale that they shouldn't be allowed which this was very far from. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• The issue concerns a border-line call on whether a particular comment should be removed with a variety of views expressed above. Regardless of what guidelines might say, removing ill-considered posts is done. In the context of the debate, I can see a rationale for the action by Drmies that makes removal desirable. BLM protests/riots/whatever had destructive elements but they were never intended to overthrow an election or to halt confirmation of election results. Repeating the canard that the recent protests/riots/whatever at the Capitol were equivalent to BLM could be seen as an attempt to promote a fake equivalency to deflect from the significance of recent events. Whether the removal was desirable or allowed by the rules (see WP:BURO) should be settled in discussion, not by edit warring. PailSimon should discuss contested actions rather than edit war. That is true regardless of what the other editor (Drmies) is doing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think Drmies was at all in the wrong here. Drmies was properly enforcing Wikipedia policies and looking at the list of edits he made to the page, it doesn't appear that he would even be really "involved". Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hmm, so let's have a look here.

• Drmies removed the offending sentence, and PailSimon restored it. Drmies then warned PailSimon. [104]
• PailSimon restored it a second time. Drmies then added to the warning to PailSimon on his talkpage, explicitly, that if they restored it again they would be blocked. [105] This should have made it clear that Drmies was removing the statement in an admin role.
• PailSimon's response was not to say "OK, I won't restore it again" or head for the talkpage, but to tell Drmies "You can't do that, you're involved" [106] They then restored it again and were blocked. Followed by "I'll be reporting you!" [107]

• So frankly, if PailSimon is either incapable of parsing the fact that edit-warring disputed content back in three times (and twice after being warned) is not a good idea (which leads me to think CIR), or they did it deliberately believing Drmies wouldn't block them, which is just disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I find these arguments compelling, especially the second one. The user seems to have taunted Drmies [here]. I find it likely that they were almost daring Drmies to act and that behavior is uncivil and disruptive. Also, looking at the edit log, Drmies only made 6 edits to the page in question, and all of them were either minor fixes or changes to reinforce the existing consensus and Wikipedia policies, so I don't find that he was involved at the page as a regular editor and not an administrator. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia operates under an archaic system which in the name of accessibility, allows for anonymity to be used to spread fringe and extreme pov theories and fake news. The counterweight to these problems is strong moderation. An editor placed comments which use wikipedia as an ideological forum (WP:NOTFORUM) for particular talking points (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Drmies didn't do anything outside of the boundaries of moderation and his actions were independent of any editing dispute (WP:INVOLVED). --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• This is a borderline issue, I think the call could have gone either way and we need to extend a bit of leniency to admins when a topic is so active. In some ways the comments make the issue resemble a rorschach test, those with deep political sensibilities either see malfeasance or heroism depending on which they are predisposed to see. What I see here is an admin who got caught up in the moment and an editor who just wouldn't stop being disruptive or back down even when faced with administrative action. I think we should seriously consider a WP:BOOMERANG for PailSimon and enact a topic ban on US politics and East Asian politics (or maybe just politics in general), baiting/taunting admins is not a good look and from their edit history most of their edits in the political space appear to be disruptive. For an example see Talk:Taiwan#One-China Policy, they repeatedly tried to insert WP:OR into the article and then when reverted claimed it was a WP:SKYISBLUE situation and yet when challenged was unable to provide even a single source which supported the statement they wished to add to the article. At the very least this constant WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior has to stop for this person to become a constructive contributor to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @PailSimon: for the record, an "administrative action" is any action that requires administrative privileges to perform, such as un/protecting a page, un/blocking an editor etc. Any edit made by an editor who holds administrative privileges, that could have been made by any IP or registered editor, is by definition not an "administrative action", and thus there can be no "admin abuse" connected to such editing. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know.PailSimon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for PailSimon. Most accept that the comments reverted by Drmies were inappropriate. This is an emotive part of AP2 (which is itself an emotive topic, hence the DS we give admins). Drmies gave both editors explicit notices on their talk pages as to why the comment was reverted and that it was an administrative action. Whereas ExplosiveResults moved on, Pail Simon became very aggressive with Drmies, and even went to ExplosiveResults talk page to get them to follow suit. Having reviewed Pail Simon's behavior, and evidence of their other AP2 edits (given above), I cannot see that they are suited to editing in AP2. I could not see their AP2 edits as being useful to readers, or contributing to the integrity of WP's AP2 articles. Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems rather drastic to me to topic ban me over one single talk page dispute (not an article dispute).PailSimon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m suggesting (and I believe these other fine editors are as well) that we topic ban you for a pattern of disruptive behavior in a particular topic space. Behavior it seems you are currently continuing on my talk page[108][109]. It is unfortunate but its far from drastic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Next to nobody is calling for a topic ban. I have no idea why you're linking those talk page edits.PailSimon (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dude... You just accused me of wikihounding[110] you and then immediately made three edits to Tankie [111][112][113]. This sort of thing cant go on, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Horse Eye's Back for explanation. PailSimon (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any Tban: I don't think I've ever interacted with PailSimon but I don't see anything here that would warrant a Tban. It looks to me like they felt they were right to restore a comment that, in my view, was not a FORUM violation. It might be helpful if rather than telling PailSimon how wrong they were we told them how to best handle this case in the future. Normally I would say if editor A blanks a talk page comment and editor B restores it, then it needs an admin or consensus to blank it again. Drmies is an admin but a relatively new editor may not have been aware of that or aware that Drmies warning was official vs from just another editor. As such I can see how they could have walked into this while feeling like they were in the right. So what is the objective here? Is the intent to tell PailSimon what a horrible person they are or to help them better handle similar situations in the future? Springee (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason to censure Drmies. PailSimon should learn to communicate to reach common ground instead of bickering in the edit summaries and making snide comments towards a user attempting to uphold civil discourse. A topic ban seems senseless; however, an additional block is warranted if this conversation and behavior continue. Nihlus 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I can't see that Drmies did anything wrong, and PailSimon seems -- from the evidence of this discussion -- to have a rather BATTLEGROUNDy approach to editing. I would say that it's likely that if they don't change their ways, they're probably heading for a ban of some sort, not from this discussion necessarily, but sometime and somewhere in the future. Whether that happens or not, and whether it's in the near future or the distant future, is entirely in PailSimon's hands. This thread should be closed with no action in regard to Drmies, except a pat on the back for doing what was needed, and a warning to PailSimon that the attitude they've presented here is not one that's conducive to editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I know that Drmies deservedly carries a lot of respect around here, but am I reading a different set of diffs to everyone else? This is not even close to the worst comment I have seen ignored on a talk page. Removing it makes no sense either as they were esentially repeating their first comment which was left alone. This was unnecessarily dismissive and quite conceited. The comment still stands as of my typing this so no other editor has deemed it bad enough to remove; in fact as far as I can tell apart from the original commentator no one else had been involved in this edit war. The fact that Drmies blocked them for disruptive editing is not okay. An admin blocking an editor they are involved with in a content dispute is clearly inappropriate and has lead to harsh sanctions in the past. I can only think that most editors commenting here are not looking at the diffs and basing it on the reputation of the involved editors. This is a valid report and should be treated like one. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Drmies does have a well deserved good reputation. However, looking at the specific edits on the talk page I feel they got carried away. The edit war over the talk space text was not required as strict article space rules cannot be applied. I feel Drmies, while acting in good faith and as per the responsibility of an admin, did overstep bounds. Hence a warning would be apt. Similarly, PailSimon does need to be given a warning as their behaviour does appear out of place. Vikram Vincent 14:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for PailSimon from politics and history. This user behave intentionally confrontational while editing highly controversial subjects. Of course one could give him "more rope", but I think this user will just create a lot of trouble and waste everyone's time. This his posting on the ANI is an excellent example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Technically, admin involved - I agree with Levivich, Sphilbrick, Springee and Ymblanter. We are dealing with a situation that is highly volatile at a time when admins are expected to be extra cautious and definitely uninvolved. We cannot, in clear conscience, call Drmies block uninvolved, regardless of who is right or wrong - he was involved. He should have contacted another admin or taken it to AE. Atsme 💬 📧 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I think some of the folks here need to actually read WP:INVOLVED because I do not think it means what you think it means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a warning to Drmies They removed a users talk page post that did not violate talk page guidelines, edit warred to keep it removed and then blocked the editor they were edit warring with. There are so many things wrong with the way Drmies acted here. I don't know the history of PailSimon, maybe they are the disruptive editor people seem to be implying here, but from what I have seen of this incident their only crime was to edit war and then complain when they were blocked by the admin they were edit warring with. Drmies could have handled this much better. I am more dissapointed though with some of the above editors (many who should know better) who are proclaiming topic bans, CIR issues, boomerangs for bad faith, troutings, etc. Editors who have a greivance against administrative action, no matter the popularity of the admin, should be able to come here and report it without being baselessly attacked like this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a warning to Drmies as per AIRcorn. "not going to let you equate mostly peaceful protests with "riotous mobs"" does not strike me as a reason (per WP:TPO) to remove the comment. Even if it was, Drmies made no discernible effort to explain the policy behind the removal beyond "Yes I am", posting a warning template and "The editor equated mostly peaceful BLM protesters with "riotous mobs": that is unacceptable.". Don't get me wrong, it can be very tiring to deal with perceived bad-faith editors and I am hugely grateful towards any administrator who puts time into Wikipedia, but Drmies could have taken it to AE or brought in another admin if they were too short-tempered to spend more time on issue (not hugely difficult given that the topic is not particularly niche). PailSimon's actions have not been commendable ([114] [115]) and I would be in favour of a sanction, but that doesn't mean Drmies couldn't have done better. Best, Caius G. (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Addendum: "No, you may not refer to the mostly peaceful BLM protests as "BLM riots"" How is this grounded in policy? I wouldn't call what happened "BLM riots" either but we can't tell anyone not to characterise them as such. Caius G. (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: any sanction against Drmies. They were clearly trying to prevent disruption, battleground, notforum behavior, on an article covered by DS, separate from alledgedly being involved in a content dispute. This report is in retaliation for an admin doing what they should do on an article that could easily spin out of control.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   01:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• If I may be blunt, the suggestion that a warning be issued to Drmies because of this situation is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

XIIIfromTokyo

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

@Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [116]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[117]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757[118][119].

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

XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

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

Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.

The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [120]. I quote "written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article[121]" :

"pretending facts that are not in the sources" is not different to "fraudulent use of references". I'm strictly following the openning statement.

Gala is nothing more than a tabloid. See the SPI for more input on the use of that kind of material. Asterix757 has provided more element on that newspaper[122], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.

In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.

"abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.

So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a WP:POINT. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.

You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional[123]. You do it 8 times on the edit summary, it's acceptable, I do it once with a 25'000 SPI bytes, it's not ?

You have just removed a full paragraph because, according to you "whether Eduniversal is a good enough source for this remains to be seen"[124], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[125], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.

I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.

Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.

I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.

--Delfield (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"pursuing this obsession you say "[126] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2[127] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[128]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 2: To admins: I won't engage with XIII at all. He has been harassing me and the only way not to be a victim a such verbal abuse is to just ignore him if possible.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-mysteries-love/201612/the-best-way-end-verbal-abuse I made a report, you assess the situation in whatever way you want. He is trying a classic debate technique: make a scandal about the report so that the original issue get drowned in the smoke (what they call gaslighting: https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/what-is-verbal-abuse#gaslighting). I won't fall for that and I leave it to you, as I did last time (I did not comment), even though nothing was decided in ANI and even though the comment section proved him wrong and XIII was imo aggressive toward Narky Blert as an answer there (pointing imaginary mistakes instead of kindly discuss content).

Psychological health is therefore the reason I am not answering to XIII or going deeper in the ANI dispute. Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You have already made comments about my mental health, and I have clearly told you that it was not acceptable. Yet, you made the choice to keep the discussion on that track, conspicuously using website like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-healt.

You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[129] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[130]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[131][132][133]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.

It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, either file a WP:SPI or withdraw this accusation. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August[134] . Already mentionned repeadly on that ANI, you can't have missed it. I have added some inputs to that SPI, and went as far as asking if he thought a third account should be added[135] before actually adding it. I haven't voiced an opinion that is not shared by at least one other contributor.

It took us 6 monhs to solve the issue at FR.Wiki, but it has been draging on for 4 years at EN.Wiki. It might be time to consider that you might be wrong on that. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Over-zealous use of warnings

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

---

I am concerned about the behaviour of a user called David J Johnson. Although he clearly makes good edits himself, he is far too zealous, in my opinion, in handing our aggressive warnings to other users about vandalism and disruptive editing, when in fact they are mostly making good-faith edits that can simply be reverted. For example, he recently issued me with an aggressively worded warning about vandalism and deliberately adding false information when all I had done was re-arrange, for clarity and better English, existing copy. I could not have reasonably known that the existing copy contained incorrect information and made was clearly a constructive edit in good faith, but received a very unpleasant warning. When I challenged him, and subsequently, his attitude had been extremely arrogant and high-handed. I have noticed that he has been issuing lots of other, similar warnings and in most cases the offending edits have simply been good faith edits, and clearly not vandalism. I really believe someone needs to tell David J Johnson to calm down and differentiate between good faith edits and deliberate vandalism, which are two very different things.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The big yellow box you see when creating a new discussion asks you to "provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors". Please add. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try to do so tomorrow, once I've checked the right way to do so.Neilinabbey (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have already received an apology three days ago. --JBL (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per JBL's comment, not only did you receive an apology, but you also received a (now-deleted) warning from an admin about your overly aggressive response and a suggestion that demanding apologies isn't usually a productive pursuit. And then you made this inadvisable edit. Grandpallama (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a very grudging apology and more completely unwarranted high-handed lecturing.Neilinabbey (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Inadvisable? That's opinion, not a fact.Neilinabbey (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take care of the diffs for you: Your edit of an allegedly-false claim, correction approved by David, David warns you, your subsequent exchange. Honestly your conduct is insanely uncivil and obstinate right now, you apparently reworded a false, or inappropriately-worded comment, maintaining the inappropriate aspects of the wording itself, which was misinterpreted as you deliberately endorsing/maintaining said content. This is not a big deal, it requires nothing more than a simple reply saying "My mistake, I didn't realize", instead you demand an apology when you were the one in the wrong, going so far as to accuse the editor of "moral cowardice" if they don't issue this unnecessary apology to you? David's apology was sincere, not grudging, it was simply not unconditional, it was accompanied by still-important context about how you're responsible for the edits you make and that being ignorant about the content you're taking responsibility for is not not a particularly good excuse. Rewriting a false claim may seem be an innocent mistake made in good faith, but it's still a mistake that you need to learn from. You should not be loudly and proudly demanding that others apologize to you while declaring your ignorance as if that's some sort of good thing, and rejecting all feedback and being hostile. Clearly you should be listening and learning, not demanding that editors "not lecture an experienced editor". You don't know how to post diffs and you don't even know how to properly reply on a talk page, I've had to repair your comments here. You're clearly not as experienced as you think you are. You need to start collaborating in good faith, and that means heeding advice and warnings, or you're going to end up blocked. Competence and effective communication is required. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Add to this that the subsequent exchange isn't even the original conversation on David J Johnson's page, but the second, after he removed the first, in which he also repeatedly asked Neilinabbey to stop posting to his talkpage, which they explicitly refused to do. And there's also the ranting at Acroterion's page, which isn't a good look. If Neilinabbey isn't willing to drop this, a boomerang is merited. Grandpallama (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I asked Neilinabbey nicely to stop. They aren't listening, and they appear to expect to be able to dictate terms to other editors. Added to that, DJJ is experiencing health problems, and really doesn't need this kind of harassment right now. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Wow, I didn't even see those. I thought we were bordering on a boomerang even without that additional context, and that just makes it all the worse. I agree with Acroterion characterizing this as harassment as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My wife has just got me out of bed re: the above. I was not aware that Neilinabbey had posted here - as they are required to do. My original intention was to stop incorrect information still being added to the page, just because it did not fit with Neilinabbey's version of text. I have apologised if I caused any distress and that apology was sincere, although I still feel that it is better to correct info before changing to an individual's concept of correct English. This issue has gone on for far too long and it seems that it has been blown-up out of all proportion. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have clearly been tried and found guilty, but let me at least put forward my case.

This argument started with an edit to the article on Rockall, which read: Rockall is an uninhabitable granite islet which the United Kingdom claims is within its exclusive economic zone situated in the North Atlantic Ocean. It is claimed by the United Kingdom as its territory."

I felt this did not read very well, and so amended it to: "Rockall is an uninhabitable granite islet situated in the North Atlantic Ocean. The United Kingdom]] claims that Rockall lies within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and is a UK territory."

I subsequently received an aggressive message from David J Johnson saying "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rockall, you may be blocked from editing.

Now, my edit may not have corrected information I did not know was incorrect, but that does not make it vandalism; nor did I deliberately or otherwise introduce incorrect information, the information was already in the article. I merely made change to improve how the article read, and that is not vandalism. The edit was, to any reasonable person, clearly a 'good faith' edit. I therefore left a message - an angry one, I admit, due to the nature of DJJ's message and the threat to block me - on DJJ's Talk page. In the meantime, he re-edited the Rockall page with the comment "Revert nonsense" (although in fact, my edit remains substantially in place as the wording of the current version of the article, so was hardly nonsensical). There then followed the numerous comments you are aware of (in of which, incidentally, DJJ accused me of "lecturing other editors" - this was a demand he made of me, not one I made of him, as one of the posts above falsely claims).

I subsequently noticed that DJJ has been handing out a lot of warnings and cautions - five cautions and nine warnings in the last six days alone. While some of these were clearly justified, others - including, but not confined to, mine - really were not, as the edits were not vandalism and no threat of blocking was justified. A simple reversion of these edits with the comment "reverting a good-faith edit" would have sufficed, and in these circumstances, accusations of vandalism and threats of blocks are aggressive and unnecessary. That is what got me so riled. I freely admit that I have been more angry over this than perhaps I should have been, but in years of editing Wikipedia articles I have made just a fraction under 2,000 edits and never once have I been accused of vandalism or threatened with being blocked. To issue such threats in the circumstances shown, as DJJ did, is not "collaborating in good faith" to use the words of one of the posts above, so I believe I am right in saying that he needs to calm down too and stop issuing such threats willy nilly. Also, the fact I wanted to check how to use diffs correctly before applying them does not invalidate the edits I make, it simply shows that I have not had to use diffs before. I would also add, as it's been mentioned above, that I am also suffering from a serious health problem, one for which I am unable to get the urgent treatment I need due to COVID; I have also lost my entire surviving family in the last nine months as well as my job and income, so I also do not need this aggravation; I just choose not to make a thing of thing of this information on my Wikipedia page.Neilinabbey (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Boomerang Since they appear unwilling to drop this, or listen to other editors, or provide the diffs of the behavior they claim, or even understand the inappropriateness of their own behavior, Neilinabbey should be formally warned by an admin that any future instances of their non-collaborative behavior and aggressive responses to other editors (a quick look at the history of their talkpage, and of the sections they have deleted, shows this has been an ongoing problem for years) will result in a block, and this should be closed. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a case of being unwilling to drop this - I am very happy to do so, want to do so, and made it clear that I do not need this hassle - but I am allowed to put forward the case for what I initiated on this page, that's only natural justice! And one incident five years ago, when I was attacked for making legitimate amendments, does not constitute "an ongoing problem for years". I have accepted that my response was inappropriate, but it seems the fact that I was the one initially messaged in an over-aggressive way is being continually overlooked or ignored.Neilinabbey (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It has not been overlooked or ignored. 'You already received an apology. You have declared it "grudging" for no discernible reason, and are still dragging this out. Just stop responding or else the boomerang is going to land. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment please close the thread. Vikram Vincent 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Anti-Moroccan editor

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

---

WP:BOOMERANG of epic proportions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Looking at the history of articles regarding Morocco, Western Sahara, North Africa, or anything relating to them, after a couple weeks of through review of contributions made by User:M.Bitton, it has become seemingly clear that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia and what his motives are. A disguised POV editor (who gained trust from other editors and admins over the years), making reverts to scattered small irrelevant articles such as Tracy Allard, Jake the Dog, Himalayan salt, Emile Sinclair and many more, to intelligently hide his motive, which is to target Moroccan editors (edit warring and reporting them) and to silence ANY Moroccan contribution (or opinion) from this encyclopedia and also on Wikimedia Commons;. Don't be fooled however, if you look thoroughly through the articles that are mostly unrelated, you can see a very clear and consistent pattern of articles that are, and those are of any article regarding Morocco and its history, and also Algeria (edit wars over that too, see it's talk page). Let's take a closer look at exactly what I'm referring to here; Reverting and/or uploading (replacing) stable maps (orthographic projections) mainly of African countries (and some surrounding European ones) that have nothing to do with Morocco/Western Sahara 1. On Wikimedia Commons: Uploaded own version of nearly identical file to the Algeria article, because he was unsatisfied with the dashed border shown between Morocco and Western Sahara that was shown (insists that there be a solid border separating them in all orthographic projections), then proceeds to add his preferred version to the Algeria article. Note that he uploaded his version on the same day as that file was redone (6 Feb 2020). 2. Does the same exact thing for Libya - his file. The stable original file . Uploads it to the Libya Wikipedia article on 6 Feb 2020 (same day). Diff 3. Does the same thing for Botswana - his version, stable original version that is nearly identical and used years. 4. Same for Madagascar - his version. The stable original version. This particular one was interesting given that Madagascar is on the complete opposite side of the continent of Morocco/W.S. (which were barely visible), yet he still fusses over the fact that those particular borders are not shown the way HE wants them to be shown and uploads a new (nearly identical) version but with his desired borders, and onto the Madagascar Wiki article. 5. Too many examples on commons, this speaks for itself If he really wasn't a POV pusher, he could've done this to other countries with disputed territories that apply, such as Kosovo, Serbia, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Somalia/Somaliland, Nepal and more, but he specifically chooses ONLY Morocco and Western Sahara because that's where his primary (POV) concerns are. He doesn't care about how maps/projections are depicted according to the UN, ONLY when it comes to Morocco/W.S. Otherwise, he would've done the same for other countries with disputed borders. Specifically targeting Moroccan editors thru reverting, edit warring and reporting 1. Has been previously argued with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SADIQUI this Moroccan editor on talk pages and edit warred. M.Bitton also reported that editor on Commons I believe. 2. Removes the "Morocco"/"Moroccan" (and also Berber) this article, even though this type of architecture is about the Moors (historical people of the Iberian peninsula and modern-day Morocco) has nothing to do with Arabs or the Middle East. Seemingly doesn't like the fact that Morocco is acknowledged as the origin for this architecture. 3. Removes "Morocco" from this article about the Almohad Caliphate, which was very clearly a historical Moroccan Empire and based off Morocco. He could've also removed "Spain", but chooses to remove Morocco because he doesn't like that country. 4. Reported and got this Moroccan user blocked for making corrections to articles relating to Moroccan history. 5. Removed "Morocco" in this article, even though this historical empire was located almost entirely in Northern Morocco. 6. Removed "Moroccan" from this article about Couscous. Note that it stated how the Moroccan version of this dish is served, not that the dish is entirely Moroccan. If someone put "Algerian", you can bet he wouldn't have done that. Also does that to a similar article here. 7. Same for Pastilla, there are no sources that support this dish is found outside of Morocco, yet he removes "Moroccan" anyway. 8. For some reason he switches the order of Morocco-Algeria because he wants Algeria to appear before Morocco. 9. There is no evidence or sources supporting that the Balgha is worn in any Muslim country outside the Maghreb, yet he reverts anyway. More on his anti-Berber edits later. 10. Replaces "controlled" with "occupied" here (unsourced because that region is administered by Morocco, not military-occupied). Also removes "Algeria backed" because he doesn't like his country shown that it supports the armed rebel movement. 11. Removes "Morocco" and "Moroccan" here, even though this was a Moroccan empire. 12. Removes citation regarding this tradition and Morocco (additionally blanks Morocco and adds "North African" instead). 13. More edit warring and removal of "Moroccan" nonsense 1 14. unexplained revert 15. Removes "Sultanate of Morocco" in an article regarding French West Africa. 16. Disregards the fact that Spanish (Western) Sahara was historically part of Morocco by doing this 17. Restores unsourced information by reverting here. Classic Algerian nationalistic editing. 18. Unsourced pro-SADR revert 19. Removal of source here 20. Propaganda in this talk page 21. Again, removal of source, claiming it's "different" or unreliable to push a POV. 22. Unwarranted removal of Morocco (again) 23. Plenty of POV gems here, especially made the atrocious claim that "Morocco violated the ceasefire agreement" where in fact it was the Polisario that declared war and violated the ceasefire with their juvenile acts at the Morocco-Mauritania border in Guerguerat/ 24. Wanted to make sure Western Sahara was a country (according to his POV) by doing this 25. Algerian POV pushing here 26. More Algerian POV pushing (here), claims it was "Unsourced and most likely copied from some unreliable/blog like source)". Clearly does not want the reader to know about the Kabylia Independence movement in Northeast Algeria. 27. It is a political term preferably used by the Polisario Front, as they claim to be the "indigenous Sahrawis" in W.S. Nevertheless, he reverts this and also removes a source. 28. This 29. More clashing with another Moroccan editor in this talk page, and also accusation of personal attacks. 30. Dubious and unfounded claims on this talk page. Clear POV alignment and unsourced nonsense. 31. More clashing/edit warring here. Morocco actually controls roughly ~80% (more than 75) and Polisario doesn't control the rest, the UN does. 32. Removal of source here, that factually stated the Polisario tried using women/children as human shields. Also replaces "controlled" with "occupied" (unfounded). 33. Here, was unhappy that a Moroccan football/soccer player was considered one of the best goalkeepers in the world. Reverted it of course. 34. Back on Couscous again 35. Algerian POV nationalist reverting here and here 36. Removal/replacement of "Morocco" on Couscous article Anti-Amazigh ("Berber") editing I also managed to catch some removal of information and language regarding the Amazigh/Berber (native people of the Maghreb region in Africa), clearly he does not want Algeria or North Africa as a whole to be associated with them, but as wholey Arab. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8. That's not all of it, but a sufficient amount to get a good idea of what's going on here. This is just a fraction of the thousands contributions (from the past month or so alone) that M.Bitton has made. If this isn't incriminating enough, I highly encourage further looking into his history of contributions, where this extremely obvious pattern is. Needless to say, I also quickly popped up on this guy's watchlist scope, as a Moroccan editor, and it did not take long for him to target and report me (and edit war). If you ask me, I think this user should be indefed for such long-term and undoubtable abuse and hardcore POV pushing to the extreme. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but to silence any Moroccan contribution and remove anything that may portray anything positive about Morocco. EdDakhla 16:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC) *Comment Suggest this is closed without prejudice, ASAP. OP is a new editer who appears to mean well. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @Roxy the dog did you even look at the report and diffs or are you *suggesting* this be closed purely on the basis that I'm a "newer" editor so this should be discredited?? EdDakhla 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC) On the basis that I have an interest in Maghrebi articles, many many of them are on my watchlist, and M Bitton makes a fine contribution to them. (You should notify M Bitton of this discussion per the very large instruction at the top of this page.) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @Roxy the dog,They're on his watchlist too, all he does is removes Morocco and Amazigh from all of these articles as I've clearly shown. He also imposes the Polisario's claim to Western Sahara, just look at those reverts/uploads on Commons and see if you can explain exactly how he "means well". He seems to push a pro-Polisario/pro-Algeria Pan-Arab narrative. Evidence (and diffs) suggest the opposite to what you are claiming. EdDakhla 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Did you notify him? I have not checked. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Roxy the dog,  Done, notified him. EdDakhla 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I've just clicked on some of those links at random, and I'm not seeing an issue. Putting countries in alphabetical order is not a Pro-Algerian or Anti-Moroccan stance. Can't figure out what the supposed issue with #28 is, seems a reasonable edit to me to alter something to what is actually covered by and sourced in the article. Similarly I see no issue with #15 which is again something not in the article. Also #22, they removed the claim it originated in Morocco because it isn't supported by the article, which in fact is sourced as saying something completely different. And complaining they reported and got someone blocked isn't an issue, an admin would not have blocked unless it was warranted, they do not just block on someone else's say so. I'm not finding any anti-Moroccan sentiments in the edits listed above, and that you're complaining about these edits makes me think it's more the other way around. Trying to make articles neutral and contain information supported by the references isn't disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Clicking on some more. #33. Seriously, you're complaining that someone reverted the addition of a comment that someone is considered the best in the world to a bio's lede without any sources to back it up? I think your own editing biases here may be clouding your judgement. Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC) About number 4 in the second set, it's fairly misleading to say "blocked for making corrections to articles relating to Moroccan history". A quick check [136] shows that User:IbnTashfin97 was rightfully blocked for these horrible personal attacks [137] [138]. I don't know what else IbnTashfin97 may have done right or wrong, but if you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable here, I'm not sure you belong any more than them. If M.Bitton only reported IbnTashfin97 for edit warring (I don't know, I didn't check) frankly they're being generous and shouldn't be faulted for that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Nil Einne, IbnTashfin97 seems to be saying some similar points that I made, but was rightfully blocked for expressing it in an inappropriate matter and thru personal attack. But if what IbnTashfin97 said was your idea for such "horrible personal attacks", then you alleging that I find his behaviour acceptable and saying "but if you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable here, I'm not sure you belong any more than them" is a very clear personal attack directed towards me. EdDakhla 18:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC) No it's not a personal attack. You are the one who chose to give four as an example. I don't know why. One possibility is you didn't look properly into the block. In that case, it's simply a terrible example, which badly damages your case. I acknowledged this is a possibility by saying "if". The other possibility is you did look in to the case, and think it is acceptable to accuse an editor of being paid by some government with zero evidence. It's not, and I am entitled to express, to you and the community, the view that any editor who thinks it's remotely acceptable to make such personal attacks is not the sort of editor should be welcome here on Wikipedia. Such accusations are incredibly harmful and should be stamped out fire. They are also incredibly stupid, since 99% of the time, you don't have to pay someone to be highly biased towards theira country. (To be clear, I'm not saying this describes M.Bitton simply pointing out how ridiculous those attack were.) I still don't know what the case is, since instead of explaining why you chose to highlight an editor rightfully being blocked, you instead chose to fault me for expressing the opinion that anyone who would excuse an editor for making such horrible personal attacks doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Anyway, the reason I mention that "if" is I intended that to be my last comment. Instead since you accused me of a personal attack, I felt compelled to follow up but this will be my last. I have no desire to look into this further since my cursory check concurs with what everyone else found. If the are problems with M. Bitton's behaviour, it's fairly unobvious from your complaint since quickly choosing a few random examples finds utter nonsense, stuff which clearly isn't a problem and instead leaves us scratching our heads (and still scratching after you followed up) why our heads why on earth anyone would choose to highlight stuff where M.Bitton was clearly in the right. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)And checking #36 shows the horrible, terrible, no-good very bad edit by the terrible villian who has been spending years sneakily conspiring to win hearts and minds of other editors in order to nefariously push an agenda against Morocco...was to revert an IP edit that was actually performing nationalistic-POV-vandalism to what was actually in the cited source. Given the comments above my doubt that the other supplied "proofs" are all very similar is next to nil, and I would suggest that the OP prepare themselves for an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC) It looks like virtually all the reported edits are the reported user reverting disruptive unsourced edits/POV-pushing. As for the maps, it's hard to see this as POV-pushing when both Western Sahara and Morocco use a solid line on their maps. OP is a new user but it's not some "rookie mistake" to misrepresent appropriate reversions as a systematic campaign to push a POV. Roxy's proposal would be a generous favor to this user, but reviewing their history I question whether they're even intended to be unblocked right now. It looks like they were indefinitely blocked on commons for CU-confirmed socking, and indefinitely blocked on enwiki by El_C for disruptive editing in this exact content area. It looks like El C granted them a tentative conditional unblock with the agreement that the user was to stay out of this topic area, with the understanding that there was a global lock request pending for this user which would likely solve the problem anyway. I don't really follow that logic, but regardless, his doing so seems to have had backfired, resulting in the global lock request being declined by Ruslik0, due to the fact that the user was only blocked on one wiki (commons), and that the "master" sock account was inactive. This rationale seems to be in error, as it ignored the fact that the user was only unblocked here with the assumption that the lock request would be approved, and it ignored the fact that EdDakhla was actively socking with a CU-confirmed sock, and that the "master" account was patently irrelevant to the entire situation. Anyway, we have all that for context, and Ed is apparently jumping right back into a content area that they're supposed to be staying away from, being a known disruptive editor in this topic area, with a willfully misleading report against a good faith editor who is reverting inappropriate edits. Unless someone has a particularly good argument as to why we should wipe this editor's slate clean, it seems to me that their indef block should be reinstated. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Agreed. The wall above seems like nothing more than a nationalist Moroccan editor trying to push their points and fluff up Morocco by means of character assassination against an editor who appears to be doing everything correctly. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I'm too nice. I have withdrawn my comment above. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. Indef reinstated. Thanks for the clarity, Swarm. El_C 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Roxy the dog, Canterbury Tail, Nil Einne, The Bushranger, Swarm, and El C: I just wanted to thank you all for dealing with this report and at the same time make a small clarification in relation to something that isn't as obvious as the rest. What they falsely described as "stable maps" are in fact the maps that have been introduced into the articles 2 weeks ago in order to sneak in a border change while pretending to care about the projection and the UN's map (compare the stable map with theirs and then see the map that I added with an explanatory edit summary). I do realise that this is no longer relevant, but I wanted to highlight how crafty the POV pusher can be. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, for sure, happy to help. And sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake, at times. But, yes, I did notice the nonsense with the maps (my Spidey senses were definitely tingling there). Finally, sincere thanks to you for the many years of dedicated, high-quality editing of pages belonging to this area of the world which is otherwise much neglected on the project. Kind regards, El_C 00:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Thanks for the notification and for your efforts to stop this's editor's misbehaviour. I was aware there was some fuss over maps but I thought this was just in articles related to Morocco or maybe immediate neighbours. It's very concerning that User:EdDakhla was POV pushing by trying to change maps in completely unrelated articles by changing the maps, and hiding what they were doing by claiming it was just a projection issue. Putting aside whatever lead up to the block, this is someone who clearly needed to banned whether site ban or a very restrictive topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just clarifying that, above, I meant maps pertaining to Morocco/Western Sahara only, like when they changed this into this. Once I saw that, alarm bells immediately started ringing. Admittedly, I didn't pay much mind to their changes to maps in other countries. Sorta assumed they were productive edits meant to drown out that grossly POV map change, but I guess not... El_C 16:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Richmondjosephlegisma

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

---

• Richmondjosephlegisma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2021 in Philippine television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user listed above appears to be putting hoaxes in 2021 in Philippine television, some examples are this, this, and this. The user has done this despite multiple warnings. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Shift674, per policy written near the top of the page and when creating the report, please notify the user on their talk page. You may also want to provide particular WP:DIFFs for reference. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the 'rerun content' again...which has been a major issue with the Filipino 'years in television' articles, as reruns can be acquired by anyone and air any time, and this simply violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It's getting to the point where pending changes may have to be required on this series of articles, as they have been out-of-format with WP:TV's basic standards for years. Eleven sources for an article detailing hundreds of shows is far beyond an acceptable ratio.Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Shift674, not only that, he has been also involved in creating nonexistent 'Blocks' of various TV network articles such as this one at Disney XD. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

POV Pushing from User:Swood100

• Swood100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, we've got an editor who has spent a month pushing a view against consensus. It's very disruptive. Please excuse the lack of diffs, there'd simply be too many and it would be confusing to see an endless list of diffs out of context - they've been civil POV pushing and bludgeoning the debate with a great many comments over more than a month - but if one takes a quick look at the editors contributions at say this section at talk the pattern of WP:SEALIONING is very obvious. The core POV they are pushing is the the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not inherently antisemitic, they've been doing this for over a month, as is often the case with Civil POV pushing. Their POV has been firmly and repeatedly given short shrift, yet they persist.

Recently they tried to shove the disputed content into the article amongst a bunch of minor edits and they then started claiming that when their edits were reverted that the revert was not legitimate because the minor edits were not against consensus:

• The edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998554127&oldid=998036225
• Makes spurious claims regarding minor edits, but refuses to address bulk of content added against consensus during the same set of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998759698&oldid=998745387.

If an admin takes the time to look at recent discussions the pattern is clear. They've been going from academic to academic Michael Walsh (author), then Jérôme Jamin, today it's Herbert Marcuse...now they are presenting the view without any source, just hoping one can be found with comments like "If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant." If there's a reliable source? And "It wouldn’t be difficult to find a reliable source to say that..." they are not reading reliable sources and letting them inform their edits, they've come to a certain point of view and have since filled the talk page with longwinded and dubious attempts to insert their POV into the article. They've been begging the question, They've been edit warring with it, while jumping from source to source, academic to academic.

Edit warring despite having this and similar claims contested by numerous editors more times than I can count:

• 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998554127&oldid=998036225
• 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998746785
• 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=999361656&oldid=999349843

I've asked them to stop many times now. As I said it's hard to demonstrate the issue as it civil POV pushing. However, a quick look at their contributions to the talk page makes it pretty clear. I just want an admin to talk to them about POV pushing/flogging a dead horse/bludgeoning the debate...just get them to stop, it's really disruptive, wasting everyone else's time at the article for more than a month now. Bacondrum (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to present the bigger picture, Swood announced their interest in the article with this edit, asking Is this article intending to imply that anyone using the term “cultural Marxist” is a conspiracist, regardless of what he or she means by that term? (The consensus answer, according to repeated RfCs and a massive AfD on the topic, is essentially "yes".)

Swood has subsequently introduced citations by Alexander Zubatov and Melanie Phillips,[139] Andrew Sandlin[140] the editors of Baudelaire contra Benjamin and Michael Walsh[141] - none of whom are reliable in this context, and most of whom simply regurgitate the conspiracy theory - as well as hypothetical sources. Swood has also repeatedly cited actually reliable sources out of context, misinterpreting them, and has attempted to reshape the article in service of the POV that the destruction of Western society by "Cultural Marxists" is - or at least might be - a real thing. I am not one to jump to sanctions, but this insistent crusade has become a behavioral issue, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Newimpartial, it's hard to deal with this kind of disruptive behavior, on top of the other issues there's been a refusal to listen to other editors and apparent attempts at gaming wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum, @Newimpartial, can you propose a solution? Are we talking a p-block from article space, or what? I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution. —valereee (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Me personally, I'm for giving as many chances as possible, I've certainly been given a few over the years. So just a firm but friendly word about this behavior to start with, if it doesn't stop then we could move to an article block? Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with admonishment at this point. The thing is, repeated warnings by Bacondrum alone aren't having any effect, so something needs to come from an admin (pssibly under AP2, though the page itself doesn't carry an AP2 notice) or the community. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that what Newimpartial is objecting to here is my questions on the Talk page as to the potential acceptability of various sources or the relevance of various topics. I recently asked the following question on the Talk page:

What if a reliable source is found who, for example, connects Marcuse to what later became political correctness, but without accusing him of being involved in a conspiracy? So it’s an element of what some people mean when they talk about “Cultural Marxism” but without the conspiracy part and without the anti-Semitic part. The relevance to this article could be that some aspects of the full-blown conspiracy theory may have originated from Franklin School sources.

In fact, I do have more than one such reliable source. It was two hours after I posted the above question on the Talk page that Bacondrum made his first post on this page. Apparently his position is that even asking such a question on a Talk page is cause to block someone from posting further. Is there consensus that no aspect of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory originated from Franklin School sources and so anybody who even asks is exhibiting disruptive behavior and deserves to be blocked? — Swood100 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Swood, once again, what is the Franklin school? And how many times are you going to ask, in one way or another, whether the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article should cover aspects of the conspiracy theory that you feel are "real" before you accept that the consensus answer is "no" and that repeating the question (with yet another dubious or irrelevant source) is disruptive? Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have noticed this user's disruptive behavior at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where they are wasting the time of other editors, and it seems to me that if they were inclined to heed warnings, they would have done so already. Nevertheless, you can always hope. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, re-reading that section reminded me of just how disruptive they have been, and how unwilling to listen. Maybe a short article block, say a month? Give them some time off. That approach has worked in getting me to see sense in the past and it's only a short break from a specific article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• For all who are interested, my pronoun is “he.”

This article is at stasis now with respect to the changes that I have proposed. In the last few days, Newimpartial and I discussed potential changes to the article. Newimpartial made some of them and demurred on others. His agreement that “admonishment” would be appropriate is surprising. I would like to see Newimpartial's list of the infractions for which admonishment would be appropriate. (I have given up on asking anything of Bacondrum, who refuses to give any response at all to my requests for explanation except that “it has been explained to you already” and that I am acting “against consensus.”)

Bacondrum seems to be insisting that I should be admonished for my comments. I invite anybody to go to the Talk page and read my comments. He claims that my comment, "If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant" is evidence that I should be admonished. So before making an edit I ask on the Talk page whether there are any objections to it, and that appears to be evidence for admonishment.

Another editor noticed my disruptive behavior on the Talk page where he or she says that I was not inclined to heed warnings. This is nonsense. Please list the warnings that I didn’t heed.

So I would like to see a list, by any complaining editor, listing my infractions specifically. That is one of the fundamental requirements of Due Process. — Swood100 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is more of the same kind of behavior. A cursory glance at their talk page and the Cultural Marxism talk page reveals multiple warnings and requests to stop, as well as an interminable list of comments evidencing the sealioning behavior going back to December last year.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swood100
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

multiple warnings and requests to stop

To stop what? This is the point at which Bacondrum stops responding to me. He needs to refer to a specific post, or a group of posts, and tell me what the violation is. That they violate “consensus” is insufficient. What is the consensus that they violate? He refuses to reply, saying that it has been explained too many times to me already. But it hasn’t been explained too many times to the people in this forum. So let’s hear the explanation. — Swood100 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And that statement is where I become convinced that this user is WP:NOTHERE. "List every instance of my violations" is a tried and true technique to deflect and bog down discussions while the user wears everyone down.

I propose a Topic Ban from post-1932 politics, broadly construed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologise if I am not formatting this correctly, but I have never posted on this page before.

HandThatFeeds is proposing a topic ban for Swood100 from American politics on the basis that Bacondrum, the complainant, has refused to specify their complaint against Swood100. This is surreal.

I also have suffered from Bacondrum’s unspecified allegations, on the same Talk page. Bacondrum will never say what POV I was supposed to be pushing, but keeps talking about sealions (yes, I read the essay) as if that explains his posts. It doesn't. If you make an allegation, you must specify what the allegation consists of, and provide evidence. The persistent unspecified allegations feel like low-level harassment. Examples: [142] [143] And see this series of edits for someone who complains that their time is being wasted: [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

And this [149] on my talk page. Again, nothing is specified. I considered seeking assistance from an administrator at this point, but decided not to waste an admin's time.

I propose that Bacondrum should be warned that if they make any further unspecified and unsubstantiated allegations, they will be indefinitely blocked.Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet6970 had also been sealioning to the point where I was beginning to suspect that Swood100 and Sweet6970 may have been sockpuppets, but then Sweet6970 stopped doing it a few weeks back. Any admin who takes the time will see that myself and the other editors above are right to accuse Swood100 of sealioning, it's been quite blatant over several months. As admins know sealioning is hard to provide diffs for, it's a tactic for wearing others down rather than one specific offending edit. As you can see above, I'm not the only editor accusing Swood100 of sealioning, I'm not just making this up. Bacondrum (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the complaints were "unspecified." The allegations were very clearly made in the article's talk page, but Swood100 didn't want to listen, and now is using the fact that Bacondrum is tired of this being dragged out as an excuse to claim there is no basis for the complaint. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the sake of admins, I'm including all the warnings that Swood has received regarding Sealioning/bludgeoning (so you can see they are quite blatantly feigning ignorance. Which is, of course, more sealioning behavior):
• 24 November: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=990318443
• 30 November: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=991450598&oldid=991448889
• 30 November: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=991586687
• 12 December: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=993735896
• 3 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=997977844
• 3 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998108874
• 3 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swood100&diff=prev&oldid=998111424
• 6 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998744667
• 6 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=998768890
• 6 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swood100&diff=prev&oldid=998749812
• 7 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998961364

They are clearly having us all on claiming they were never warned about civil POV pushing/bludgeoning. I stopped responding to them because they are blatantly sealioning, we don't have to keep responding to blatant and disruptive sealioning, we don't have to interact with those who engage endless disingenuous questioning. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"I was beginning to suspect that Swood100 and Sweet6970 may have been sockpuppets - ah, probably right, add to this the various IP and other accounts that were popping up during various discussions, all towing the same line Acousmana (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I await the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation with interest. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mate you were Sealioning too, I'd take Swood100's example as a lesson and stop. Bacondrum (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Partial block

Even a cursory reading of Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory makes it very clear that the page - and its many other editors - need a rest from Swood100's persistent badgering and inability to drop the stick. I have therefore blocked them from CMCT and its talkpage for 3 months. Hopefully they will engage positively at other areas of the encyclopedia, although after a reading of their previous editing behaviour I am not particularly hopeful. If there is a discussion about a post-1932 AP ban, that discussion can continue, so this should remain open. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, hopefully they will take the time to reflect and correct their behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold on my watchlist for quite some time, and I have to agree, Swood100 is a massive time sink for the editors there. While I won't say definitively, it appears, from a bystander's point of view, that Swood100 believes the conspiracy theory, and wants the article to more closely reflect that point of view. Regardless of whether that's true, their editing is completely tendentious. Without question. Editors indulge Swood100 on the talk page, and these conversations become long and drawn out discussions with little actual purpose. I likewise support a post-1932 AP topic ban. If they want to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, they can demonstrate it elsewhere. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:KILLERXR

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

Since 4 December 2020 this user has repeatedly made the same edit and then, often immediately after, self-reverted (initially another editor reverted the edits). The edits and the reverts have never been explained. I requested the user stop these edits but they continued (I did not have time to bring them here on that occasion). When they resumed they were warned again but they continued with the edits almost immediately.

The sequence of the edits is as follows:

1. 4 to 7 December 2020: 5 edits, 3 self-reverts: First edit, reverted by another user, same edit amongst other changes, reverted by me, same change, reverted by another user, changed again, self-reverted a minute later, changed again, reverted again a minute later
2. 10 December, reverted by another user, same day, 11 December, reverted same day, 12 December, self-reverted shortly after, 14 December
3. Above edit reverted by another user 4 January 2021, changed a few hours later, reverted same day by me, changed 5 January, reverted 6 January by another user, 7 January, self-reverted a minute later, 11 January, self-reverted immediately, 12 January

In this edit I noted that this user appears to be the same editor as at least 4 blocked accounts. This was their response. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The first and fourth in that list look to be the same? Either way that looks like serial account-creation-and-abandoning which is (IIRC) technically not against policy but is certainly bad optics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: IMO the problem remains that User:Kimley Labasan is blocked. Further a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kimley Labasan/Archive shows it's hardly a small number of accounts. Actually I think they will even qualify for WP:3X. I've never been a strong believer in editors coming back, even after a fair while, without dealing with their block/ban first, but this seems to be a very strong case where even those who do support allowing it may have second thoughts. If KILLERXR no longer has access to the Kimley Labasan account, they can make an unblock request on their KILLERXR explaining the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's a point. Yeah that is not of the good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've indef blocked due to block evasion. Fences&Windows 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

POV Pushing Issue in Macedonian history/political article

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

---

• Forbidden History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all,

So, a couple of weeks back, User:Jingiby made an article on the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour (a statute enacted in Macedonia just after WWII against Bulgarian sympathizers in the country). Not long after, they submitted it to DYK, which is how I became involved as it was the QPQ submission I reviewed for my own article submission to DYK. I also watch-listed the article, since I often do that for things I end up passing at DYK. Anyways, not long after that point, User:Forbidden History found the article and began making large changes, with edit summaries like

"Inserted the image of the statute (there is no Law), translation of the statute, official census results (that proves that this whole article is driven by propaganda) and added a Bulgarian source - historian that claims that it is nothing but propaganda."

I ended up reverting most of the changes and began engaging with Forbidden History on the talk page along with Jingiby. Things haven't gone much better since then, with repeated reversions of Forbidden History's additions by myself and other users, including User:SeriousCherno, and with Forbidden History then going on to add in some sort of census numbers on Bulgarians for some reason. Presumably as some sort of representation that Bulgarian population numbers went up, so no persecution happened? Along with an addition to the third paragraph there in the lede that seems to be some sort of "Bulgaria did bad things too" sort of random inclusion. I've tried to explain both OR and Synth on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Forbidden History also hit 5 reverts today the 11th, but I felt like there was a bigger ongoing issue here that the 3RR board won't be fixing, since they would likely just return after any block time period. The article was eventually protected by Darkwind today (thank you) to prevent more chaos from happening. Any suggestions on what to do here? I would like to remove the random census addition from the article, among other fix-ups, but that would require unprotecting it and that would probably be a bad idea at the moment. Silverseren^C 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have notified Jingiby and Forbidden History. Along with SeriousCherno due to my inclusion of them above. Silverseren^C 06:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that "forbidden history" sounds a lot like "truth" and WP:OWB #72 comes to mind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: From this article history, I see Silver seren, Jingiby, and SeriousCherno (and other contributors) working collaboratively on the article and Forbidden History seems determined to disrupt the process based on a POV, including edit warring on multiple occasions. Tag bombing an article repeatedly that is under active improvement rather than using the talk page is disruptive imo. Talk page comments such as this, this are uncivil, show clear POV and and hostility. They posted a clearly disruptive PROD when the consensus was against them. I don't see how Forbidden History could become a positive contributor to this article given the history. The article is now protected so no one can edit it; since Forbidden History is at the root of the edit warring, they have completely disrupted the article improvement. The edit history at Drama uprising, Bitola inscription, Mirče Acev shows the same conduct.   // Timothy :: talk  07:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would really like to get involvement of another Administrators, to see what's going on with the Cited sources by Jingiby (sources 1,2,3,4,6 and 7-none of them stand for what they are quoted). What SilverSeren, tries to defend the Bulgarian POV about the Census table results is definitely a valid point, to show the percentage of Bulgarian minority developing in post war Macedonia-since the article claims that ethnic cleansing was happening there, that Macedonian people were forbidden to declare themselves as Bulgarians (and that is why there are no Bulgarians in Macedonia). Then the article continues with mixing the trialed collaborators of the occupiers by the Court quoted in the article, with the trials of the Macedonian people sentenced by the Primary Courts. I added a Bulgarian historian as a source that also claims that none of this happened, and I'm here accused by SilverSeren, that I didn't allow those people to change those facts and push their own POV. In fact I was the one that send messages to SilverSeren, but he didn't replied to none of them (that tells how much he wanted to contribute in solving the problems), but obviously tendentiously attacked me here-there is no balance in the article, nor NPOV - if editors like SilverSeren, SeriousCherno or Jingiby are constantly deleting cited sources that are proving that those events are not black and white as they are presenting them in the article. Three persons are deleting cited facts (which is vandalism) and I'm the only one editor that is working to write the other side of the story (so, yes 3 persons x 3 reverts might come up to 9, if you gather more Bulgarian editors to dominate on the article to push their POV and deploy your edit warring to 3 times on each of you and on the other side I need to revert them, that doesn't make you innocent, but an organizer of edit warring and POV pushing vandalism). I will take all the consequences that you might find me guilty of, but please check the whole article starting from it's name "Law of..." - there wasn't any Law but a "Court of..." (equal to Military court-Tribunal). In an article in which an editor claims that people were not allowed to present declare their ethnicity it is more than valid to include a census result done by ethnicity-and if that not copes with their sources (which are imaginary by their own Bulgarian Historian), how can that be my fault for preventing the deletion of such source? Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello everybody, In my opinion, the user Forbidden History systematically disruptes some of the rules of Wikipedia, especially concerning WP:RS; WP:OR and WP:BIAS. Although many editors, including me and even administrators, tried to explain to him that he is not always right, and how to edit correctly, he continues to do whatever he wants, without heeding the advice he receives. In my opinion, his usual agenda is "I am right" and "the others are wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I share similar concerns as the comment above, based on my interaction with the same user on the talk page of Bitola inscription.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, everything has already been pretty much highlighted. Forbidden History likes to add information that is not directly supported by sources, then spamming the revert button to prevent any changes or improvements to the article that he doesn't approve of. To add to this, it is obvious from his edit history that he is not here to improve Wikipedia but instead to push a POV. I tried to calm down the situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SeriousCherno#Law_for_the_Protection_of_Macedonian_National_Honour but to no noticeable effect. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Any admin is welcome to issue a topic ban here per WP:ARBEE as Doug Weller provided the necessary notice less a year ago. Ideally, this would be at WP:AE, though... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone still explain what was that notice was in a first place?I received the same day I joined Wikipedia? First was attempt of Jingiby to frighten me that I have joined Wikipedia, and one hour after him, Doug Weller send that notice. The editor Jingiby is "welcoming" all the Macedonian editors with his bullying way, you can see more of that here and here, and here, and here, and here, and here...I can find tons more, same repetitive bullying action towards every newcomer on Wikipedia which is totally against WP:BITE, but yet he is still allowed to do it for several years and not sanctioned for it. His acting of WP:OWNERSHIP, on every History article related on Macedonian history, doesn't seem to apply to him and he still acts like every article belongs to him. Not to talk about edit warring and vandalism (deleting well cited sources).Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forbidden History: we're referring specifically to this notice [150]. I suggest you re-read it carefully. Regardless of what Jingiby may be doing elsewhere, the alert was clearly appropriate as you are consistently editing in that area and it was given by a neutral admin anyway. As the alert explains, the area you are editing in is one rife with problematic behaviour including from new editors and so we are a lot stricter in enforcing behavioural norms and editor limitations. If you want to continue to edit in that area, you need to obey such norms and limitations. If you do not, you will be prevented from editing in that area. If Jingiby's behaviour is really so bad I don't understand why you don't just behave properly. Then perhaps we'd be discussing Jingibu's behaviour rather than yours. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,Nil Einne - thanks for involving in. That is one of the things that I just got pointed out by someone, initially this Admin report is for totally different thing, so since everybody started throwing here everything, I also tried to show what the editor Jingiby is doing. And once again, you are pointing out a diff, created two hours after I logged in for the first time in my life on Wikipedia - what possibly have I did wrong by entering on Wikipedia? My first activities are on Talk Pages first, then on one article, you can see here. Maybe you forgot how's the feeling entering somewhere for the first time and receiving a Warning sign (first by Jingiby-accusing me of having multiple accounts), after an hour someone an Important Notice sign...In fact you can see how that resulted-of me being inactive from that day till October-so, I guess someone should take care of the "welcoming board bullier" as well. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

""@Forbidden History: it's not surprising that you were asked about any prior accounts given your good knowledge of Wikipedia markup you showed in your first few edits, even if this one was a bit bizarre. But you caught that and fixed it in your next edit. Anyone seeing those would think you had prior experience. I don't know what you don't understand about the notice I gave you and it's a concern that you didn't try to find out if you didn't understand it. You got it simply because you were editing in the area. As for the links you show above, they seem to go to problematic editors, eg this one[151] where text and source were reverted on the basis the text wasn't in the book. Well, it is, I just checked. This editor[152] that you replied to doesn't seem new to me and reverted large chunks of sourced text (no comment on the quality, but at least some was sourced) When this was complained about the editor thjreatened to have Jingiby's account suspended. They all seem to have one thing in common besides Jingiby, they are basically single purpose editors who appear just to do a few edits and vanish. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, and yet you are forgetting the fact that those are newcomers that did their first edit and they are not accused of what they edit, but accused of having multiple accounts and doing some coordination in the background? I listed 6 and there are far more on Jingiby list...I don't see a point revitalizing the acts of Jingiby. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortly before the registration of this editor, I was warned on my talk page of a special webinar of United Macedonian Diaspora, called Wikipedia warriors: The new frontline of the battle for Macedonia. It was dedicated on my participation in Wikipedia and how to be discredited were commented on all the time. This made me to have reservations about the appearance of this editor. Check the warning on my talk-page here please: How to deal with non-scientific propaganda warriors. Jingiby (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

So, that gives you right to bully every newcomer on wikipedia? to delete sources that are not of your taste? to discredit the authors cited that are not of your taste? or what? There are always two sides of the story as there are good and evil, love and hate, right and wrong...etc. Playing innocent now would not magically free you of your acts. So, now you are going to accuse everyone that are in some kind of organization against you? Is that it? Get serious, thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the editors you linked to appear to be meatpuppets, and we treat them as socks. I've got no reason to see them as good faith editors intent on following our policies and guidelines, and their disappearance after editing in the topic is evidence enough for me. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors that was bullied by Jingiby-are you accusing me of meatpuppeting now or what? What do you expect from the newcomers to stay on Wikipedia and argue with Jingiby after his accusations towards them minutes/hours after entering for the first time here? I wonder how you know what was Jingiby thinking when bullying them, but OK it is your opinion and I respect it.--Forbidden History (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Were you inspired to come here by something on the Internet that might have been encouraging people to come here? And yes, I certainly expect people to stay, not to simply vanish after 3 or 4 edits. Maybe one, but so many? Doug Weller talk 20:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, for what is worth, my experience with Forbidden History is that the user is extremely conservative in accepting other people’s edits, but quite liberal, when making edits. I moved one (1) sentence from the Bitola inscription main article to the talk page, and was bombarded with comments, which were not quite polite, or even polite at all. For the record, it seems that this user and myself are born in the same country, which today is North Macedonia.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски,Actually it is quite opposite, I didn't delete anything from the article but I added cited source, which was misrepresented by Jingiby and you deleted it. That tells who is conservative and who accepts other people opinion, which is quite opposite of what you described above. So, my experience with you is that you also cannot accept cited sources and you stick to the conservative Bulgarian way of writing the history (POV), a country which even today in 2021 is not accepting the reality around them, that there is Macedonian country with Macedonian nationality. That actually explains where your intolerance towards the editors that try to edit the problematic misrepresentations on Wikipedia, is coming from.Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Forbidden History. It is a perfect illustration of what I have described above. You are right that I don't accept "other people opinion"..., when it is not supported by the facts, or when - as it was the case in the article - it's an opinion of someone about someone else. Aslo, it's not only me, who makes a difference between opinions and facts, it's Wikipedia actually. The rest of your comment above is not relevant for the discussion here, so I am not sure why you included it at all? Although, I have hope other readers will see that it's very easy for you to move into a different territory, away from Wikipedia.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. As it was already mentioned above Forbidden History's usual agenda is "I am right" and "all the others are wrong". Such behavior is not acceptable. Jingiby (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said In my first comment I will accept all the consequences that Admins thinks I'm guilty of, but I won't accept double standards for you and your crew mates. What makes my "agenda" different then yours.--Forbidden History (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I strongly suggest that you take this to WP:AE. That's the place to ask for a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: as this investigation did not start on my own initiative, I think it is right @Silver seren: to do it, for which I kindly ask. Jingiby (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If someone were to open a new thread on this subject at WP:AE, I think it is reasonable to ask for a topic ban of User:Forbidden History. His name, as well as his edits, suggest he does not intend to edit neutrally on Wikipedia. Though the North Macedonians may have reason to be angry at Bulgarians for some bad things that happened since 1900, it may not be helpful to our articles on related topics to have people who are determined to right great wrongs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Doug Weller: and @EdJohnston:, I have done so here. I suppose I should also ping @Jingiby: and @SeriousCherno: about doing so. Silverseren^C 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

hi, continuous deleting of evidence from Luigi di Bella

• Luigi di Bella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2A01:E0A:21B:44B0:E406:2D03:7455:B291 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• TheIronMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

hi, I want to challenge this datas, I only shows official sources Psychologist Guy continue to erase verified informations, what's the matter here? why when even Editorial Registar of British Medical Journal, Tribunals and Italian Center for National Researches and Science approuve it Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:21B:44B0:E406:2D03:7455:B291 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IP editor, by policy you are required to notify users in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time.

Reviewing admins should note Psychologist Guy's reverts, such as this and this, were done because of copyvios and undue weight, as described in their edit summaries. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, if you continue to edit war over that material, I will semi-protect the article and block your range. That is all. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: The same editor created an account and then immediately re-inserted the content. I've reverted and semi'd the article for three days. Up to you if the user needs attention. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been trying to add that fringe material for a while. The material is exact copyvio from an editorial piece by Marcus Mullner which is undue weight and a minority opinion. The IP keeps adding another paper [153] written by Giuseppe Di Bella of the Di Bella Foundation. This is not an independent source and not reliable per WP:MEDRS. I am not aware of any reliable independent scientific evidence for Di Bella's therapy for cancer. It is considered quackery [154]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I just want to thank you for your continued dedication to our project. Thank you. If need be, let's semi-protect for longer, if they continue. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's appreciated, thanks! It's worthwhile even if sometimes it can be very trying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:BLP issues at John Weaver (political consultant)

• John Weaver (political consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Weaver (political consultant) has been protected, but the issue persists. Continued addition of defamatory content, based on published accusations. Please rev/delete if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:FD6A:C363:55CE:A99 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you need to be way more specific than this. Provide diffs. You can't expect editors to go digging through all of the article contributions themselves in order to determine the full scope, and the veracity of what you're alleging. People are generally happy to take a look, but this complaint is lacking any details whatsoever. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the is worried about edits like these [155]. Their concerns seem justified since the sources are Twitter and The American Conservative which per WP:RSPS is mostly only suitable for attributed opinions. It's only been a single editor who has caused problems after the semi-protection. User:OnlyFactsMatter a username with great shades of WP:OWB#72 has now been given a BLPDS and other warnings. IMO we can leave that aspect for now. If other auto-confirmed editors come along, make a request at WP:RFPP for protection to be extended to ECP. If OnlyFactsMatter doesn't get the message, report them either to User:Johnuniq if they seem active or at WP:AIV explaining the BLP problem and that they've already been warned. (You could also use WP:ARE or here, but IMO that's the simple violation that hopefully someone at AIV will be willing to act even if it's not technically vandalism.) As for the rev-deletion I'll leave that for admins to decide if it's justified. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Here are the diffs from John Weaver (political consultant) that require Wikipedia:Revision deletion due to grossly defamatory BLP violations.

1. 07:18, 10 January 2021 (1)
2. 07:18, 10 January 2021 (2)
3. 17:59, 10 January 2021
4. 00:23, 11 January 2021
5. 03:51, 11 January 2021
6. 04:00, 11 January 2021
7. 13:37, 11 January 2021
8. 21:12, 11 January 2021
9. 18:17, 12 January 2021
10. 18:18, 12 January 2021
11. 03:57, 13 January 2021
12. 04:43, 13 January 2021

NedFausa (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Symmachus' comment, I preferred not to post diffs of potentially defamatory content; there's a case to be made that I could have taken this straight to oversight, but I wished to get a read from administrators. Further, it requires virtually no effort to find the edits, and I trust that an admin will see the issue very quickly. The persistence to include the accusations appears to come from an account with an agenda, namely correcting what they perceive to be a leftist bias on Wikipedia. So there's that. 2601:188:180:B8E0:FD6A:C363:55CE:A99 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, I fully support the IP's perhaps cryptic reference here. IP, maybe it's best to post BLP matters on AN rather than ANI. Thanks for noting it, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected; discussion on talk page is ongoing. I'm looking into some of the accounts that added this material. The material is published in sources that, as NedFausa indicated, are at the very least suspect--yet they rise above the blog and tweet level, and for that reason I am not comfortable with revdeletion. IP, you know I don't usually hesitate with pushing that button, but I do here; I would like to hear from other admins: GorillaWarfare, Muboshgu, The Bushranger, I appreciate your opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, thank you. Well explained. If nothing else, I really wanted more eyes on it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:FD6A:C363:55CE:A99 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In my opinion, edits that include any accusations sourced to tweets should be revision-deleted. If a revision contains information that is entirely supported by The American Conservative or similarly marginally reliable sources, it probably doesn't need revision deletion. I'm going to go ahead and revision delete with a fairly heavy hand, and if any of my deletions need to be reversed we can do that—I don't want to leave BLP content hanging around in the page history while we determine precisely which revisions need removal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, thank you; I appreciate your help here, and I completely agree with the tweet - vs. biased source assessment. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My humble two cents: I'd only use Twitter as a primary source for "X said about X", only if nothing else was available, and mostly for businesses (a lot of racetracks and racing series these days, for instance, only post their news as Tweets, which is a major pain but I digress) and never for BLPs beyond "this person said X[Tweet cite] and there were reactions[in normal sources]". As for the other sources...I wouldn't use them but I probably wouldn't rev-del them unless the source itself removes the formerly-used 'source'. Hope that makes sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring continues. The content is controversial enough that it needs more reliable sources than The American Conservative. I leave it to admins to figure out how best to handle the content and the accounts that continue to add it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Armatura

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

---

User:

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

Comment by reporter:

• The user has serious behavioural issues, mostly present in Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war. Constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS has created quite a toxic environment in the said talk page. I've linked some particular cases below, but it'd be better if an Admin took a look at the overall behaviour of the user. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Particular incidents:

• Accusing a user of bullying and personal attacks when that user asked Armatura to not divert from the discussion topic with other irrelevant topics - diff. Similar behaviour in the same discussion when replying - diff; Armatura was called out for the baseless accusations in this particular discussion by a third-party editor, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI - diff, and Armatura's response to this consisted of judging the commenter, User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI rather than focusing on the comment - diff.

• Accusing me and other editors of denying the Armenian Genocide, out of nowhere, because of our ethnicity - diff and when I reply that I do not deny it, Armatura is surprised and gives "kudoz" to me for "not denying something that is denied by your government" and calls me a "rare exception" - diff.

• Failing to WP:AGF countless times and using weird & irrelevant excuses to justify this behaviour. E.g. they're using the fact that a few Azerbaijani editors were banned for off-wiki coordination in Russian Wikipedia 11 years ago as a reason for why "assumption of good faith is difficult" - diff. They have used this 11-year-old incident in multiple occasions (e.g. in their reply to User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI which I linked earlier - diff) and have also threatened to report the few users that were involved in that incident to ANI in the English Wikipedia, 11 years later, because, per Armatura's words, they still have the "same zealousness for pushing Azerbaijani POV forward, no change in behaviour" and that this has made "making assumption of good faith practically impossible" for Armatura.

• Armatura was previously reported 2 months ago. Though, as the reporter was, at the time, topic-banned, the report was dismissed, although the closing Admin also suggested concerns with Armatura's edits, including other Admins and Users in the report itself who wrote about Armtatura's problematic editing style and behaviour.

Comments:

• Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour . I'll start with reminding about the rules of complaining here:

• Take a look at these tips:

1. Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page [not done]
2. Or try dispute resolution. [not done]
3. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly [not done]

1. Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better. (If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you.) [not done]
2. Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended. ';'[not done]
3. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ("That made me feel..." is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was...") [not done]
4. Ask them to strike through an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally. [not done]
5. No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become the editor who can't be baited. [not done]
6. If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors. [not done]
7. In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard. Bear in mind the risk of being hoist by your own petard if you yourself are guilty of policy violations. Please also read the ANI Advice first. [the only step done, without any "emergency", skipping everything above]

• As an example of your habitual reverting in general behaviour being scrutinised, I will provide just one example where the only reason you were not blocked was that the admin was kind to offer abstinence from NKR-related articles as an alternative. A search with name "CuriousColden" on noticeboard archives gives so many results it would take a life to post here all diffs of people being unhappy with your edtis, so I won't, admins have better tools of batch-searching then me I believe.

• Now,

1. Could my behaviour been better? - it definitely could, mostly by not taking the bait and not answering the provocations and being less emotional
2. Does CuriousGolden's background of being from Azerbaijan / Turkey / Turcic world / Muslim world matter much? No, because there are other editors from the same background with whom it has been possible to talk and reach consensus, despite some of them having strong points of views and being on the list that caused a scandal on Russian Wikipedia. Even awareness of Azerbaijani Laundromat does not preclude from interacting with Azerbaijani editors constructively. And when a good suggestion is made I don't hesitate to write thank you.
3. Do CuriousGolden actions matter much? Yes, and they make assumption of good faith justifiably difficult - constant edit reverts, arbitrary additions from Azerbaijani/Turkish-only sources, voting to support a "faction" instead of providing sensible explanations and trying to reach a consensus, baiting, intimidating and attacking other editors on Armenia / Azerbaijan / Nagorno Karabakh related articles while remaining formally civil, demonstrating symptoms of ownership of the articles he contributed to significantly, making other editors who disagree with his edits feel frustrated with what the discussion become in the end. There are multiple people unhappy with his behaviour yet instead of reflecting and improving he keeps accusing Wikipedia guidelines and tries to eliminate the others, so he could Azerbaijanify Wikipedia even further.
4. Is CuriousGolden to be blamed for his behaviour? No, he is not alone; it is not a secret Armenophobia is widespread in Azerbaijan, as Armenian Genocide denial is, and formalists shouting AGF better look into these realities carefully.
5. Does CuriousGolden need to be sanctioned for trying to eliminate a user whom he did not like, taking the abovementioned into account? I will leave this to uninvolved admins, but I think the user is not there to build an encyclopedia, but to infiltrate English Wikipedia with Azerbaijani POVs. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
6. What else can help the situation in the Nagorno Karabakh related topics and their talk pages? More admin presence, please.
7. I suggest all editors who may comment below to first state whether they have any conflict of interest / involvement on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, for transparency. --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin notice

There have been many incident reports like this regarding this conflict, and still there is no solution here on Wikipedia. In my view, this has to do with the design of ANI:

• Being aimed at urgent issues, it is geared towards quick fixes rather than actual solutions of the underlying problems.
• Being aimed at behavioral problems, it focusses everybody's attention on individual users rather than issues, contrary to what WP:FOC recommends.

Since there is no rush for this issue, I will therefore put this on hold while I do some research at my own pace and will report back here in about a week. ◅ Sebastian 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Nationalist POV pushing, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism by Friendly Batman

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

---

Friendly Batman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly called the edits of other editors vandalism. For example this, this, and this. The latter diff is best viewed at this section of the article. They replace what appears to be well referenced content (I have no prior history with the article) with completely unreferenced claims, including BLP violating claims that a two living historians have engaged in dishonest scholarship, a claim they repeat several times here on the article's talk page. Due to me removing the word "decisive" from multiple infoboxes (Template:Infobox military conflict says not to use it) they made this comment of You have been vandalizing all the battle pages of Hindu as well as Indian victories. IMO you are some islamist who is vandalizing factual analysis based information/article accroding to your own ideological inclination, despite being told previously not to refer to edits as "vandalism". FDW777 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You can see their response to this report here, Certain content moderators who are radicals ideologues and have Pro islamists views are not allowing academics/historians to fix the factual errors related Hindu history as well as Indian history. They have been vandalising and deleting factual information on several battles involving Hindu kings & India and pushing pro islamist narrative. Speaks for itself. FDW777 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I find this diff as well as this diff the most disturbing. It's clear that Friendly Batman has removed referenced content and replaced it with unreferenced content. I also take note of the personal attack that was made in response to a discussion regarding the article, where Friendly Batman does not acknowledge the issues being raised, but some possible "typos" with their edits - which is clearly not the issue. I've partially blocked Friendly Batman from the Battle of Talikota article for two weeks. I'll leave the user unblocked from the article's talk page, so that they can contribute and make positive discussion if they wish. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Ahrtoodeetoo

Moved to Administrators' noticeboard § Unblock request by Ahrtoodeetoo

17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ownership problem at articles about TV stations

First off, I have ZERO dog in this fight. I have seen it sorta unfold in the talk pages of a couple of the admins I follow.

BlueboyLINY (edits) and Mvcg66b3r (edits) have a very "revert, OWN, WARN, prefered version, revert with an insult in the edit summary, rinse, repeat" kind of editing style. Their current battlefield is the WRNN-TV article, as you can see here. Breaking 3RR or coming damn near close. I brought this to the attention of an admin, MelanieN, who seems to be "dealing" with these two (plus another). Unfortunately, 6 days since my initial note and 5 days since I "[lit] it up again" (a reference to the old orange talk page "new message" bar), there has been no response. The behavior has most certainly continued and now Mvcg66b3r is asking for the WRNN page to be "lock[ed] before BlueboyLINY reverts it again...He's a picky editor." Clearly, we do not "lock" pages for content disputes and for editwars.

As I suggested to MelanieN, "I think a content block [edit: or even a page block] and a interaction block is needed, at least temporarily, maybe 3 months. Then, after 3, let them edit and if they can get along, cool. If they can't, make it 6 or just permanent. Cause clearly they are not editing constructively now and short of complete site-wide blocks, which I don't think are necessary (yet), I think this is the best way to go."

I still believe this is the best course of action. Take them away from the articles where they are interacting (I'll leave that up to you all) and institute a page/content and a "wide-berth" interaction block (ie: give each other a wide-berth and leave each other alone).

As I said at the beginning, I have no dog in this fight and I have only sorta seen it unfold from talk pages of the admins I follow. If I didn't get curious and do 2 minutes of research, I wouldn't have found this out. But something needs to be done.

Courtesy note: I have used the {{u}} template to alert everyone to this thread. I will still alert and link them via a manual note on their respective talk pages. Please give me a moment to do so. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:39 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Both editors mentioned (BlueboyLINY and Mvcg66b3r) and the admin (MelanieN) have been manually notified, per rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer: You say you have "ZERO dog in this fight", but you recommended a sanction, and when it wasn't acted on you brought a complaint here, so you do indeed have a "dog", and it's your proposed solution. You're not exactly a disinterested party here, are you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:: Half a paw, then?...to keep the metaphor going. I'm not disinterested, I'm just not interested in seeing all this crap go down across multiple pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer! We actually do protect pages if they're the subject of an edit war or dispute between multiple users. I've fully protected the article for a few days, and I've warned Mvcg66b3r for edit warring, as this user hasn't been given one (the other user was already warned). If the users don't work things out properly on the article's talk page, and if edit warring continues on the article after the full protection expires, I wouldn't be against imposing a partial block on both users from the article for a period of time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah:: I didn't think we did protect them for content disputes anymore because it was more of a punishment to the community at large over the acts of a few. I was trying to look for ways that all parties (the users and the community) could benefit so that the acts of two would not cause the entire article to be semi or even fully protected. This is why I proposed the page or content block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

My comment: There has been a long-term pattern of disagreement and edit warring at many articles about TV stations. Combatants include User:BlueboyLINY, User:Tvstationfan101, User:Mvcg66b3r, and others. Mvcg is a long-established editor; the other two are newer but not newbies by any means. When these editors disagree there is never any discussion at talk pages; there is some shouting at each other in edit summaries. This is the underlying problem, across many articles. I don’t regard myself as “in charge” of the TV station articles or of monitoring these editors, but I am aware of the situation, and have now looked a little deeper to see how pervasive it is.

The current arguing at the WRNN-TV article goes back to last March. Mvgc was already a regular editor on that page. In March an editor called BlueboyLI turned up and made a change or two which were reverted by Mvcg. Two months later the current editor, BlueboyLINY, took up the argument, Mvcg reverted, and that back and forth has been going on at a slow pace ever since. In recent days the pace picked up into Edit Warring territory. At no time did they use the talk page. (Regarding the two similarly named accounts: BlueboyLI hasn’t edited since March; BlueboyLINY began editing in April. My guess is they are the same person but not socks; probably they lost the password to the first username so they created another.)

My own involvement with these editors goes back to a November request at RFPP regarding the article WMBQ-CD There was slow-motion edit warring going on between a different pair of editors: BlueboyLINY on one side and TVstationfan101 on the other. Again, no discussion on the talk page, although TVstationfan made a few unsourced assertions. I took the unusual step of full-protecting the article for a year, hoping it would force them to the talk page, and I posted several times on their user talk pages, but they never did discuss. I finally unlocked the page at the request of an uninvolved editor, who cleaned up the page, and the edit warring did not resume on that page.

The bottom line is that there seems to be a culture of WP:OWNERSHIP and “because I said so” at many articles about TV stations. The editors revert each other, sometimes over and over, without any evidence or discussion. IMO any action here needs to address this cultural issue regarding TV stations - something to get these folks to recognize the need for 1) discussion and 2) showing evidence for their own version. If that requires warnings or sanctions or whatever, I leave up to the community. But I suspect that partial blocks from a particular article, or short-term protection of an individual article, will have no effect on the overall problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN:: Sanctions, be it page and content blocks or protection of the article, couldn't hurt. If the behavior is systemic across multiple articles, a site-wide block might be necessary (again, that's an admins call, not mine). There are behavior correcting sanctions, not punishments. We want these editors to become respected members of the community, or at least better than they are now, not just edit-warriors and subjects of ANI threads. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Another neutral comment from a constant TV editor; I completely agree with NH's assessment, and have purposefully avoided all of the New York TV and radio articles in the last couple years unless the edit is so uncontestable that it can't be reverted (see WNBM, where I keep trying to assert transmitters in New York are atop buildings because...they're in New York City and transmitters are on the top floors of skyscrapers, but BBLI is insistent that they're not and only the antennas are, and thus they've been insistent that 'at' is used rather than 'atop' for skyscraper transmitters, which I tapped out of arguing about with them long ago). These editors need to resolve their differences and allow consensus and other editors to say their peace. Mvcg also had a long-time issue with another editor, Spshu, on articles dealing with the Lansing, Michigan television market that petered out after Spshu seemed to retire from the encyclopedia without notice. I've also told Mvcg to stop stalking my contrib page several times (they always seem to jump on my TV edits, no matter what), without success. The WMBQ-CD edit war over a station 99% of the New York market doesn't care about seems to be one of the lamest edit wars I have ever known, and I do agree with Melanie on that also.Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nate's right. BBLI's "arguement" that the antennas are atop the skyscrapers, but not the transmitters, is just untrue at best and intentionally misleading at worst. First the view from atop the Empire State Building and from inside. To 1WTC, as it was. As it is today, high above and a rare picture in the transmitter room. At 4 Times Square, high above and in the transmitter room.

BBLI is very wrong. The transmitters and their antennas are high above in the skyscrapers of New York City. A rare few of FM stations have their antennas elsewhere and all AM towers located on the ground. This is a very clear example where this user should not be editing certain articles and where a content block would be most helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:06 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

I forgot the exact incident from BBLI why I stopped editing New York TV articles, but I just remembered. On WABC-TV back in July 2018, an IP was throwing death threats towards BBLI, so I reverted the edit, then made an additional summary edit of a harmless space to explain why beyond the standard rollback summary. Instead of thanking me, they called me 'disruptive' for doing so. I declared to them I found their behavior appaling and indeed backed out of NY TV edits because their OWN attitude blinded them to the actual disruption. When another editor defended me on the talk page, they then decided to attack that editor for another OWN matter entirely just to pick a fight, and that's when I decided to avoid BBLI from then on. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh...yeah. Clearly unconstructive and uncollaborative edits and posts to others. Why is there no action on this thread? These users are NOT going to get anywhere if we set around and twidle our thumbs and play "let someone else worry about it". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:14 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

As I have explained many times, my edits are in depth while Blueboy's edits are kind of bland. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I'm going to need a LOT more clarification on what you mean by "in-depth" and "bland". I've looked at both your and BBLI's edits. Your edits look like a LOT of reverting and some minor GNOMEish edits. Nothing I was classify as "in-depth". His I was classify the same, but not so much of the reverts except when he was around you and Tvstationfan101. More GNOMEish edits. Nothing I would call "bland".

So, I'm gonna need clarification on the "in-depth" and "bland" meanings. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, Like when Blueboy constantly deletes pertinent information on WRNN's channel-sharing deal with WWOR. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Yes, but he makes a point, WRNN is NOT a flagship. While he is removing the channel sharing part, which is correct, you continue to add the flagship part. That is incorrect. The WRNN signal is only "piggybacked" on WWOR's signal. So, there is no "flagship" to be had. You both are correct, but you are edit-warring and going about it in a very bad way. You see our point? You need a little seperation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

I've tried many times in the past reaching out to Mvcg66b3r, going back to his first ediits in 2015 (I was editing under BlueboyLI which I no longer have access to) to no avail. His edits, which he sees as "in depth" tend to be a WP:SEAOFBLUE with unnecessary WP:OVERLINKS ie: "Through a channel sharing agreement, the station shares transmitting facilities with Secaucus, New Jersey-licensed MyNetworkTV flagship WWOR-TV (channel 9) at One World Trade Center". In my view "Through a channel sharing agreement, the station shares transmitting facilities with WWOR-TV (channel 9) at One World Trade Center" is sufficient. After all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a novel, as such it's ok to be bland. I try and edit in such a way that the article is factual and does not lead to reader fatigue with an over-abundance of unnecessary links. BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlueboyLINY: In this instance, regarding WRNN and WWOR, I agree with you. Your version of the edits look sufficient. There is no need for the overlinking and no need for the "flagship" addition.

What I don't agree with, is how you went about it. You can't edit war. You have to be the bigger person, even if that means walking away and getting an admin. If this has been going on since 2015, an admin was needed waaaay before than. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:42 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Now that we have heard from both users and the associated admin, who is "leav[ing it] up to the community", it's time to make some recommendations, decisions, have a conversation. The thread has been a little light on admin participation except from the immediate start. So, let's hash this out and put this to bed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:03 on January 16, 2021 (UTC)

LTA block neded

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

---

Pcrowz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Long-Term-Abuse. Please nuke the creations and don't forget to revisionDelete all edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from MarcoAntonio007

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

---

• MarcoAntonio007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has been warned multiple times for uncited edits. I believe MarcoAntonio007 is editing in good faith but a combination of poor English skills, low quality information added to articles and lack of citations mean that their edits regularly require complete reversion.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2C-B&diff=prev&oldid=998643718
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bromo-DragonFLY&type=revision&diff=983022459&oldid=982198192
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco&type=revision&diff=1000158547&oldid=999131278

The user has previously received a short ban for the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#MarcoAntonio007._disruptive_editing Testem (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Upon seeing the previous warning, I'm no longer so sure it's in good faith. Testem (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is just "poor English skills", then it's such an imparement that they should not be editing here. Creating lots of English problems without gain of useful actual content needs to stop. I'd support indef. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, just an editor here, but this person is making a large number of edits and won't respond to the comments on the edit summaries or his page. MartinezMD (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Indef'ed. Unable or unwilling to even discuss, and no evidence of the problem slowing or stopping. DMacks (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Displayname 99

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

---

• Display name 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Display name 99 in this diff posts their support for the Proud Boys, proclaiming: The Proud Boys defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace., and BLM and antifa, in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed, kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property, including both private and federal property, which makes the slight damage inflicted on the Capitol building look miniscule. They repeat a similar argument here, once again claiming that BLM protests resulted in killing civilians and burning down cities because a few criminals got killed.

More to the point, this quote: Welcome to globalist fantasy land and double standards. Note the use of the racist talking point "globalist." This user is WP:NOTHERE to edit collaboratively from a neutral point of view, but to support a known white supremacist group, while protestors against police violence are supposedly "killing civilians and burning down cities." (As a point of order: no cities have been "burned down" during BLM protests, and Breonna Taylor was no criminal.)

I propose this editor be indefinitely blocked. There's a vast difference between arguing based on sources, and arguing in support of the Proud Boys committing violence to "keep the peace" while using racist & anti-Semitic language. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - They're not here to contribute; they're here to wage an ideological war of edits. Not something we need here on top of the other rubbish that gets dumped into Wikipedia on a regular basis.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I struck my support because I'm surprised to discover that this user has some FAs to their name. What on earth happened here?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Turns out, people can make good articles, but still support awful things. I don't think the former excuses the latter, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• It...does, actually. The fact it does is quite fundamental to the project. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• If it's "fundamental" that people be able to endorse violent racist groups openly just because they can write a good article, then this project cares more about cranking out content than actual human lives. That cannot be the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose So Display name 99 should be blocked because of their opinion or perspective? Seriously? I recommend this discussion be closed before emotions run high. Jerm (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Their talk page comments have been unconstructive, but not in violation of any policy for which an indef ban would be appropriate and their contributions log shows that they can contribute constructively. If anything, a topic ban for post-1932 American politics might be suitable. Caius G. (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, close, and trout OP. (Trout Displayname 99, too.) May approve of a topic ban, depending on if the issue persists. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose. People shouldn't be blocked solely on their opinions (I still remember the report opened on Lauren Southern a few weeks back), and I don't see anything like tendentious editing for now in the diffs provided. Talk page comments could be better, and given how charged they are, I'm not surprised that there was such a reaction from other users. I agree with editors above that a topic ban could be more appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter has not burned down any cities entirely, but it has caused enormous property damage across multiple cities, most especially this summer but also many times in previous years. While Breonna Taylor does not have a documented criminal history like the rest of the people who have been involved in these incidents, her ex-boyfriend, a drug dealer, said that she was holding onto his money for him. [156] So there is some evidence for criminal activity on her part.

As for the sanctions that are being proposed against me, it is utterly absurd to sanction someone for expressing paleoconservative viewpoints on talk pages while editors who adhere to socialism or globalism are allowed to advocate these principles with impunity not only on talk pages but in articles in total violation of Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Display name 99 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• The idea of indef blocking you is an embarrassment; your conduct in those diffs is also an embarrassment. This is just a fundamentally bad AN/I and ideologically driven behaviour for all parties. Be better -- don't go around making inflammatory diffs and complaining when people disapprove of them. HandThatFeeds, don't go around recommending productive editors be indef blocked for doing dumb things if there's any meaningful chance of them stopping doing those dumb things. The corollary of this, DN, is you should stop doing dumb things. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an indef block is a little harsh - however, the "opinions" expressed in that diff "The Proud Boys ... keep peace. The Proud Boys helped storm the Capitol in response to an allegedly stolen election. BLM and antifa ... kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property. BLM is a thousand times more violent than the Proud Boys" are laughably false and the user is simply embarrassing themselves by posting it on that talk page, and then doubling down again on this page when they are called out on those falsehoods. This, together with worrying disconnects with reality like this are concerning. I would suggest that if User:display name 99 cannot stop themselves posting stuff like this, then they should consider voluntarily staying away from such charged subjects, as I suspect it can only end in either a topic ban or a block if they continue down this road. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have tried to stay away from such American disputes, not least because it seems that current issues may be resolved by the many rats who have supported the unsupportable for the last four years trying to leave the sinking ship now, but I must point out that the English Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy does not mean that we have a balance between truth and lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Trout Hand a trout to Displayname99 for making WP:NOTFORUM comments. Trying to hash out modern political debates on-wiki like that is a fools errand (and if it continues may very well end in a ban from modern American Politics). But otherwise, Displayname99 shows they are an able and adroit contributor, with 4 incredible FA's to their name. I remind everyone here that we should not be having discussions on the merits of our articles, only how to cover them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • • I would support an AP2 topic ban. I still think an indef is a step too far at this point. An indef, for one comment, for a long established user? I question the wisdom of that. Would we block a new user for saying that? Yes, because without a track record it would indicate they are NOTHERE and only looking to push a POV. Display name has shown they are here to build an encyclopedia. Now I agree their comments were bad, dumb, racist, and not well thought out. But this could easily be solved by not having them comment on the very divisive AP2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, But otherwise, Displayname99 shows they are an able and adroit contributor, with 4 incredible FA's to their name. - without me making any judgement on this individual circumstance, the content somebody contributes should have absolutely no bearing on how we judge their conduct. This comment risks us suggesting that we hold established contributors to a lower standard of conduct than we do others, and risks further embedding the issue we have with the idea of 'unblockables'. I think it is misjudged. Best, Darren-M talk 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• • I would argue that if Wikipedia cannot draw a bright-line against endorsing violent racist groups, we have failed as a community. This is not something we can bury our head in the sand & hope for the best. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • What's the issue? Talk page comments can be removed if they contravene policy (possibly WP:NOTFORUM in this case) and npov violating edits reverted. Wikipedia itself does not endorse anything and users can endorse whatever they like, as long as it does not affect their editing. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • users can endorse whatever they like, as long as it does not affect their editing. Er, (a) No they can't, and (b) If they're endorsing (whatever), they're implicitly doing it whilst editing. There isn't a free pass for non-article pages. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
        • they're implicitly doing it whilst editing Doing what while editing? Editors are generally trusted to separate their biases from their editing (cf. anyone who has any political statement on their user page yet edits political articles) and while I believe that the user's behaviour might warrant a topic ban, we don't go around pre-emptively blocking anyone whose endorsement of extremist groups suggests an altered perception of reality. Caius G. (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
          • we don't go around pre-emptively blocking anyone whose endorsement of extremist groups... Try sticking a swastika on your userpage and see what happens (I'm not saying this is equivalent, incidentally, but the point is that we do block for that). But yes, that'll be why I suggested above that a topic ban would be the preferred solution here. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and trouts all round. No, he shouldn't be banned based on the above, though he perhaps needs to read WP:NOTAFORUM. — Czello 20:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• The not-so-coded language here being used by Display name99 is nothing short of disgusting, hateful and unwelcoming. Using globalist isn't even a dog-whistle, it's a fucking vuvuzela. And attacking Breonna Taylor and her family in an ANI thread really demonstrates the point being made by op. I don't know why anyone is trouting op for daring to speak up about someone proclaiming their admiration of a known hate group but it's really concerning. We don't have to welcome people who hold views that are fundamentally incompatible with the project. And yes, this is one of them. CUPIDICAE💕 21:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I strongly support an indefinite block and/or ban. CUPIDICAE💕 21:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, an AP2 ban simply isn't enough. This is threatening to our editors and readers. Imagine if you were a person of color coming here to read that it's okay to be an out and proud racist white supremacist who supports violence against black people as long as they aren't editing AP2 topics. There is no room for this on an inclusive project. CUPIDICAE💕 00:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hold up, I don't see diffs that say this editor is an out and proud racist white supremacist who supports violence against black people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Was I unclear? How is this different than someone saying "The Nazis defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace."? Do you object to that? Or are people more offended at calling out overt racism than actual hateful racist rhetoric? CUPIDICAE💕 01:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Are we really having a debate over whether or not an editor making racist dog whistles and openly endorsing white supremacist terrorist groups should be allowed here? I'm struggling to see anything other than an indeff. Everyone suggesting a trout should be applied to the op and Display name in lieu of any sort of sanctions should be smacked with a whale. And no, "They have 4 FAs" doesn't have excuse this behavior.Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Indef. As long as this kind of speech stands unchallenged in project space, what we communicate is that enwiki is not a space for ethnic minorities. That is absolutely unacceptable to me. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Praxidicae and moneytrees. This isn't about opinions. The "globalism" nonsense is pure antisemitism, and the suggestion that it's somehow okay to shoot a black woman because something something drugs is just as as unacceptable. The cutesy "trout everyone" doesn't cut it here. This isn't about someone accidentally breaking a template, this is about the dignity and survival of actual, living, breathing people. Support indef. Blablubbs|talk 21:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obvious Oppose I am not seeing anything remotely worthy of an indef. Trout for both sounds about right. Time to move along. PackMecEng (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, now that the hounds of hell have been unleashed and have pissed and shat all over the Capitol, let's please have unity and come together as a community and not do anything to upset or anger them any more than they are already.
  Per the spirits of WP:NONAZIS, WP:POLEMIC, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies and essays which teach us that a collegial community is vitally important to the continuing existence of Wikipedia, I support an indefinite block for this <redacted> editor. Failing that, an AP2 topic ban would seem the absolute minimum required here,but, really, we don;t need or want people who think like that here. Boot 'em. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, and AP2 ban can be placed by any uninvolved administrator without a formal discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order: An indef block proposal here is a siteban proposal. See WP:CBAN. Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• We are not blocking based on one's opinions and perspectives, we block based on on-wiki activity and behaviour. I can see that DN99 is inappropriately using our talk pages to rant about his ideologies and beliefs, which is not what talk pages are for. I think Black Kite, Praxidicae, and Moneytrees have summed it up accurately, so I don't think I need to repeat it like a broken record here (and if I do need to repeat it, for some reason, then my God). A simple "trout and move on" is essentially a slap in the wrist for spreading inappropriate, unencyclopedic material that is lacking in factual accuracy, biased, and racist. If a brand new account started doing that, even if it is entirely confined within the talk space, they'd be indeffed immediately. Simply being a "good contributor" does not excuse inappropriate behaviour: hell, if that were the case, then we shouldn't be desysopping or decratting anybody because "they're a good contributor". If that's not a double standard, then I don't know what is. We are Wikipedia—the free encyclopedia—not Wikiopinions. Get it off this site or get out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  We take peoples participation and past contributions to the project into account all the time. This is no different. So yes, we treat long term established editors with a history of strong content creation differently than a newbie, as we should. PackMecEng (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  In which case an AP2 topicban should suffice in removing them from the area without impacting on any good work they do elsewhere. And from looking at their contribs, apart from the last week most of that work does appear to be done elsewhere. (Their FAs and most GAs are about US politicians, but they're all pre-1932.) Win-win, no?Changed to "block". Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah maybe, I think I'm going to bow out of this one. It's rather depressing on both sides at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban – per Beyond My Ken. Changed to "block". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't even see an articulation of a blockable offense--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block would be an over-reaction. Black Kite is right that they are likely to get an AP2 topic-ban if these comments (which seem low on facts and suggestions to improve articles, and high on a desire to inflame controversy) continue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• 'Oppose indef, support something AP2 topic ban might be needed, and I would strongly suggest that the user in question removes the material from their user page and avoids anything even remotely related to politics, but they haven't actually broken any policies or anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban per BMK, and will impose it if no one else beats me to it. Miniapolis 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Passions are a wee bit hot right now so its not surprising we would see some of that heat from editors we are not accustomed to seeing it from. Proud Boys aren't really a group I would waste time defending and I think a careful review of their activities would benefit Display name 99. But I checked out a few other comments and I don't see any personal attacks...only a divergence of opinion and that certainty is not grounds for an indef(!) much less even a topic ban. I do recommend Display name 99 not waste time arguing with people until passions cool all around. It would be a disgrace to lose an FA capable editor over opining in a nondisruptive manner.--MONGO (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would definitely support an AP2 topic ban based on the diffs above. I am hesitant to support an indef for someone who clearly is here to build an encyclopedia, and I feel this topic ban would still let them do that while keeping out of trouble. P-K3 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• My own inclination (which makes my soul ache to know is, even in 20-fucking-21 still in the minority), is that racists and anti-Semites (yes, anti-Semitic too; please look up what far-right conservatives mean by "globalist" before objecting), no matter how well they write, shouldn't be welcome here. If for some reason people think they're only a "borderline" racist and anti-Semite, and that this is too aggressive for FA-writing borderline racists and anti-Semites, then consider: if they are this disconnected from fact-based reality, can their non-political edits be trusted to be fact-based? If for some reason people think that they're only delusional regarding racial issues, and not delusional regarding whatever it is they like to write FAs about, and that borderline racism and anti-Semitism is OK, then I suppose an AP ban - so at the very fucking least they aren't allowed to insult people of other races, religious minorities, and cultures to their faces - is marginally better than nothing. But I sure wish we were less tolerant of these people when they've gone to the trouble of identifying themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: You make a particularly good point, especially since 3/4 of their FAs are about slave owners. CUPIDICAE💕 01:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic. I subconsciously knew going to the trouble of finding out what their FA's were about would cause me even more soul aching. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I *hate* to be that guy, especially in this case where I'm wavering between a TBan and a block , but I'm going to say that's misleading. Their four FAs aren't about people notable for their slave-owning, they're two US presidents and two US VPs. Precisely one of their dozen or so GAs is about someone who owned slaves, and even they were us US Secretary of War at around the same time. Black Kite (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block for whitewashing a far-right club and spreading lies about BLM. An AP2 topic ban is the very least we should consider here. MONGO, I don't think Display name 99 is just unaware of what the Proud Boys are, or what BLM is. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block I can’t believe I have to log in again just to support banning a wildly racist editor. Last time, the arguments against banning Southern were that she never said anything blatantly racist on WP. Okay, fine. Here we have someone being blatantly racist on WP. They are literally saying every unarmed black person who has been killed by police are deserving of it because they are “criminals,” while the rioters at the Capitol just did some minor property damage and a white supremacy group is just trying to protect people. These aren’t factual stances. These are racist stances, and if you look at their FAs they spend a lot of effort trying to downplay slavery. You expect POC to contribute here when someone says Taylor, shot dead in her bed, deserved it due to some “criminal” connection but they have some FAs under their belt so we’ll ignore that? Their recent TP edits aren’t even dog whistling. It’s just straight-up, baseless, white supremacist bullshit.Capeo (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block, support topic ban So long as this editor can keep their opinions to themselves, and return to productive contribution, I see no reason they should be booted off. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The comments that I made regarding the Proud Boys and other topics were made in response to other editors advancing progressive talking points. I cannot be accused of violating NOTAFORUM while those who instigate discussions based on their own political views are not simply because their views happen to be seen as correct. I don't know of anyone in an ethnic minority who has been harmed because of what I said, so the suggestion that a block is necessary to "protect" these people is sheer lunacy. I also never said that Taylor deserved to be killed. Whoever is saying that either isn't reading what I wrote or is deliberately misinterpreting it.

That me expressing these beliefs should result in any kind of disciplinary action, whether it be a topic ban or an indefinite block, is repulsive and based entirely on the personal feelings of editors rather than on any kind of Wikipedia policy. Usually, if a person on Wikipedia has done something that is unwelcome, he is first warned about what sort of behavior is acceptable and what is not. He only faces discipline, such as a topic ban or a block, if he refuses to listen. Nearly every editor in this thread has shown a willingness to disregard precedent in the case of a culturally conservative editor. I will not be apologizing for anything; I've done nothing wrong. And seeing as I've done nothing wrong, I have no intention of abiding by a topic ban. My contributions have lessened within the last year (hence the semi-retired template on my userpage), but I have been a productive editor on Wikipedia since 2015. I have created 13 articles, brought four articles to FA status, 10 to GA status, and made important contributions elsewhere. When I had time to be more active on Wikipedia again, there were two other articles that I had worked extensively on-one of which I already brought to GA status-that I had hoped to bring to FA status. My contributions to these article can and should be judged on their own merits. I believe that they have enhanced Wikipedia greatly and have helped spread more knowledge and understanding. This can be where it ends. Display name 99 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm forcibly reminded of the saying "political opinions are like one's genitals. It's ok to have them, it's ok even to be proud of them. But for the love of god, don't show them to anyone unless they asked to see it in the first place!". I'm glad you recognize wp:notaforum, and are presumably endeavouring to not repeat this regrettable lapse in judgement. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think you read my comment correctly. I said that I did nothing wrong and that if I was let go with only a topic ban I wouldn't abide by it and basically invited an administrator to give me an indefinite block. Display name 99 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of anything better to say if you wanted to get yourself indefed. Making one's politics a personality trait is embarrassing at best and dangerous at worst. We are very lucky that here on Wikipedia, it is only embarrassing. Doing 'cringe shit', to use the vernacular, doesn't deserve indef blocks; that level of taking such disputes to heart is what leads to the unreachable political polarization that we see now in things like the utterly abominable, monstrous attack a few days ago. What it does deserve is round mockery -- I was even thinking about the genitals metaphor earlier. The conduct of every party here is the equivalent of a random dick pic. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet:Doing 'cringe shit', to use the vernacular, doesn't deserve indef blocks; taking such disputes to heart is what leads to the unreachable political polarization that we see now in things like the utterly abominable, monstrous attack a few days ago (emphasis mine) Want to reword that? or are you pretty happy with it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me the occasional horrible wording even after repeated attempted softening; I have some substantial speech-error/communication/'thought' disorders (partially touched on by my user page, but not to the full extent and involving more concrete examples than the whole range) and not everything will work out to neurotypical conversation norms, especially in a high-stress conversation as this one. I am unsure of a better way to express "Hyper-polarization is a Very Bad Idea" in the context of that conversation at my current level of thought-to-language translation. But yeah -- I don't like that wording either. I was mostly afraid of being assumed to agree with the user under issue politically when I very much do not. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, your current wording is blaming the targets of racism and anti-Semitism for "taking such disputes to heart", and saying that their outrage at being the targets is the cause of the current level of polarization. So if you can't figure out a better way to express your dislike of hyper-polarization, perhaps you could strike thru the deeply offensive part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. My comment on what the attacks are, which I was clumsily attempting to glue with the overall point, stands. (But that's only relevant inasmuch as the subject of this AN/I is making some very dumb comments.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block and oppose topic ban. A topic ban is appropriate if there are problems editing articles, and there has been no evidence supplied of this at all. People repeating the comments they find offensive is causing even more controversy. So a few people above repeating the comment should also be trouted. People with all sorts of opinions should be allowed to edit here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support a clear warning (first choice) or Tban (second choice). Oppose indef. A WP:NOTHERE block when the person in question has written high-quality articles is a non-starter. If someone is capable of being productive in one part of the project but not another, we have steps in between no action and an indef.
  The issue here isn't just "having opinions" about Proud Boys or BLM. The primary problem is the way some of these opinions seek to influence content while betraying a problematic interpretation/application of our RS and NPOV policies. The secondary problem is WP:NOTAFORUM (which I see is continuing in this very thread as I type this, making me wonder if I've got this wrong after all...). I wasn't going to comment here initially, but the username rang a bell and I just remembered where from: pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and hand-waving "leftists who are afraid of facts". Granted, this was some time ago, but it makes clear this isn't just a "having opinions on talk pages" issue.
  Despite all that, with the primary issue being on talk pages right now I have a hard time seeing it necessary to escalate to a sanction (let alone an indef) without a clear warning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this right - we need to warn an editor with 4 FAs and almost 25k edits, who is openly espousing racist rhetoric and [157] applauding insurrection and the cold blooded murder of an officer, and a group of people that intended to kidnap the Vice President and Speaker of the United States], that he shouldn't do this on Wikipedia? This says to every single person coming here "As long as you're a good writer, it's okay to say whatever you want, even spew hate!" CUPIDICAE💕 04:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd summarize my position as closer to "If it's clear you can produce good work in some parts of the project but you're a problem in others, we should generally warn first, topic ban second, and indef last." Particularly egregious incidents may skip a step or two, of course, and it's because egregiousness is a factor here that I support a topic ban as a second choice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at this, which happened while I was writing the above, I'm having trouble sticking with my original opinion. Not only has DN99 not gotten the point, but seems to be doubling down on the [inflammatory, if nothing else] forum posts even here in this very thread. Thinking better of it and removing it is good, but we need to avoid this stuff in the future. As such, a tban is probably the minimum at this point. sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I told you so Capeo (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That was unwise to write, which is why I got rid of it, but I'm ready to be indeffed. Display name 99 (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, had I the tools at this point I would make your wish come true.--MONGO (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm gonna be honest, this is smelling increasingly like a deliberate attempt to get blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta second that WP:PRAM vibe. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, I might say what's being demonstrated here by Displayname is WP:DICKERY... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Indefblocked per this diff. I'll write a detailed explanation on DN99's talk and here in a few minutes; this is expressly "indefinite meaning undefined" not "indefinite meaning forever", and I expressly consent to any admin lifting the block without consulting me once they're satisfied that tempers have cooled down. ‑ Iridescent 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  👍. Not my original position, but definitely the position I ended up with after his conduct in the AN/I. Something something "this is embarrassing." Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• What happened to no heavy-handed enforcement during these tense times? Oppose everything, except a trout for engaging in forum-y American politics discussions — that never ends well. Especially oppose an indef. An admin may determine a preventative block, or an AP2 DS ban, may be necessary for up to a month till hopefully a less tense time, but that shouldn’t be a community ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Displayname 99 said he is a paleoconservative. This is fine, but in the diffs above he is trying to whitewash an attack on the most important institution of US democracy. This is not at all a conservative political position. Just the opposite. The support of the insurrection by many US "conservatives" is an example of doublethink. As a justification of such position, Displayname 99 blamed BLM, a movement that was completely unrelated to the subject of discussion on article talk page. So yes, this is all concerning. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Block explanation

I've just posted this full explanation on Display name 99's talk page, but I'll cross-post it here for the record. To reiterate the point I made there, I do not consider DN99 some kind of systemically flawed individual, but rather an otherwise-good editor who's snapped out of frustration (this comment of mine from a year ago is even truer today), and I genuinely do hope that within a few days they'll agree to put all this behind them and not to repeat it.

As you've presumably noticed, I've indefinitely blocked you for this comment, which I assume you realize was beyond the pale by any standard. As I've said at ANI, and made clear in the block log as well, this is explicitly indefinite in the sense of "for an indefinite period" not "for ever", and as soon as you can convince anyone that tempers have cooled down I give leave to anyone to lift this block.

To be clear, I am not blocking you for your political views. Wikipedia is a broad church, and support for Donald Trump is certainly not a fringe view (as 70-ish million voters testify). Indeed, even if it were a fringe view it would still not be block-worthy; we have numerous editors who are open supporters of terrorist groups, violent nationalist/separatist movements, groups which are widely considered racist, left- and right-wing extremism, and so on. What differs here is that these editors appreciate that they're sharing the site with people who don't share their opinions.

In my view, the comment linked above, and the other comments mentioned at the ANI thread, cross over a line. In my view they're potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and what's more important you were aware that they were potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and as such are unacceptable.

These are heated times, and given your history I have no reason to doubt that you're here in good faith and that recent events have been a one-off episode stemming from frustration rather than malice on your part. While I can't speak for the other participants in that thread, I certainly don't want to lose you provided you're willing to tone it down and respect other people's views even when you disagree with them.

 ‑ Iridescent 05:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow. That’s wildly equivocating. This is someone who in last couple days has repeatedly excused the killing of black people:

“in response to criminals being killed”

“in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed”

“because a few criminals got killed”

Just in the diffs above. Fucking bravo. Capeo (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You said it yourself with "in the last couple days". There's clearly a problem here for which I've indefinitely blocked (which, to state the obvious, is literally the strongest sanction it's possible for an admin to impose short of applying for a global lock), but I'm seeing no evidence in any of the discussion above that this is a systemic problem with this editor rather than someone having a bad couple of days and lashing out. I consider the views expressed morally repugnant, but we don't block just because an editor holds views other editors consider morally repugnant—we have plenty of Stalinists, supporters of various armed ethno-religious factions, and so on, who edit Wikipedia without difficulty because they stay away from their problem area. Display name 99 should probably be given a broad topic ban from recent American politics should they return, but that's a matter for if and when they ask to return and if and when the community agrees to let them return. I've assessed DN99's recent comments and concluded that they justify an indefinite block; judging whether someone with 25000+ contributions most of which appear non-controversial and constructive is a net negative isn't something I can do alone, and certainly not in fast time. ‑ Iridescent 06:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Displayname 99 ended up self-reverting that comment with the edit summary OK, this was stupid. Not here. Not sure if that counts as an apology, but it seems to show self-awareness. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Iridescent: That comment made by Display name 99 was unconstructive and unnecessary and most likely posted in frustration, however, it did not warrant a block. Could you please unblock and let consensus in this discussion decide the appropriate action. It would be much appreciated. Jerm (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. I was equivocating between an AP2 TBan and a block last night, but Display name 99's own responses, as well as other issues pointed out, have convinced me that a block is indeed correct. There are lines that can't be crossed. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• The block was made an hour after the comment, by which time it was self-reverted multiple times [158] [159] and acknowledged as "unwise to write", and another comment was self-reverted a minute later (10 minutes before the block). I'm not sure a block is necessary to prevent comments that are self-reverted. But other than not addressing the self-reverts, I think Iri's explanation is sound. D99 should be unblocked if they agree to stop WP:FORUMing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That deep in the conversation about that very same sort of thing, it beggars belief to see those comments as anything but deliberate, knowing actions and the 'self-reverts' fig leaves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd be more convinced of that if the sample size was larger than two. Although I read this whole situation as an attempt at "suicide by admin", and in those situations, just giving them the indef block they're asking for might well be the least-disruptive way forward (the one that requires the least amount of time from others). I think I agree with Boing's comment below about leaving things as they are. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: the user in question has stated here and at his talk page that they wouldn't abide by a topic ban were it to be put in place. His closing statement at his talk page ended with: I have no intention of ever editing Wikipedia again. I would rather leave on my own terms, as I feel I have done, than be indignified with a restriction which I did nothing to deserve. It seems that an indef block would have followed the topic ban anyway. —El Millo (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Which strengthens my opinion that this whole thing was intended by DN99 as goading into a block so they could 'leave on their terms'. (That's not saying it wasn't a good block - it was. Being painted into a corner where either we accept with that sort of behavior or give them what they want, WP:DENY unfortuantely can't be applied.)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. After all the comments from Display Name 99 since this started. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. I find it harder to excuse an editor with 4 FAs and almost ten years of tenure for explicitly saying they were not going to abide by a topic ban (diff). I appreciate that they self-reverted their problematic ANI comment, but insisting that they were not going to abide by a consensus to topic ban them is worrisome—and would have ended with them getting blocked anyway. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Iridescent's take on all this. Whatever Display name 99 has said in the past days, whatever they say on their talk page now (regarding a topic ban or whatever), let's not make long-term judgments on that. People do snap and lash out when under stress, and these are extremely stressful times for a number of obvious reasons. I say just leave it as it is now, no topic bans, nothing else, and wait and see if Display name 99 does make a request to be unblocked. If they do, then hopefully it will be the real long-term Displayname 99 talking, and we can take it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, and as an aside, I took the thing about refusing to abide by a topic ban as meaning Display name 99 would not edit here under such a restriction, not that they would actively break it. I know there are different ways to interpret it, but I prefer to err on the less negative and more forgiving side, as I think we all should at this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor Unrelated Aside

Hi, I noticed an edit from this thread got RevDel'd for whatever reason and unfortunately one of the edits in this conversation is unlinkable because of that RevDel. Is there a way to make that edit linkable again or is not possible because of the RevDel? Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31 on January 15, 2021 (UTC) Note: I only noticed because the edit in question (from the above linked conversation) is directly above the RevDel'd one in the history and one I tried to link by diff. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

• You'll have to link to the next visible edit after the one that got revdelled. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Understood. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:09 on January 16, 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from editor with COI

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

---

In July last year I cleaned up all kinds of unreferenced puffery from the article at The Nouvelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Today significant problematic content was restored in this edit by Wikigeek2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I removed the problematic changes, and explained in detail why at Talk:The Nouvelles#Many unreferenced additions removed. 2.29.220.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made this post confirming they have a COI, and stating it must stop or we will haul them into a London or Manchester court to answer why they are trolling our and deleting our work. FDW777 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Clear legal threat from the IP. Based on what Wikigeek2011 has now posted in response to the ANI notice, it would seem that Wikigeek2011 is being used as a group account, and is the same group behind the legal threat from the IP above. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the IP has opened a DRN case doubling down on the legal threat. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Doubled down, as well as saying all the work we were paid to do today. FDW777 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the person or people here are not in compliance with WP:PAID. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 1 month (it's a static IP) for NLT, and I've pointed them at other relevant policy pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And User:Wikigeek2011 is blocked indef for advertising/promotion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And implied shared use of an account and undisclosed paid editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Antondimak evasion of CfD outcomes

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

Has repeatedly defied CfD outcomes by creating substitute categories with the 'o' in "from" replaced by another look-alike character:

Fyli

• Category:People from Fyli (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created after deletion, then re-deleted again.
• Category:People frοm Fyli (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created later the same day.

Didymoteicho

• Category:People from Didymoteicho (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created after deletion, then re-deleted again.
• Category:People frοm Didymoteicho (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created later the same day.

Arta

• Category:People from Arta (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created after deletion, then re-deleted again.
• Category:People frοm Arta (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created later the same day. This was again listed at CfD a day later, and has since been speedily deleted, but nobody noticed the 'o' substitutions until now.

These will be relisted for CfD and speedy deletion. Requesting suspension of editing privileges for 14 days until discussion and cleanup is completed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They did the same thing with the below, which I've deleted now.

• Katerini
  • Category:People from Katerini (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:People frοm Katerini (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ioannina
  • Category:People from Ioannina (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:People frοm Ioannina (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If the recreations weren't from a month ago, I'd have blocked them too. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, "repeatedly" is false, since this all constitutes one case. I have explained my reason for doing this, and I have written it in the edit summaries (which I believe administrators can bring up if they don't believe me). In the CfD in question there was essentially no outcome, as there were many ways to move forward, but none were chosen, just a vague "merge" by people who weren't interested enough to continue the discussion. A bot was put to do the merge, and, since we hadn't decided which way to go, it resulted in literally buggy categories (self-linked). When I tried to fix it, the bot fought me, so I changed a character to circumvent it. When the discussion continued soon after, regarding other similar categories, I said it was necessary to find a general solution for all such categories, and to decide what to actually do. There was no interest and the discussion didn't continue. --Antondimak (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• By the way, since there seems to be a passion to just delete everything despite being from a different country and not caring enough to understand the repercussions, the former subcategories of all these municipalities are navigationally almost inaccessible, so this time it's isn't buggy per se, but certainly broken. --Antondimak (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'll also add that the situation has changed since the discussion, and there are now even more articles-subcategories, making the merge less viable. All these subcategories have too been rendered practically navigationally inaccessible. --Antondimak (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Recent discussions on Antondimak's talkpage about related categorization issues show a advanced case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [160]. This is a long-term behavior pattern, and together with the outrageous creation of fake categories as reported here, and the way he's been doubling down about them, warrants a block, or topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to have a grudge against me from when we had a disagreement about an RFC on the Macedonian naming dispute. This part: "creation of fake categories as reported here", shows that he doesn't even understand the issue we're discussing here. --Antondimak (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Also claiming "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" is ironic since I have devoted an unreasonable amount of time trying to fix wrongful edits of people who claim to (and in many cases I believe they're truthful) not understand why their edits are false. Just look at the article for Efi Thodi, it being the tip of the iceberg. I have had to correct constant disruptive editing, only for my explanations to be ignored and be reprimanded for correcting. I have had to provide government documents to prove Greek geography twice. We had a user mistakenly categorise the article under the city of Karditsa, after which there was an attempt to delete the category as empty. I found it and fixed it. Then I was accused of falsely adding the article there to save the category. I had to find government documents to prove Vrangiana is in fact where I claimed it was. Then William Allen Simpson, in a systematic attempt to empty Greek location categories, tag them as empty, and delete them, removed the article claiming there was no source, and the article just says the person is from the regional unit of Karditsa in general, why he decided to ignore "Vrangiana" is beyond me. Then we had the person who I had to provide the government document the previous time again miscategorise the article, after which I posted the document in the talk page, added a disclaimer in the article, created a separate disambiguation page for the locations, and created an article for one of them, just so that I could be freed from this madness once and for all. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. --Antondimak (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We have an issue of people who rightfully seem to think this situation is too insignificant to devote their time to, and to have conversation long enough to understand an issue far from their area of expertise. But I then am in a situation where I have to explain the same things over and over again only to be met with the same false claims time and time again. --Antondimak (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If everyone other than you is saying one thing, and you're saying the other, it might just be possible what everyone else is saying is not "false claims". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'm feel like I'm going insane. Anyway, most of these are verifiable (again, I have provided what happened with Efi Thodi as an example), so it doesn't matter who says what. There also aren't a lot of other people, only me and William Allen Simpson. Two other people are part of the discussion, but they are more cooperative. --Antondimak (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It would help if both editors communicated directly with each other. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have reached out to Wikiproject Greece so we can have more participants in the category discussion who have some knowledge on the subject. So it's possible the most comical errors, such as the most recent claim that Greece's periferies constitute suburbs, can be corrected by somebody other than me, and the discussion can start to be somewhat productive. If there is no interest, I am ready to accept that this category tree will be destroyed. I was somewhat operating under sunk cost fallacy, trying to defend what took me months to create from people who obviously have no idea what they're doing. However, since this is pretty meaningless as I have said before (very few people use the categories in Wikipedia), if we continue like this and no "help" arrives, I will withdraw and watch this play out. I will always be available to help if asked to. --Antondimak (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

---

We now have 3 days of CfD to redo the work of the previous 4 CfD last month. There will be more.

1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages
2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages
3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages

Marcocapelle and Rathfelder and I have all tried to explain that to categorize an article at all, there need to be WP:RS; that we build categories from the top down, Greece to region to city.

In the first, I've also carefully described the two existing articles, having no WP:RS for their location. We don't build a tree 5 deep for 2 articles.

For example, in Efi Thodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all three of us have removed the non-reliably sourced low-level category, and always immediately been reverted.

For our troubles, we have been repeatedly called pejorative names:

• "ridiculous"
• "it constitutes vandalism"
• "confused"
• "removed 5 articles ... in order to avoid discussion"
• "purposefully ignored them in order to misrepresent the situation"
• "*wrong*, some to a comical degree"
• "confused"
• "disruptive"

Also Antondimak recently called me personally a liar:

• "at this point I can't even trust that what you say is true"

That was only the first CfD. We didn't discover the additional deception until the second day. Then I posted this notice, and JJMC89 uncovered more deception.

CfD already had the discussions in December. I was not a part of it. Once those discussions were closed, I've tried to enforce the decisions. Instead, we're back at CfD again.

Now we have a retaliatory report. When I'd first looked this morning, it had been rapidly closed by an administrator. Apparently, Antondimak re-opened it. That doesn't make it any more valid.

Because no action has been taken here, we've endured 2 more days of verbal diarrhea.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting coming from the user who refused to listen to anything I have said and deeply mistrusted me from the beginning, until I was forced to believe it was deliberate and couldn't assume good faith anymore. The user who dragged me here and did all that which I describe below. I also like how you call "purposefully ignored them in order to misrepresent the situation" a "pejorative" name. All the actual adjectives referred to arguments and actions, and were never directed towards users, as any third party could check. In fact, this last phrase: "we've endured 2 more days of verbal diarrhea", regarding what I wrote, is the most offensive thing said in this entire discussion yet. Anyway, this is probably my last comment on the matter here. You are free do destroy all the categories you desire. I have now learned a lesson to always act first when I notice obviously bad-faith behaviour, or else the other party will be able to construct an entire narrative, so thank you. --Antondimak (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible attempt at avoiding discussion, and possible intentional misunderstanding by User:William Allen Simpson

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I should have posted this as soon as I saw it happening, but instead I decided to wrongly assume good will despite the obvious signs to the contrary. I am also unsure if this constitutes an actual violation, but the way things turned out I believe I have to talk about it, and an administrator can tell me if this isn't an actual issue.

On 13 January 2021, this user went to the following categories: Category:People from Argithea, Category:People from Acheloos, Category:People from Anatoliki Argithea, Category:People from Archanes, Category:People from Pteleos, Category:People from Almyros, Category:People from Asterousia, and Category:People from Sourpi. They edited all of the articles belonging to them, removing them from their relevant categories. Each time there was a different excuse. Sometimes they made false claims regarding Greek geography. Other times they claimed there were no references, sometimes correctly, other times falsely. In this case, the issue should be brought up in the talk page, and if the contentious fact can't be sourced, it is removed from the article, and then from the relevant category, which follows the article. Instead it was just used as an excuse to remove the article from the category, sometimes adding it to a different one. Other times, they didn't use any excuse, as happened in the case of Category:People from Sourpi, which was emptied of its five articles, without any explanation for why. Every time they emptied a category, they then tagged it for speedy deletion as empty.

I am a major contributor to this category tree, and have created many of these articles, so I was notified in my watchlist when it happened. I went and reversed the edits, each time explaining what was wrong with them (except the final five ones which had no explanation for why they were removed, so I had nothing to respond to).

They then misrepresented my edits, as if they they were disruptive, like they hadn't read my reasoning/edit summaries, or as if I hadn't provided any, and opened a discussion to delete the categories, for various reasons, which I have already explained as false. They went and found the result of a previous discussion, where as I have explained I fought with a bot to reverse a buggy merge, mentioning in the next discussion on the same issue the need to find an actual solution (not a general "merge" left up to a bot) to deal with the general issue, and tried to use it to exclude me from the discussion. They have claimed that the categories constitute "Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages", and I have explained to them how they obviously don't. They tried to claim that Greek regional units/prefecture, which they tried to upmerge to, essentially constitute metropolitan areas, which they obviously do not, as I explained to them. They keep talking about lack of references, no matter whether they actually exist or not, and despite the fact that this is an issue to be raised about the article first and not its categorisation. They keep claiming that these places "no longer exist", which is obviously false and originally seems to be the result of a misunderstanding regarding the renaming of Greek administrative divisions in 2011. I have wasted a lot of my time explaining these things again and again, but the claims are repeated over and over again. They keep pushing for more and more extreme deletions, now trying to upmerge everything to first level divisions, something which seems to not have been done for any other country in Wikipedia, and which would result in unreasonably large categories. Among all the noise, there is an actual issue raised, which is the small number of articles in each category, which we however can't focus on because of all the mentioned noise.

Seeing how far this insignificant issue has gone, I can't believe that the misunderstanding isn't intentional. It's what should have been obvious from the start of this whole thing, with the series of targeted mistaken edits. It's not that they didn't see that some of the articles had references. It's not that they didn't see the more specific information about the people's origin written in the article. It's not that they didn't understand that prefectures aren't metropolitan areas, or that collections of towns aren't streets. At least that's what I have come to believe.

I can not claim that there is some ulterior motive, simply because it's impossible for me to imagine one. After a point I could think it could amount to simple stubbornness, but then how is the first round of removals explained?

Anyway, I reiterate that I do not know whether any of this is an actual violation, and I can't request any kind punishment, but it needs to be resolved one way or another because this, and this whole situation (referring to what I wrote above regarding the Efi Thodi article under my own case here, as an example), is driving me crazy.

--Antondimak (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It would help if both editors communicated directly with each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note for anyone reading; this appears to be a retaliatory report in response to this report above. — Czello 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• For everyone's convenience, I've moved this report into a sub-section of the above-mentioned report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears to me that Antondimak is unable to accept that he could ever be wrong and has some fairly fundamental misunderstanding of how categorisation works. Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't care anymore. I will leave you to do whatever you want with the categories. I know I am right in this case. It's either that or me and every person who lives in Greece, who I have explained this situation to, is wrong as well. I hold no grudge against you, it's just an issue about a foreign country far from your area of expertise. Maybe an issue would be that you are so persistent about it, and can't accept a correction from a native, but that would only be the case if you were alone in this. Given the circumstances, and the fact that there are al least three people on the other side, I would almost certainly think Antondimak was either lying or delusional if I were you (which may make you understand how hilarious it looks from my point of view). --Antondimak (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Secretly recreating categories that were deleted in a CfD discussion is not acceptable. It is very well possible that the (execution of) the CfD outcome in December led to unforeseen issues (or to foreseen but underestimated issues), but those issues should have been flagged and discussed in a transparant way, for example by contacting the closer of the discussion at their talk page or by starting a follow-up discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories. Transparency is an absolute necessity for controversial issues to be solved. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I urged people to find a more general solution in the followup discussion. There were and are going to be a lot of discussions about this, and it would be better if, whatever the decision is, it is enacted in an organised way. --Antondimak (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ocean827 persistently adding non-free images to list articles

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

---

Ocean827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding non-free images to list articles, despite two requests to stop. They added several in this edit at 17:48, which I left a template message for at 17:57. Despite this, they made this edit at 18:10 and this edit at 20:46, both adding numerous non-free images, prompting another message at 20:51 asking them to stop adding non-free images to list articles. Despite this, they made this edit at 21:49 adding non-free image File:Derek Foster MP.jpg to a list article. FDW777 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Artemaeus Creed

• Artemaeus Creed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It is becoming increasingly difficult to try to work with Artemaeus Creed (talk · contribs) (AC). The editor persistently posts information that is factually incorrect and/or in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policies. He has also been putting false statements about my edits in his edit summaries 'warning' other editors about my edits.

I have gone to some lengths to try to get the editor to engage properly on article Talk pages, but for the most part he refuses to do so, and when he does, it results in little or no improvement of articles.[161][162] A few examples:

• Falsely claiming that Associated Bible Students is simply the former name of Jehovah's Witnesses,[163][164] whereas Jehovah's Witnesses developed from a branch of the Bible Student movement and the Associated Bible Students are a separate branch of the Bible Student movement;
• Editorial speculation in articles about the purported quality of cited sources[165][166][167][168][169][170] (this seems to have been resolved since after compromise on my part);

• Statements in Wikipedia's voice that rival denominations to Jehovah's Witnesses are 'fraudulent Christians'[171][172][173][174] and apparently not understanding why this is a problem (paragraph starting with "Your final comment..." in this diff:[175] (though I think I may have since stemmed that by replacing their statement with a clearly attributed quote);

• Undoing an entire copyedit just to restore one sentence preferred by the editor;[176]

• The editor is dismissive of Wikipedia's collaborative discussion processes, stating (the only time the editor has responded at any relevant article Talk page), "You seem to be the type that enjoys discussing the various changes of an article no matter how small. I myself am quite the opposite and desire to simply move on after a change is made.".[177] Despite his apparent reluctance to discuss more complex issues about a religious denomination, his first edit under his current account was to comment at a Pokemon-related talk page[178] before making a minor change to that article [179], so it is not simply a case of not being familiar with Wikipedia's processes. (The editor's instant familiarity with Talk pages and marking edits as minor suggests they are not actually entirely new to Wikipedia.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posting dishonest edit summaries 'warning' editors about my edits;[180][181][182]

• Changing the summary of a book to some chapter headings from the book as quoted in a later JW publication, claiming it is "more detail";[183]

• Another editor, SuperHeight (talk · contribs) also reverted one of AC's edits[184] and advised AC that their edits are not neutral[185] (but has not otherwise been involved);

• An IP editor 2603:9000:7b02:d510:c479:701f:4c82:69fb (talk · contribs) has made similar problematic edits with dishonest edit summaries at some of the same articles in the same period.[186][187][188] I have also attempted to engage that editor at article Talk.[189][190]--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to confirm whether I am needed or not. So am I? I haven't noticed Artemaus around much so I can't provide an informed opinion. Thanks, SuperHeight (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not formally notify you because your involvement seemed only incidental. Happy for you to comment, including if you disagree with my assessment of AC's edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you for taking the time to get to the bottom of this. Difficult to work with is putting it lightly. And I'm not talking about myself. I do actually appreciate Jeffs guidance on some of my edits. He's made some great points. However, for the most part he has hounded my edits (even minor ones) and made mostly unnecessary reversions to valid contributions on Bible Student movement and Studies in the Scriptures entries. (especially the latter) The past 2 weeks he has literally edited all of my contributions on various pages, even minor word adjustments. He has made minimal effort to compromise on changes that would be valid (and after much effort on my part). He has completely ignored the guidance as found on Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Admittedly, it makes the editing experience quite unenjoyable and I can't help but feel hounded. I sincerely feel that he is following me so as to cause me distress or frustration. In addition, It's a little disconcerting with respect to any other contributors who want to improve the article/s. I fear he may do the same thing to others as he's done to me, in which case the article will simply never progress and the status quo will continue indefinitely. I've summarized my edits within the history pages of the aforementioned articles. I've also had quite the discussion on the talk page of the Bible Student movement, as found here. In any case, I do wish peace with Jeff. I wish him the best in his endeavors. And I do sincerely hope things can be resolved in a way so we can both be happy. All the best, -AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that I have reverted all of your efforts contradicts your claim that you appreciate where I have retained and improved your edits. Your claim of hounding is either a misunderstanding about the fact that the relevant articles are on my Watchlist, or a lie. Your claim that I have reverted even "minor word adjustments" is a lie, and I have given specific reasons for all changes to your edits.

You have mostly refused to properly engage in discussion at article Talk, and where you have commented at article Talk, it has been mostly accusations rather than 'discussion'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He has once again gone and reverted a copyedit of an article just to get his one preferred sentence back.[191]--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He has also clarified his previous unverifiable claim about 'discussion with other "editors"',[192] indicating that he has supposedly discussed my edits off-Wiki,[193] contradicting his previous claim that he has discussed with other Wikipedia editors, and seeming a lot like an attempt at canvassing by stealth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that sentences like "The book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom published in 1993 stated that a further reason for the name change was also due to the fact that as they “progressed in their understanding” of the Bible," are not acceptable. This instance presents a controversial self-serving claim of the Governing Body as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. There is another variant in the last diff that is an improvement. this one at least presented it as a quote that at the same time exposes their attitude; it would have been even better to find a secondary source. Something obvious is that this account has only edited JW related articles with one exception. This suggests a potential conflict of interest, I can't say WP:NOTHERE at this point and it is a relatively recent account. The edit summaries are indeed personalized so would like to warn Artemaeus Creed about WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:FOC. There are cases of edit warring but it's not obvious to me if it sometimes met WP:3RR (slow edit wars are still edit wars, though). I see some use of talk pages, but the first instance I look at has the typical argument WP:ONLYREVERT that I am surprised to see a new editor use. However, that page is only an essay, WP:BRD is a more important supplement page to the WP:CONSENSUS policy. —PaleoNeonate – 06:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor's changes to articles that I have reverted fall into these categories, in which AC had:

• Reverted a copyedit of the whole page to get back his one preferred sentence (in one of which he asserted theological beliefs as a fact);
• Called non-JW denominations 'fraudulent Christians' in Wikipedia's voice (not in quoted text).
• Falsely claimed that Associated Bible Students is simply the former name of Jehovah's Witnesses, whereas it is actually a separate branch of the Bible Student movement.
• Editorial speculation about the verifiability of cited sources.

Despite AC's claims, I do not see any of these as trivial or "miniscule" edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:FOC are duly noted. I would like to reemphasize that again not all of Jeff's reversions were unwarranted or unwanted even. A sounding board on such things is good. And it's been a learning experience with respect to Wikipedia policy. However, instead of attempting to maintain the points I was trying add to the Encyclopedia by editing them in a way so that they would be acceptable, I observed a tendency to completely undue edits in preference of the previous edition; or simply target the changes I made and reword them in a way that is completely different. As an example, on the Bible student movement page a litmus test was done on the 13th of January simply by using the book name and the people who published it (Watchtower Society): In 1993, The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania published the book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom which stated that the name change was also required because they felt "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian"

This was a perfect compromise and peace could have been achieved without any other intervention. Yet, he continued to undue such changes, stating that such wording was a "trivial elaboration". Another example of this can be found on the pages Studies in the Scriptures. Notice the changes I made on January 4th, and then follow it up to the present day. Such behavior is extremely puzzling, especially for one who has been been on Wikipedia for so long. I would also like to mention that every single addition I have made to an article are completely backed by verifiable sources. Some of Jeffros above statements are slightly disconcerting. I will now address each of them.

• Reverted a copyedit of the whole page to get back his one preferred sentence (in one of which he asserted theological beliefs as a fact); I did revert the sentence because it was completely removed by said user.

The removal of fact is valid and was added spuriously. Again, I don't believe all of Jeff's revisions were unwarranted; though a slight editing of my sentences so they would be acceptable would have been appreciated instead of simply removing the majority of them.

• Called non-JW denominations 'fraudulent Christians' in Wikipedia's voice (not in quoted text).

Again, see first point. I was under the impression that as long as the source indicates something it can be said. However, instead of keeping my point in by rewording it in a way that would be acceptable (as it is now), he initially removed it completely several times. Such actions are maddening and hinder any kind of collaboration here on Wikipedia.

• Falsely claimed that Associated Bible Students is simply the former name of Jehovah's Witnesses, whereas it is actually a separate branch of the Bible Student movement.

Again, this is supported by my source. Jehovah's witnesses were indeed once known as Associated Bible Students. I attempted to compromise with said user by including both their former name and how they are part of a branch of the Bible student movement. Please see the edit history of History of Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Editorial speculation about the verifiability of cited sources.

This is in reference to the publication Watchtower Slave cited. This is again one of the areas I appreciated Jeffros rare display reasonableness. The publication is heavily biased against the religious movement. After reading source it was found that statements were author speculation. A compromise was achieved by simply stating what the authors thoughts were.

With that, I will leave such things in the administrators hands. I am not unlike PaleoNeonate in that for over a decade I have been the anonymous user that would occasionally add things to an article when something was slanted or less than it could be. Such additions were never completely reverted as I have seen here. Never have I run into any problems or such immense toxicity as I have experienced with said user Jeffro77. Such a virulent and nasty spirit of one who is generally unwilling to help will only push people away from our community, and I think that's sad. I'll be taking my leave from this discussion now as I am a busy man with much more pertinent things to attend to. I have faith that the administrators will handle this in a way so that a reasonable compromise can be achieved within the aforementioned articles.

Thanks so much, I wish you all the best in these times. Sincerely, AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Note the following about AC's rebuttals above:

• Yet again he has since reverted a whole copyedit of the article[194] just to put in his one preferred sentence (in which he got the corporation name wrong anyway), falsely claiming in his edit summary that there actually were no intervening edits. It's also not clear why he feels it is so important to redundantly add that the publisher "published the book" that contains the statement, which gives the impression that he is insisting on his wording just to make a point.
• I trust that my removal of his earlier edits referring to 'fraudulent Christians' without inline attribution requires no additional explanation.
• His claim that Jehovah's Witnesses were once known as Associated bible Students is based on a false characterisation that there was a smooth transition from 'Bible Students' to 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. His cited Watch Tower Society (JW) source 'supporting' his view that JWs were known as Associated Bible Students simply indicates that Bible Students in 1914 were also sometimes known as Associated Bible Students. However, the other Bible Student denominations (including the Associated Bible Students) split from the group that became Jehovah's Witnesses in the period from 1917 (Watch Tower Society leadership dispute) through 1931 (official renaming of the Jehovah's Witnesses departure). Claiming that the group in 1914 were Jehovah's Witnesses is like saying the flour in the cake is the cake.
• Regarding his editorial speculation, he stated in the article that a previously cited statement was "unverifiable" and provided membership statistics from the denomination. The source made no reference to the previous cited source, and the claim about the reliability of the other source was entirely unsupported.

AC's personal attacks are quite odd and in any case inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive move / delete attempts

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

---

• Oliver Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cover page/temp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kavex98162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 82.132.219.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Due to intervening edits, I can't rectify this: Cover page/temp should be moved back to Oliver Emanuel, and User:Kavex98162 / User:82.132.219.153 asked to stop their disruptive editng. If there is an issue with the article, there are other means to solve this. Their whole editing career has been one of problems so far. Fram (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and the IP from editing so we can get this tidied up without interference. I'm seeing a lot of stuff revdelled, and some stuff they posted at WP:BLPN appears to have been oversighted, so there's obviously some sensitivity about what they've been doing. The page move history is a little complicated - moves aren't my forte and I only have a few minutes, would someone else be able to put things back the way they're meant to be? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Page 1/temp should probably be deleted, R3 possibly? I think Cover page/temp and Oliver Emanuel can just be pageswapped, and the Cover page/temp probably qualifies as another implausible redirect. The history looks more confusing than it actually is, because the editor tried to remove the redirect, not realising that they can't suppress it, by creating Page 1/temp. A pageswap should do it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk)

Thank you all. Fram (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Havequick99

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

---

• Havequick99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Over at Parler there have been some pretty not here comments made by this user. [[195]] [[196]]. Their response to being asked to use talk pages for discussing improvements and not to soapbox was [[197]] a cleat statement of battleground mentality and that they are here to right great wrongs.

I think that this is just going to continue as they see this as a fight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And here is their response to this ani [[198]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They appear to be here solely for fighting and to hear the sound of their own voice. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And after this ANI was launched "retired". I think this is an old friend who returned in a new guise. As there was a fair bit of general IP and SPA POV pushing over at both Parler and Gab I suspect they will be back.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Long-term logged-in and logged-out edit warring by Anthony20morris

• 37.228.192.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Anthony20morris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anthony20morris has, while logged in and logged out, been edit warring on-and-off for over a year at the Fine Gael article, generally involving the same issue, namely they don't think the party is conservative. During this time they've never made a single attempt to discuss their proposed changes at the article's talk page.

As IP.

• 21:37, 24 December 2019 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 22:45, 26 May 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 15:18, 27 May 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 14:22, 18 June 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 16:54, 8 July 2020 removes "Liberal conservative parties" from categories
• 14:49, 12 July 2020 removes various items from "Ideology and policies" section, "conservative", "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism"
• 20:11, 13 July 2020 removes "conservative" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 20:13, 13 July 2020 removes "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 12:23, 25 July 2020 removes "Conservatism" from infobox
• 21:50, 12 January 2021 removes "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 13:17, 15 January 2021 reverts to reinstate disputed edits they made on 12 January

As Anthony20morris.

• 16:44, 2 July 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 16:24, 3 July 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead (plus some other changes)
• 20:46, 3 July 2020 removes "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 20:47, 3 July 2020 removed "liberal-conservative" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 20:51, 3 July 2020 amends "liberal-conservative" in lead to "liberal"
• 14:01, 25 July 2020 removes "Conservatism" from infobox
• 23:13, 18 September 2020 removes "Christian-democratic" from lead
• 20:35, 14 January 2021 reverts to reinstate disputed edits made by IP on 12 January. They admit to being the same editor as the IP with this edit summary

Talk page posts, or lack of.

• IP's edits to Talk:Fine Gael = Zero
• Anthony20morris's edits to Talk:Fine Gael = Zero

Perhaps something could be done to encourage them to engage please? FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I share this concern. The Banner talk 21:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So that "partial block" thing is a great tool. Three months for account and IP. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on WS-10 and J-20 page

There is the user called Revolving Personality Construct who keeps removing sourced materials on the WS-10 and Chengdu J-20 pages. He asked me to reason with him on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RovingPersonalityConstruct

After many attempts to reason with him and proofs with reliable sourced materials. He still goes by the same behavior. He never made any constructive edits on practically any articles, simply removing materials based on his personal agenda.

Please take a look at his behaviors and his disruptive editing here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shenyang_WS-10&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=history

He keeps arguing with empty air, never tried to come up with anything constructive, never showed me a good reference to prove his point of view. I tried to reach an agreement with him but he ignored. After all attempts failed. I ignored him and treated him as a disruptive editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shenyang_WS-10

He was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and edit wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARovingPersonalityConstruct

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotected both pages for a couple of years, because enough is enough. Also, not sure what two 3RR blocks (days apart) that were imposed in 2015(!) have much to do with anything, but I do note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang which features this IP has been filed by RovingPersonalityConstruct earlier today. I also note that RovingPersonalityConstruct was not informed of this complaint by the filing editor (IP), as is required. I will do so myself momentarily. El_C 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the China-India-Pakistan aircraft articles have been for years (decades even) a cesspool of nationalistic fanboyism, so every little bit of help is greately appreciated. As a note I have dropped a link to this at WP:AIR for any potential input from those with higher SAN scores than I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So true. Mind you, I get the sense that some of our preeminent aviation editors may point out similar problems happening with US aircraft, too. El_C 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, but the CIP realm takes it to the next level by not just going "OURS R DA GREATUST" but then going to "*theirs*" and vandalising them downwards! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that a couple of ancient blocks earned while learning the gentle art of self-defence are more battlescar than badness. Aircraft articles tend to to attract fanboys like laminar-flow wings attract insect splats. Countries such as China also tend to have a different idea as to what constitutes WP:RS. Once those semiprotects expire, the partisans will be back. Hey-ho. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in seeing what sort of "discussion" I had with 2601:152:4400:5580::xxx (multiple IPs since this latest encounter started), please see Talk:Shenyang WS-10 and the reference bombing that starts with section titled (according to anon editor's unsupported claim) "WS-10C now officially powers the J-20 production variant according to Flight Global". You may find something I missed in that mess. You can follow along with the related article edits easily enough.

It's really a matter of anon editor refusing to stick to what the sources are saying, and making everything sound as rosy as possible. Hence the insistence on vaguely saying that the engine in question will equip the aircraft in question "soon" (after finally accepting that said engine was not, in fact, equipping production aircraft now.)

The last revert by anon editor for the WS-10 article ([199]) shows the broad extrapolation that the WS-10C will "soon" replace the AL-31F in Chinese service. There's also the unnecessary list of aircraft in the lead-in paragraph - there's already a list in the infobox and toward the end of the article; the claim that the listed fighters are the "major" ones in the PLAAF might also be contested, but that's neither here nor there.

The last revert by anon editor for the J-20 article ([200]) is worse, because it deliberately misrepresents sources and the current state of the aircraft. It also doesn't help the organization of the Engine section of the article, but that's a comparatively minor issue.

Saying that, if I am correct with the SPI, all of this sort of tendentiousness is pretty much par for the course for anon editor. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to appeal for my account(User:Hums4r)

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

---

Hi Dear Admins, i am hums4r, a new wikipedia editor trying my best to contribute to the wikipedia encyclopedia by adding notable articles from kashmir, i in my earlier stages did a lot of mistakes, but i didnt knew the rules back then, today i am aware of all the rules. 1. in the start my first mistake was to contact (Zeyan Shafiq) for information, which i didn't know that it would lead to COI, i followed all the COI steps and declared the COI on my user page and on Zeyan Shafiq Talk Page. 2.After that when i drafted my article i didn't get any options of moving it to mainspace, so i googled it, since i had no idea about the afC process i came to know that i need to have an old account to be able to move it, i asked (Zeyan) if he has an old account that i can use to move, i logged in using his account. i made this thing public when i was earlier confronted for it. i have posted the COI on my userpage. 3. After that There was a sockpuppet investigation on me which found that i use another account(User:shahzada iqbal) which i never used, i never edited/owned or logged it into my computer/mobile or any other device. i am accused for it but i can prove my identity and you can surely block the ip address of that user. 4. Today my first article was labelled as Paid Article by an wiki editor, but i have took no payment for it, i can share any kind of proof or evidence like my bank statement to support my statement, i am a very common resident of kashmir who had no prior experience of wikipedia article creation, why would someone pay me? my article's have very weak english and incorrect style, even my first article was cleaned up and edited by Fences_and_windows and Kohlrabi Pickle why would someone pay me for wikipedia. i may have COI with the subject but i have never ever recieved any payment or any other compensation for it. 5. at last, i don't want my wikipedia account to be deleted, i apologise for all the things i have done in past but i assure the admins that it will never repeat, if they find me doing it again even once i won't even appeal for it. i request for this chance to me, i want to be a great wikipedia editor one day, i am inspired by steven pruitt. Also whenever i request help from some editors they are rude to me, i have found many good editors here but many sound rude to me. i don't want to name anyone but i just want to know how do i report them when i come across them, because wikipedia is a encyclopedia and everyone is here to contribute.

this is my appeal for my account, i request admins to help me. thanks Hums4r (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your story makes no sense. Shahzada Iqbal is checkuser confirmed to you and they also created Draft:Mutahir Showkat, which you noted is your name on your userpage. I find it highly unlikely that someone who is technically confirmed to your account and writing about you has no connection. Not to mention your user of the Zeyan account while also publishing promotional articles about him...CUPIDICAE💕 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Hi Sir, i might have written promotional subjects about (Zeyan Shafiq) but i have cleared my stand on the use of (Zeyan) Account, I never logged in to it again. And my connection with (Shahzada Iqbal) is not true, i request you to block his ip address from accessing the wikipedia if you think it is me. i can share the details of all my gadgets,( my 2 laptops and 1 Phone that i used to make edits on wiki). Also talking about the paid allegation on me, i might have violated policy of wikipedia by getting in touch with (Zeyan Shafiq) but i have not taken any payments for it, adding a payment tag is an allegation on me that i never did, if there are any evidences you can continue with deleting the page but the tag is there without any reason and it might even affect Zeyan Shafiq because he never paid to me for it. sir i am an unexperienced editor on wikipedia, why will someone pay to me for wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, you're calling Praxidicae, who is female, "Sir". Some women editors just roll their eyes at this kind of thing, but some are offended by editors who assume everyone on WP is male. I'd recommend enabling Preferences>Gadgets>Navigation popups. —valereee (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee i am extremely sorry for this mistake, i will enable it once i get on my laptop, i will make sure I don’t repeat it again, sorry for this, i had no idea about it.Hums4r (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

oh no. it is defo your ID meant to promote yourself. Sorry. I do not have an on-wiki evidence. CU result is suffice and enough. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There's long term promotion revolving around the draft about you, CSDed twice, Zeyan Jeelani and so on. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to checkuser. Was there an SPI? How disappointing to do this, the deleted bio draft was clearly self-promotion. Regarding Zeyan Shafiq, I don't see the need for the paid editor tag - I and others have already cleaned it up. It's meant to be for maintenance, not shaming. Fences&Windows 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r. I went ahead and notified Oshwah of this thread. SQL^{Query me!} 21:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r. Checkuser confirmed socking using two accounts and there's a lot of logged out editing going on too. Hums4r had better stop digging this hole and start apologising fast if he wants to stay editing Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 21:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows I sincerely apologise to the wikipedia community/admins/editors/users for the sock puppetry done by me and i am sincerely ashamed of it and i assure the community that this shall never be repeated, but i can not apologise for the paid editor allegations made on me when i did not take the payment for anything, if there is anything written in the article that might look promotional, you can delete that part and clean it up, but kindly don’t call me a paid editor. Hums4r (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

oh no! The history is quite old. Mutahir showkat created that draft first. This user account was deleted by Oshwah in February 2020. What has changed since then? Self promotion? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AafiOnMobile i have mentioned it clearly above, i have done mistakes of sock puppetry and many other mistakes like COI and other mistakes but I didn’t have the knowledge of wikipedia back then, i have apologised earlier and i will apologise again to the whole wiki community for sock puppetry, but i will never take any money for an article because no one will ever pay me to do so, I can’t make articles properly that might pass aFc even my last article was cleaned by (Fences and Windows) and then posted,I don’t understand why are you so negative towards me, i praised you as a brother always not to gain your unjustified help but to gain your guidance to edit wikipedia for kashmiris, wikipedia is to contribute and to help other people to come and contribute to wiki, but you are just discouraging me brother. I think it might be bothering you with all those tags, i will never ever ping you for guidance again, thanks. Hums4r (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, My above comment is about promotion, and not about sock-puppetry which you've already addressed. No one, not me, and not any of other editors including Praxidicae is negative towards you. My comment just means to ask you that when your earlier user page was deleted in February 2020 as a blatant violation, draft was deleted in November 2020 as blatant promotion, why did you continue this behaviour of promotion? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding to this, since you already have expressed Conflict of Interest, why do you want to write about the things very closely related to Zeyan? That suspects that he too is involved in this promotional game. I guess. Try learning through WP:AAU. Promotion, vanity doesn't help. Definitely. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AafiOnMobile i got to learn the complete basics of wikipedia on around 13-14 january, i have made many mistakes before it and this was also my one mistake to create a draft that was already declined for promo/adv, but after i have become a active editor on wiki, i did not make or repeat any mistakes and if i repeat them in future i surely must get penalty for it, and even if you want to give me penalty right now, you can suspend my account for temporary time like 7 days, but I don’t want my account to be blocked permanently. I apologise for it as well. I never wrote things closely to zeyan, i have made research, also discussed many things on (Zeyan Shafiq) talk page, to learn more about wiki basics, I have only added the part which i find in sources and my reason to add so much information abt zeyan shafiq is because this was my first article and i wanted to make sure that there is enough information and it is productive to the people who read it, but brother that doesn’t make me a person who would take money for it, you or anyone else in the wiki community can easily go and edit or delete that part which you feel have been edited by me like promotion. But please don’t call me a paid editor. Hums4r (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable argument. @Praxidicae: would you like to say something? I'm bad at paid-editing related issues. Perhaps you can better analyse the above statements from this editor? Dear Hums4r, a note to you that I did not ever called you a paid editor not did anyone else, this is a maintenance template adding in AGF & it should be discussed assuming good faith. Right? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile:,but since that article was made by me there is a banner that refers to “it might have been made for money” while as I didn’t do that, and if anyone checks the contribution history to found out who made it, it will show my name, and then i will be accused for it, and it will degrade my name in future in Wikipedia community, also i have no idea of maintainence template, ( pls share a link where i can read about it,) yes i do understand and agree everything here should be debatable and discussed briefly. I have gained more information today on many aspects, thank you. Also i even removed my name from my wiki user page so that no one ever tries to contact me and ask me for article creation, i swear to god, i will never ever indulge in any kind of violated activities of wikipedia like taking money. Hums4r (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the apology from Hums4r and give them another chance, but I won't close this myself as I edited the article they created and moved it live. Fences&Windows 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, Taking money is itself not against our policies. You just have to say if you're doing so, because we care about transparency. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hums isn't blocked, so I have no idea what they are asking for here. They got off without a scratch considering they were socking. And their article has been cleaned up. So I don't see anything to be done here. To Hums: I suggest you work on editing existing articles for the time being, in areas you are interested in and don't have a conflict of interest over. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval and guidance and suggestions CaptainEek, Fences and windows, i will definetily start working on existing articles and improve myself and never repeat the old mistakes. thank you all so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:74.74.128.248

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

---

Since returning from a two-week block on 15 January, User:74.74.128.248 has repeated their past behaviour of nuisance edits and/or vandalism. Several editors have warned them on their talk page, myself included. I think it's fair to say this is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE, specifically: "General pattern of disruptive behavior – A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions." JG66 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll second that. The IP seems, perhaps, to mean well, but is making a real mess of things. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IP just got a one-month block after a report at AIV. Another problem with this IP is a complete lack of communication after warnings. It's possible this is a WP:COMPETENCE problem, but I think it is more likely WP:NOTHERE. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Elizium23

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Elizium23 is engaging in persistent disruptive behavior regarding the captions and new photographs I've added at Wilton Daniel Gregory. After adding 3 new photographs, first the user made uncivil and entirely false claims against me at Commons, then attempted to claim they were copyvios, despite the website claiming they were free use and in the public domain.

• here;

• here;

• here

Then, moving from Commons to WP, the user was forced to remove those claims and did offer an apology for the false personal attacks. But now the user is engaged in edit-warring when all I am doing is captioning those photos consistent with their provenance. The user was warned against warring. The user was exhibiting WP:OWN behavior, which the user was warned against.

Now the user tagged my talk for the crime of Style Guide vios(?) and now, inexplicably, has tagged the entire article itself? Because of the captions on 2 photos?!! When I civilly engaged the user, this was how that went. Now the user has RFC'd those captions. Seriously? Enough. Recommend user be temporarily topic blocked from this article. Or at minimum, be given a timeout and advised to act more civilly and reminded to edit more collaboratively. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6's behavior speaks for itself. I myself reverted the copyvio templates on Commons, once it was pointed out that the Diocese had suddenly modified their legal terms to something that we could actually use. Nevertheless, my conduct (and his) on Commons is not at issue here.

I've opened an RFC, per WP:DR. Why is this at ANI if DR is in progress? *shrug* Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So Elizium23 admits to having to self revert (several times!), both at Commons and here - and even apologized at Commons - but yet somehow my behavior speaks for itself? Baffling bit of doublespeak there. As I said, the user has also opened an RFC providing 2 supposedly conflicting captions, when the caption presented wasn't even a disputed one. There's just a lot of erratic behavior going on with this editor and I just don't want to fall down the rabbit hole any further. My request for review here was basically because I did not appreciate getting tagged at my talk for nonsense. That misuse of tags for the purposes of attempted intimidation is ultimately what brought me here. So my request for a warning or timeout for the editor on the subject page still stands. Just some warning/reminder re: behavior and collaboration with other editors. Also throw in a bit that the user doesn't OWN the subject page in question, regardless of how much time the user has spent there. Then I'll happily move on to lots more interesting matters. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: Yes, the use of terminology in the captions has been disputed. What exactly is wrong with opening an RfC to settle a content dispute? And you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before complaining about edit warring, especially since 3RR has not been violated. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also take offense at someone dropping the welcome message on my talk page and then following it up with a FINAL WARNING over MOS issues. But I think the grammarians of MOS are a well-meaning niche group who are constantly at odds with good-faith editors over mundane issues that have little effect on the substance of articles.

100%, it is on the editor claiming copyvio to know the policies of a website before they accuse an editor, so yes you should have known policies suddenly changed.

With that said, this looks like a content issue that should be resolved through DR and other community methods especially as both editors are veterans and know the tools available to avoid being here Slywriter (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, well unfortunately I had no choice because X4n6 has a long, long talk page history full of warnings, including WP:EW and similar ones to the one I issued, so I did not feel comfortable using one at a lower level.

As to Commons, I checked the archdiocesan website where the uploader obtained the photos. I wrote: 'website specifies images are "public for free use"' and I stand by my statement that "public for free use" does not constitute a release to public domain or a valid license for use on Wikimedia Commons, which has stricter standards than enwiki. I only wished that an administrator arbitrate the situation as they are the final say about copyright issues. X4n6 chose to illicitly remove tags from his own files, which is against policy, so I restored them. No edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Slywriter:. Now you see what I was dealing with. Nothing like a little "I had no choice, the Devil made me do it!" Followed by more obnoxious slander out the door, from Elizium23. And you wonder why we're here? Fifteen years here and Elizium23 wants to bust out the proctoscope to find less than a handful of items during that entire tenure. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Within just the last 24 hours, Elizium23 has had to self-revert over half a dozen times over two platforms. Because the files were/are public domain. The damn website says so! But you know, reading is still fundamental! Besides, are there no mirrors in Elizium23's world? This could go on ad nauseum, but I'd much rather focus on vaccine delivery and a peaceful transfer of power. Can't give this obstreperous editor any more oxygen. But you mentioned the style niche folk? Funny thing is, I was a big JOBTITLES editor myself back in the day. But the anal retentiveness of some of them was too off-the-tracks for me then; and now I see little has changed. Anyway, I've had my say here, so whomever else wants to weigh in next can have theirs. Although I'd still appreciate a little comportment reminder for the subject of this ANI. Not for me. I'm beyond immune now. But for the next editor who may have the misfortune of falling down that rabbit hole. Thanks again. Now off to find a good Star Trek rerun somewhere. X4n6 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As for "exhibiting WP:OWN behavior" you haven't shown us any diffs. Interesting.

Often I do write in the first person plural, because I represent the consensus of interested editors in a given topic. It's quite the opposite of OWNership: I carry out the wishes of others as we have forged consensus about how articles in a given topic-area should look. I don't claim any singular power to override this, so any editor seeking to contravene it should be prepared to follow WP:DR to overturn the consensus in their favor. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons issues don't really concern us. But websites can claim whatever they want. When it comes to copyrights, we need to be certain. If there is any doubt e.g. whether a copyright or licencing statement is clear enough or whether the website is actually able to licence the images that way, it's quite appropriate to raise the issue. If you don't want people asking such questions, then don't upload media, or at least not media from someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't just comment generically. Often it doesn't assist in resolving anything. Here is the exact website at issue - and what it states: "The images below are free use and in the public domain. For questions or more information, contact communications@adw.org." By any reasonable standard, Wiki or otherwise, it could not be clearer. X4n6 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what it states as of 05:02, January 15, 2021, but I assure you that it had different wording less than two hours before that. When I checked the license, the verbiage did not include the phrase "public domain". I wish the Internet archive had saved copies. Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 already pointed this out to X4n6 here [201]. So even if they didn't remember the old wording, they should have remembered it changed. While it's great the website has clarified they copyright policy on the photos, it's disturbing that User:X4n6 is now misleading people on ANI into thinking that the wording was always so clear to make it sound like Elizium23 was silly to question the copyright status. Actually in my eyes, with the latest response this comes very close to a personal attack on Elizium23 by X4n6, since they're misleading people into thinking Elizium23 did something they didn't. No wonder Elizium23 is so frustrated with them, frankly while I haven't looked into the other stuff, this is looking like a major WP:boomerang to me. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: even without Elizium23's clarification my point stands. If you don't want people questioning you on copyright then don't upload stuff which isn't your own work. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopaedia and commons in particular is intended to have only free content. It is imperative we get copyright right. If you don't respect that then sorry you don't belong here. Actually Wikipedia in general is intended to be a collaborative project so if you aren't happy with people asking questions then sorry but you don't belong. While Elizium23 was wrong to comment incorrectly on your history at Commons, something they've already admitted and apologised for, they are fully entitled to question you if they have doubts over copyright which again I'll repeat it's imperative we get right. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Your ability to consistently get it wrong is what's impressive. Originally, I warned you that generic comments weren't helpful. So now you've gone to the opposite extreme and apparently concluded that cherry picking the log is the way to go. But my response remains the same. It doesn't assist in resolving anything. Especially when your cherry picking is so sloppy that it gets everything backwards. Contrary to your claim, Elizium23's apology had nothing to do with the website's policies. It had everything to do with falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." Which was provably false from the log. So Elizium23 got it wrong and apologized. But now you've accused me of a personal attack against Elizium23 when, as is plainly evident now, I was the one attacked. So now you owe me an apology. So where is your BOOMERANG now? Then you said Elzium23 told me the website's documentation had changed. And? Did it never occur to you that perhaps Elizium23 may have been doing some CYA, because he/she couldn't find exactly where on the website the public domain statement was made? Or in your leap to judgment, was that not even considered? Unlike you, I stop short of making accusations. I'm only pointing out the possibility. It wouldn't be the first time a well-intentioned editor simply missed something, then swore up and down that it was never there to begin with. We're both veterans here, so I've seen it. Would be shocked if you haven't. So you should know better. And you should do better. Especially since you're spending so much time weighing in on Noticeboards these days. I've already shown you in bold above exactly what the website says about public domain. There isn't an editor here who would ask it to be any plainer, nor an editor who could reasonably be criticized for using it. So let's stop the nonsense right now. You still owe me apologies for both your false claims and your false conclusions. But seriously, if you're going to wade into disputes and hurl accusations, which again by your Noticeboard log appears to be your current penchant, be damned sure you know what you're talking about. And as a final response, if Wikipedia or Commons wanted to require that only original content be uploaded across its platforms, the community is certainly capable of making that decision. So it's above your pay grade to be unilaterally dispensing that advice on Noticeboards. Just as you're way over your skis saying who does and doesn't belong here. To anyone. Let alone to veterans. So stay in your lane. X4n6 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wading over his skis into disputes above his pay grade while hurling accusations out of his lane? What a workout! EEng 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's right, mixed metaphors. Definitely taught at Harvard. X4n6 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Stay in your lane" is uncivil language that does not belong here and is, in fact, a huge red flag that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a way of driving others editors away. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Y X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Александр Мотин again

Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is already under a partial block from MH-17 and under indefinite topic-ban from Covid-19 as well as Russian politics, and they regularly get featured at this noticeboard (they got more active here since they have been banned from the Russian Wikipedia, unbanned and got banned again after a few days), but managed to escape site ban because users claim that he has good contributions or works without problems in other topics. This is just not true. His main topic is, after the topic ban has been imposed, railway stations in Russia, which unfortunately overlaps with one of my interests in Wikipedia. In particular, I created articles about all railway directions / lines in Moscow such as Savyolovsky suburban railway line (which happened before Александр Мотин became active on the project). Александр Мотин for whatever reason does not like these names, he moved one, I moved it back and insisted he opens a RM (Talk:Savyolovsky suburban railway line), the result was no consensus. This is obviously a content dispute, so I tried to resolve it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Moscow suburban railway lines and got some reasonable suggestions. I was planning to open a move discussion with multiple options (and had unfortunately less time recently because Ukrainian districts, with several thousands articles with outdated info, have a higher priority, but I am still planning to do it). At the same discussion, Александр Мотин was clearly told to stop. However, as with other topics, he is not prepared to accept the fact that consensus is different from his personal opinion. He started to create articles like Petrovsko-Razumovskaya railway station (Leningradskaya line) (the name of the article about the line is currently Leningradsky suburban railway line), and today they moved Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line perfectly knowing this goes against consensus. I am not sure why we should tolerate this any longer. The whole editing history of the user, both here and at the English Russian Wikipedia, shows that he is incapable of listening to other opinions and would not stop. We finally need a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Most recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive328#Unban--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I moved Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line because this Russian administrator failed to provide reliable sources for name like "Gorkovsky suburban railway line" etc (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Moscow suburban railway lines). And I provided such reliable sources as: Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation [202], Moscow Mayor official website [203][204]. What is the problem Ymblanter? Why did you file this request instead of providing reliable sources? Is it WP:HOUNDING again? When will you start providing reliable sources for the names you came up with (see WP:OR)? I don't know anyone in Russia who call these lines like "XXX suburban railway line". It is pure WP:OR of this administrator who cannot even provide reliable sources. If you look at the official route map you will see that the line is called "Gorkovskoye line" (Russian: Горьковское направление). --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have told you countless times that calling me a "Russian administrator" is factually incorrect, but, as usual, you prefer not to hear it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  And I've told you that you should provide reliable sources instead of harassment. Why don't you provide these reliable sources? What's wrong with the official scheme of Gorkovskoye line? Why you can't translate two words into English (Горьковское направление) from that official scheme?--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Site-ban for Александр Мотин

• Support (as proposer). Note that I very rarely support site bans, I have supported may be two or three during my whole tenure. However, we really need it here. The time good-faith users (and not just me, but also these who tried to argue with them that Russian propaganda must not be in the articles in Wikipedia voice) lose for dealing with this user is enormous and can not be justified by any potential benefit from his editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  If this is not clear from the exchange above, Александр Мотин just does not care about WP:CONSENSUS. It is just not within his horizon. Referring to WP:CONSENSUS is just not a valid argument for him. We have seen it in MH17 discuissions. We have seen it in Covid discussions. We have seen it in his unban request which I referenced above. We see it here. If he is not site-banned, we will continue seeing it in all new topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I waited 4 months for you to start providing reliable sources which prove those original railway line names you came up with. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support From what I see thus linked, you have my full support in your reasoning for this Ym. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 09:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cancel culture?--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, enough already. Александр Мотин had been given more than enough chances and WP:ROPE, to no avail. Александр Мотин's comments in this thread just underscore the conclusion that this is a WP:NOTHERE case. Nsk92 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support (after edit conflict). This editor has been given too many second chances already. Just the pointing out of another editor's ethnicity ("this Russian administrator") should be enough for a ban, on top of everything that has been mentioned in previous discussions. We wouldn't tolerate, I hope, anyone who habitually referred to another editor as "this Jewish administrator" and we similaraly shouldn't tolerate this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Phil Bridger: Disgusting commentary about "this Jewish administrator". You should be banned for attempting to incite a racist conflict here. This Russian administrator left a bad legacy in the Russian Wikipedia. And that's it.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Well, this is just bullshit. Not even a lie, just bullshit, in hope that something would stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Ymblanter: Oh really? So you forgot how you called the editors of the Russian Wikipedia "scum", for instance? How quickly you forget everything that you managed to do in the Russian Wikipedia. P.S. I can provide that diff with insults if required to the Arbitration Committee because it contains personal information. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Phil Bridger, the idea that mentioning another editor's nationality constitutes an attack is not only flat-out incorrect, it's something that happens all the time on Wikipedia. ("The consensus looks clear but every editor to participate so far has been British, I won't close the discussion until people in other parts of the world have had a chance to comment", "There's a clear split in the Arbitration Committee with American arbs consistently taking a stricter line on civility", "You say this isn't considered important in Turkey but every Turkish editor to comment has agreed that it should be included"…). This isn't particularly relevant to this particular case which is a straightforward conduct issue, but "Russian administrator" warrants at most "I'm not Russian" or "the fact that I'm Russian isn't relevant in this particular case". ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Ymblanter has made such replies many times before, but Александр Мотин persists in calling him "this Russian administrator". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Iridescent, Ymblanter has asked AM many times to stop calling them Russian, but they persist. If you look at Ymblanter's user page, they're Dutch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support based on what he's written in this thread and the case laid out above. It's pretty clear he cares more about winning than collaborating, a mindset which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 10:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a siteban. It shouldn't take three topic bans to get someone to behave properly. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but should this be a global ban? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the formal site ban from the English Wikipedia (to formalize the indefinite block). It only needs to be a global ban if he is banned from other Wikimedia projects also. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know what his status is at ruwiki but I believe he is at least indeffed. Could be worth looking into. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    He is blocked for an indefinite duration. Ruwiki does not have a site ban. He might be unblocked there either by the same administrator who blocked him, or by asking the ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Well meta:Global bans suggests that this meets the third criterion for a global ban: Indef blocked or banned on two or more projects. Whether the behavior is severe enough to be called "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" I'll leave to those more capable of vetting his contribs to other wikis. It does look like he's active at Commons and Wikidata. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support the site ban. It seems that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Renat (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Desysop for Ymblanter

Pure retaliation and continued nationalistic mislabling after multiple requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. It is clear that the actions of this Russian administrator correspond to WP:CTDAPE and WP:HOUNDING (1, ). I suppose he should be desysoped to prevent further harm to the English Wikipedia.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Александр Мотин indefinite block

Noting that I have indefinitely blocked Александр Мотин. Happy to let the WP:CBAN discussion progress as it may, but otherwise, enough is enough. El_C 10:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I am sorry that you now have to spend your time discussing with him at his talk page and explaining that your block is not misuse of the tools (which they have already implied). Hopefully this is the last time someone has to invest to this timesink.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's almost done now, anyway. There seems to be a sort of dissonance, made more obvious with this ANI report and culminating with my block, that ultimately just leads to an unmistaken dead end. El_C 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Given this should the block be amended to remove email access? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, it was only one email, so I'd hold off, for now. El_C 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to participants, Александр Мотин's talk page access has been revoked. So don't expect further defense against the siteban proposal. I don't think that should prevent it from being enacted, but felt it worth noting here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced controversial edits in article Tutsi

• Reported user: ‎Bukamba78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tutsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The reported user is persistently deleting sourced info in the article, and adding unsourced and controversial info, despite successive reverts by different editors:

• Johannnes89 (talk · contribs)
• Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs)
• Dehlisandwich (talk · contribs)
• Cordless Larry (talk · contribs)
• Keith D (talk · contribs)
• and myself Megustalastrufas (talk · contribs)

The user deletes the statement that the tutsi are bantu-speaking (which according to quoted sources they are, as they speak kinyarwanda, which is a bantu language) and then adds on the intro that they are nilotic people (which quoted sources limit to probable nilotic origin), not providing any other sources for the edit.

I tried a neutral version [205], where the intro does not say neither bantu-speaking nor nilotic people, explaining both aspects in the origins section, but the user persists with the controversial edit.

Note that there was a civil war and a genocide about this, so, calling this a controversial issue is an understatement.

The user has been requested sources for the edits via talk page, both by Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs) and myself, with a clear explanation, to no avail. The user has only contributed to four articles, all retated to the topic, and with the same aim.

I think a ban is in order, but as I have been involved in the reverting, I would appreciate other eyes looking at this. Megustalastrufas (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:AnatoLion

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

AnatoLion (talk · contribs) -- edit-warring and discussion resistance on Bayraklı, Template:Largest cities in Turkey, and Bet Israel Synagogue (İzmir), trying to push a copyright-violating picture, with severe personal attacks in summary ("bad faith", "man on a mission", "say hello to Putin"). --A.Savin (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This sounds at the very least like a need for strong warning to me. The user has only started editing two weeks ago, so may be not yet a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And continuing edit-warring [206]. Please stop them. --A.Savin (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this one tells something about the battleground behavior of the user but does not make much sense - if the Commons request is closed as delete, a bot will take care of the image.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Kjgm

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

---

• Kjgm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tox (protocol) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jami (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I attempted to send this to AIV, but it got no response and went stale. User:Kjgm's only actions have been to add a hoax to articles. The two main articles are Tox (protocol) and Jami (software). His claims are that Tox is developed by "Tox,Inc" and founded by a man named Augusto (diff diff) and Jami is either developed by "Jami,Inc" or the previous "Tox,Inc" and founded by the same Augusto (diff diff diff). Looking at both subjects' home pages quickly shows that these claims are false. Tox's about page shows that it is a free and open source project developed by volunteers and is not a company or any other legal organization. This press release on Jami's site clearly shows that it was developed by Savoir-faire Linux. Neither site mentions Augusto. He has been previously blocked for this and has received plenty of warnings, but shows no hint at stopping. Would an admin mind stepping in? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Could be worth a block to get the user to talk. But I really don't think there's any good faith here. This has all the hallmarks of a student putting his or a friend's name into an article as a gag. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

SNL trivia, original research from Pontiac, Michigan

• 2600:1702:3200:D3B0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:408:C300:39F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:408:C301:3EA0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using IPs from Pontiac, Michigan, has been adding tons of unreferenced trivia to articles about the TV show Saturday Night Live, comparing recent and past episodes in violation of WP:No original research.[207] They've been warned repeatedly on dozens of IP talk pages but there has been no communication and no stop to the disruption. Special:Contributions/2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5 was blocked back in September. There are probably more blocks in the history but you get the drift. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IceFrappe and BLP

• IceFrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Eric Bieniemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yesterday I answered this edit-warring noticeboard entry. User:IceFrappe was inserting trivial rap-sheet related material into Dawn Wells despite an RfC in November 2020 reaching consensus that the material should not be included, and reported the editor (UserAloha27) that was reverting the material back out. Aloha27 had indeed reverted four times to IceFrappe's 3, but there was clearly no way I was going to block them, and I protected the page with the negative material not present.

Today I noticed another AN3 report here where IceFrappe has reported another editor - and it turns out that again IceFrappe is inserting large amounts of mostly trivial rap-sheet material (diff - [208]) into Eric Bieniemy, and edit-warring with another editor - this time User:Log47933 - to ensure it stays in the article. However this time it also included a WP:SYNTH-y section which insinuated that Bieniemy had been involved in a serious crime, the important sentence of which had no source. I have removed this [209].

The issue seems to go further though with other articles - for example this addition, yesterday, of a claim of adultery and other negative material. That particular one has't attracted an editor - yet - to remove it, but it is clear that IceFrappe does not understand the concept of WP:BRD and they are also quick to accuse others of sockpuppetry and paid editing with no evidence, tendentious editing (also note the comment itself), double standards, forum shopping, canvassing and lying. And that's only in the last few days. I am unconvinced that this editor understands some of our core policies nor is willing to work collaboratively with others. Thoughts welcome. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a very biased and one-sided account of what had transpired and a failure at assuming good faith. The "forum shopping" accusation was seconded by the highly respected admin User:Seemplez [210], who quickly closed the frivolous complaint User:Log47933 filed against me. Moreover, you are required to use article talkpage to resolve the dispute before resorting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. User:Log47933 did not do that and falsely claimed he did in his filing [211]. Is that not a lie? Is that not a clear-cut example of gaming the system and abusing the dispute resolution process?

By definition, User:Log47933 is a single-purpose account who has so far made zero mainspace edit except on Eric Bieniemy [212]. In fact, his account was created 8 minutes before he unilaterally mass removed content on Eric Bieniemy for the first time (much of those content were not written by me; I simply organized them under a new subheading per precedents Richie_Incognito#Bullying_scandal_and_other_controversies, Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)#Criminal_history_and_suspension, Adam_Jones_(American_football)#Legal_issues, Greg_Schiano#Controversy. If you consider Bieniemy's "trivial rap sheet material," then so are those). Since then, he has spent a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia every day railing against me on multiple noticeboards, yet still hasn't made any mainspace edits except on Eric Bieniemy. He has also since edit-warred with other editors over it without discussion on talkpage or seeking consensus [213]. I don't think it's much of a leap to suspect him of having a conflict of interest or even being a paid editor. Even more damningly, despite being a self-proclaimed "newbie," he's clearly well-versed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution, so I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect he might be the bad-hand account/sleeper sock of an experienced editor. Whether a checkuser or SPI investigation is necessary at this juncture, I will leave it to the admins to decide.

In the Dawn Wells article, User:Aloha27 not only reverted the pot bust, but also the more recent dementia diagnosis four times within 22 minutes. Even if he takes issue with the pot bust section, he could've kept the dementia diagnosis paragraph in place instead of mindlessly reverting using the undo function. Worse, he used "edit-warring" templates to intimidate me on my talkpage twice within that same 22 minutes span when he himself was the one who violated 3RR [214] [215]. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN. He has also refused to engage in any meaningful discussion on Wells' talkpage and has yet to respond to me since User:Black Kite protected the page (see Talk:Dawn_Wells#Potential_WP:OWN_violation).

As for the so-called "consensus" you alluded to, not only was it from 11 years ago but the only reason User:Aloha27 cited was WP:UNDUE. In other words, the "consensus" was against the length, not the content of her pot bust. I assume the previous version was too wordy. Of course, I'm not advocating using up a significant portion of Wells' article to describe her pot bust in great details and I even asked User:Aloha27 to trim it down if needed right from the start on my own talkpage [216]. However, as I noted in the article talkpage, citing WP:UNDUE is not a "get out of jail free card" that justifies the censorship and suppression of any and all mention of Wells' arrest from reputable sources. Nor is it an excuse to simultaneously remove mention of her dementia diagnosis last June [217]. So far, User:Aloha27 has refused to respond.

In the Bill McCartney article, both the Chicago Tribune [218] and New York Times [219] sources stated McCartney's adultery. These are reputable sources and part of public record. Quote "In an interview, Rev. James Ryle, McCartney's pastor at Boulder Valley Vineyard Christian Fellowship and chaplain for the Buffaloes, said the catalyst for Lyndi McCartney's breakdown came in an Arizona hotel room on the morning of Jan. 1, 1993, when McCartney confessed to his wife just before the Fiesta Bowl that 20 years earlier he had committed adultery. Then McCartney left the hotel for his traditional pregame walk with Ryle, and in the car told his pastor what he had just done, Ryle recalled.

I will apologize to the community for my flawed understanding of BRD. I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but a sporadic editor. My impression was that detailed edit summary suffice and the onus was on those who are deleting huge chunks of material to explain their reasoning in the talkpage. I will do better in the future. However, that does not excuse the WP:OWN conduct of User:Aloha27 nor does it excuse User:Log47933 for being an obvious single-purpose account who has edit-warred with multiple editors. I also think I deserve credit for bringing these troubling behaviors to the community's attention (I have nothing to hide), so I am frankly disappointed and dumbfounded by User:Black Kite's failure to AGF.IceFrappe (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IceFrappe, one, I am not "highly respected" nor an admin on this site. Two, I was not aware of your previous edits to Dawn Wells. Three, the closure of that DRN as forum shopping appears to be a rash and misguided judgement on my part, and I apologise profusely to Log47933 for that accusation.

Black Kite, you said this was lying, which talk page did Log47933 post on? I didn't see any edits by him on the Eric Bieniemy talk page or any regarding this on their user talk page. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the one with the accusations of lying - check the edit summary. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you are required to use article talkpage to resolve the dispute before resorting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. In fact, that's the first question you have to answer before you file. User:Log47933 did not do that and falsely claimed he did in his filing [220]. Is that not a lie?IceFrappe (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, oh, accusations of lying, I misread. Apologies. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 22:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the so-called "consensus" you alluded to, not only was it from 11 years ago.... It was from November 2020 - Talk:Dawn_Wells#RfC_on_driving_incident. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As the editor involved with IceFrappe in the Bieniemy page dispute I co-sign everything User:Black Kite has said about their behavior. IceFrappe has a clear pattern of hostile behavior towards others who have disagreed with them and has never shown anything but contempt for any of the suggestions I made for the page. First off, as a new editor, I did not really understand how the reporting process worked. So when you quickly reported me for edit warring I was worried I would get quickly banned without a chance to say anything in return. I apologize if I gave the intention of forum shopping. Once I realized my error I did not proceed any further. Thank you to User:Seemplez for explaining that I was not attempting to forum shop and I accept your apology. The idea that I am "well experienced" in Wikipedia dispute resolution is patently absurd. Secondly, the other editor who I supposedly "edit-warred" with simply stated that I should some summarize my edits with an accurate edit summary and had no objections to the content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Log47933). The fact that you would provide such a dramatic mischaracterization of those two interactions of mine in order to make yourself sound more sympathetic seems extremely malicious to me. In fact, I would call your apology in the last paragraph a non-apology. You definitely sound like someone who doesn't think they did anything wrong.

Furthermore, the page Black Kite noted IceFrappe edited yesterday is Bill McCartney, who was Bieniemy's coach in college and cited as one of his mentors in a recent interview (Bieniemy produced a wide grin when asked how about McCartney....“Coach Mac shaped me a lot,” he said. “He was a great disciplinarian and he brought together a lot of different men from a lot of different areas and that was huge. I’ve known Coach Mac for half my life and we would all run through a wall for him.” (https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/29/eric-bieniemy-chiefs-super-bowl-liv/). I think some of IceFrappe's edits to the page (like the part mentioning McCartney's recent dementia diagnosis) made sense, but it sure seems like pretty questionable judgement to me to insert a lot of negative material into someone's page who just so happens to be a close associate of Bieniemy at the same time this dispute is going on and makes it difficult for me to believe IceFrappe can adhere to the guidelines of WP:NPOV as it pertains to those associated with the Colorado Football program and perhaps many other biographies of living persons. Log 47933 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)