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

Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444

• Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Bgkc4444 was warned in a previous report by Ivanvector to assume good faith in dealing with editors, such as myself, to which they responded, "I do apologise for assuming bad faith, and I will try keep a check on that." ([1]) Having been pinged to a discussion at Talk:Surprise album#Removal of sourced material, given my contributions several months ago, I noticed they are still making bad-faith accusations and suggestions toward other editors, Fezmar9 specifically, and I see these are similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before.

• [2] "no matter if you personally dislike those facts", is how they opened the discussion after their only series of changes to the article in recent memory was reverted yesterday
• [3] "And you do not own this page so how dare you tell me to 'leave well enough alone' because you personally don't want to accept or display these basic facts." ("own" was pipe-linked to WP:OWN)
• [4] "we shouldn't not be making articles encyclopedic because we personally don't want readers to know the full story."
• [5] "It's funny looking at what you're trying to force into the article."
• [6] "Watch your tone, and it would be great if you stopped with the whataboutism and actually responded to my points. And well, no. As much as you'd love it to be the truth, Swift's albums aren't the main events in surprise album history like Radiohead and Beyonce's albums."
• [7] "Again with the ignoring of my points? ... I hope you're not refusing to engage in discussion, because this isn't your article, and you should want to reach consensus to ensure it is encyclopedic." ("this isn't your article" was pipe-linked, again, to WP:OWN)
• [8] "I'm not the one reverting to force my contradictory opinions onto the page."
• [9] "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."
• [10] "The way editors on this page are trying to bury that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album in a "shared" paragraph really isn't helpful."

I gave own input on the content dispute, with comments focusing strictly on the editor's changes and the content, rather than the editor's conduct or intentions, and even restored a piece of information that had been undone from Bgkc4444's original edit, but with a more appropriate source. Bgkc4444 replied by quoting a remark I made several months ago about what I felt was toxic and condescending behavior by them, while accusing the editors in disagreement with them of "trying to bury" information and "hiding the significance" of a particular subject. In my own opinion, I did not see anything suggesting Fezmar9 or BawinV have behaved or intended to behave in the way Bgkc4444 has said or suggested.

Content disputes can get heated and emotional. But, considering Ivanvector's advice in the aforementioned report, for more diligence in reporting incidents, I feel obligated to report this activity. Perhaps it will deter this kind of behavior so the rest of us can feel comfortable and encouraged, rather than compelled, to comply with more civil and patient standards of discussion about content. And so potentially toxic or unfair comments do not become normalized or countered by similar accusations and suggestions in discussions that should not lose focus of the content. Thank you. isento (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you say "similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before", but I believe you're referring to your continuous personal attacks despite final warnings from administrators, which caused you to be blocked just ten days ago. I also believe you admitted your personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), said you want no further interaction with me multiple times, and called this administrators' noticeboard a kangaroo court of hypocrites, so I genuinely cannot think of a good reason why you'd join a discussion that you know I started and then complain about my actions to the same noticeboard.

Secondly, I do not see how these are "continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions". I certainly stick by my contributions to the discussion that I had made, unless I violated Wikipedia guidelines that I am not aware of. It is certainly true that both in the previous discussion and in the current one, editors explicitly agreed to ignore my points (especially you, when you said: "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.") and then consequently claimed that consensus was reached. I am happy to go through each of the out-of-context quotes you brought here one-by-one, but I don't want to waste time and would appreciate an administrator's POV. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My conduct has already been addressed in the previous report. I have learned from and am over it. Nor will I be baited into further behavior of that kind -- as I clearly said above, I was pinged to that discussion and had contributed significantly to the article. WP:HOTHEAD makes it clear that project[ing] negative mental assumptions about someone you're in a disagreement with is wrong, and saying things like "no matter if you personally dislike those facts" or making repeated accusations of page ownership seemed to fit the bill to me. So I reported it. I think a more formal warning rather than a block is appropriate, especially since Bgkc444 responded so defensively and was quick to highlight my past transgressions rather than reflect on their own behavior. They have demonstrated a pattern of making inflammatory or unactionable accusations ([11], as warned by Escape Orbit, and elsewhere: [12], [13], as warned by the since-retired admin Ad Orientem). And believe they should be held accountable for it like anyone else. isento (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this WP:BAIT? I believe bait would be something like - after being blocked for continuous attacks on an editor, pledging a personal intolerance of them and pleading to not have interactions with them again - joining a discussion that that editor started, "remaining superficially civil" (e.g. as you said, you "even" restored a small piece of the material that I added) and "then complain to an administrator". I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoped you had changed and wouldn't try and ruin my editing experience for me as you have continuously done for months, but unfortunately I took the bait and here we are. Fezmar9 and I were in a NPOV dispute and we both accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on both mine and Fezmar9's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "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", which is certainly not the case here. The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not both editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate. Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday at the aforementioned discussion, while pointing out the source-integrity flaws in Bgkc4444's original edits to the article, I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail.

This editor appears to routinely attack the intentions and credibility of other editors who do not agree with their Beyonce-focused content changes, such as at Alecsdaniel's talk page here a month ago: All of this does not indicate you are acting to improve this article, and instead shows that you're trying to make the film seem "worse" ... As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles ... repeatedly trying to force your edits onto the article that you know violate Wikipedia policies related to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This is another example where the editor was disagreed with and overwhelmed the other editor with WP:HOTHEAD-like accusations and suggestions, and when the other editor gave a valid response addressing the issue and then bowed out, Bgkc4444 still continued with the same line of argument, accusing the other editor of "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and "pretending to not realise why your material was removed and repeatedly blame it on my intelligence or personal agenda (it's because it violates Wikipedia's policies, by the way)" while suggesting that they have not been "engaging in constructive discussion". isento (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I can honestly say my experience with Bgkc4444 was the worst on the English Wikipedia. "Black is King", a film by Beyonce, had the 'Reception' section filled only with overly-long praises from various sources and failed to address any criticism. In order to give the article a level of objectivity, I've added reviews or points made that weren't praising Beyonce, which the user removed. Despite having a conversation and a vote on the talk page of Black is King, in which other users agreed the points I raised were valid, he continued to remove anything he didn't see as good reviews. I've tried to talk to them, but, as seen from the answers given to Isento even here, they fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar. I truly believe this kind of attitude is toxic for people to interact with, which is why I left them to their device, and there is still only praise on the "Black is King" page. Furthermore, since they lack objectivity, it is really hard to say how much their contributions value on Wikipedia, as this is not a fan page. But not everybody gets that. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Seriously, are you not tired of this? And are you refusing to address my points even here?

"I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail." - Very benevolent of you, but because Fezmar9 and I are currently in a discussion regarding this content, I did not want to add material without ensuring there was consensus on it. And I'm not having a discussion with you while you're trying your hardest to get me blocked on here. I learned my lesson from the first bait-taking.

And seriously, why are you bringing up months-old content disputes? It's actually sad that you'd try pick out random out-of-context quotes from a content dispute I had with someone months ago while ignoring their same messages to me as well as their personal attacks on my intelligence, something you have also done for months. I'll bring it here again. Fezmar9 and I, and Alecsdaniel and I, were in NPOV disputes and we all accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on mine, Fezmar9 and Alecdaniel's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "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", which is certainly not the case here (and, to add, a months-old discussion isn't an emergency either). The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not all editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate.

This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, @Alecsdaniel: please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. When there is a pattern of conflict, we must see that there is fault in some behavior or aspect of our behavior that we keep repeating. And as harsh as it may appear to read, our comments have truth to them. isento (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? Your condescending comments and faux psychoanalysis are extremely inappropriate. Please see your talk page. To stay focused on the actual discussion. What conflict do we currently have? The only thing I said to you was a comment last week saying that something "isn't helpful", and with another user I've had an NPOV dispute. These are not urgent or emergency matters that require administrators' discipline. The discussion here isn't going to go anywhere if you continue to ignore the points I raise. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You have admitted to having mental health issues here and here, and my point was to try relating my own experience with mental health issues to you so you would stop compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD), and instead appreciate the good faith that is there. But this response tells me I failed to do that -- instead of seeing the effort through good faith, you completely misread it through a bad-faith lens, which betrays a problem. And this noticeboard is not only for "urgent or emergency matters". It is also for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." isento (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Where do I admit that I have "mental health issues"?? I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health. I never said I have "mental health issues", nor that I've lived in an "abusive household", nor that I "feel handicapped by it", nor that I "use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in". It is highly inappropriate and actually quite disgusting that you'd make those assertions about me. If you'd want to appear as acting in good faith, it would probably be best to avoid telling other editors that they are handicapped idolaters with mental health issues. And I don't believe you're stupid so I know that you know what the right thing to do is.

Unsurprisingly, it's hard to see good faith in someone who has abused me for the better part of a year with horrible personal attacks and insults, which evidently hasn't stopped. It's hard to see good faith in someone who was blocked for this abuse against me just last week, who admitted their personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), and has said that they want no further interaction with me multiple times, but then reply to a discussion that I started and then when I reply, immediately report me to ANI. That doesn't indicate good faith. I assume you know that you yourself have problems with "compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD)" and making personal attacks, because every time I have to discuss this issue with you, either I write a note on your talk page under another note on your talk page about incivility directed against another editor, or other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them. If you know you have a problem with other editors so much, and especially me, and if you truly want other editors to view your actions as being in good faith, there are many options you can choose to do that. Interacting with editors when you know you shouldn't, reporting them to ANI and continuing with baseless personal claims about them are not some of those options. To that note, how would you know if those issues are "tractable" if instead of writing a polite message on my talk page, you either write uncivil or condescending comments or go immediately to ANI? Again, this makes it harder for me to see your actions as being in good faith, if that is truly what you want to gain from this discussion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences. Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally. As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning and getting accused of mocking them ([14]), merely because I said please don't restore the content again. These responses are consistently combative and distracting the focus from their behavior to mine when mine has already been addressed in the previous report. That is by definition intractable. That they respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue. isento (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for all the mean, intolerant things I've said to you in the past 😢 I'm sorry if they hurt you so much. I believe my concerns here are valid and of good-faith, but I am still sorry. isento (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences." - No, you said: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." Saying "know how it feels" means that you're making those assertions about me. That's obvious, Isento, and if you want to appear as acting in good faith then pretending you never said that doesn't help. "Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally." - Again, I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health, not that I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues.

"As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning" - No you didn't. You just repeatedly placed warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replied sarcastically when I asked you to clarify. This clearly shows that you were not writing polite messages on my talk page, despite the fact that WP:UW clearly states that "issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with", not writing personal messages, and not clarifying yourself can all indicate that the editor is acting uncivilly. And even if you did write a constructive message on my talk page (which you didn't), we're talking about a discussion from this week, not 6 months ago.

"respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue" - Telling me that you relate to me because I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues and you get where I'm coming from is not in any way an apology, and having an issue with such accusations is not being defensive nor "indicative of this long-term issue".

Isento, it is not "past behavior" or "things I've said to you in the past" because this is very clearly an ongoing problem. Yes, your comment to me is highly inappropriate and I tried discussing it with you on your talk page, but you deleted it (as you always have done when I write personal messages on your talk page regarding your behavior) and replaced it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today". And you're clearly not sorry or bothered about ruining others' experiences on Wikipedia if, when I tell you the distress that you've caused me, you say that I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Alecsdaniel was right. You're proving my point. And as for the song, not everything is about you - we all have our own lives and crises of conscience to which you have no relevance. I was rude and sarcastic in the past because I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego, since this noticeboard post isn't even a content dispute and since you have verbosely attacked the merits of this post, God knows why if you don't think it has any merit to begin with. I apologized and took responsibility for the past, but your continued aggression makes me feel regretful and foolish for doing so, since you seem incapable of considering or taking any blame on your part when multiple editors have pointed out to you that you've got a problem. I will now leave this in the more capable hands of administrators. Bowing out 🙏 isento (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see here, I wish users Isento and Bgkc4444 would WP:DISENGAGE. Both of you keep going back and forth, often more heated than the last. In my opinion, as an uninvolved third-party, both of your behavior toward each other is inappropriate and unacceptable. Regarding specific issues: Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out. However, Isento is a very experienced editor with over 120,000 edits and has been here since 2008. Given that breadth of experience, I feel that they should be more than capable of handling this type of issue without being so easily brought down to a level of interaction which is lesser than should be expected of them. (Personally, to witness this happening to such an experienced editor is disheartening.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, I am sorry for disappointing you. It was a very rough year, and I let it seep into my activity here sometimes. But I am healing. Hence the inspiration for posting the song. I'm not a machine. I've had issues too. And I really got to sympathize with what I sensed the editor was going thru because I've been there too. I hope my shortcomings have at least served to help another editor see theirs. Because they have positive potential that can help the project. isento (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your comment. Could I possibly ask you to clarify when I "ignore[d] local consensus on pages"? Is that regarding my quote that Isento brought saying: "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."? Because that sentence is certainly true. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, mostly, as you admitted to it, consensus is a complicated thing. If you're on a page and there's a total of four editors (yourself included) discussing things on a talk page, and three of them are in agreement and you disagree, you're facing growing local consensus. Now, if you don't think you and your arguments are being given a fair shake, that's why we have the RFC system and dispute resolution system, where third parties can be brought in from a wider scope to the page and help weigh-in on disputed matters. If you find yourself facing down three editors (concurring with the position you oppose) by yourself, without any other support, and you keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself without using some of those systems I just mentioned, that is definitely a fertile ground for problematic behavior, if not somewhat problematic in itself. I heavily disagree with you saying it is certainly true, as it is more likely to be untrue than true (in this context). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your response. That isn't exactly what happened. Editor A started a discussion about various edits done by Editor B, and I tried to bridge the two and voiced my agreements and disagreements of points within both arguments, however this was met with intolerance (e.g. "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.". WP:CON states that "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.", so the conclusion of that discussion cannot be considered a consensus just because it's "3 vs 1" and especially if the "3 side" explicitly said to ignore the "1 side"'s concerns. I also believe that I do not "keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself". WP:CON further states that soliciting outside opinions should be done when there is a deadlock, but the discussion lasted for only ~12 hours before my opinions were told to be ignored and that request was heeded, so I didn't solicit outside opinions because we hadn't even had a proper discussion, let alone form any consensus. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thank you, but I've already gone through plenty of pages related to the contributions of both you and Isento so I can make informed comments.

Regarding the incident you linked, I would also like to point out your comment. Both of you have been editing music-related pages (most notably Beyonce-related), so it makes sense for you to end up in the talk pages thereof. Things really didn't become personal until that comment, which targeted Isento with an implication of WP:HOUNDING. (Such that BawinV discouraged you from that behavior.) If you feel that they are, then you need to report that, you don't escalate the confrontation. Reading through the talk pages, it seems that after Isento appeared you become much more disagreeable and your statements became pointed.

Both here and in examples that have been pointed out, you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering which isn't very constructive for the purposes of the project in my opinion. The number of other editors who have expressed their dissension with your interactions is concerning. While trying to assume good faith, I am also inclined to point out that someone more cynical might think you're gaming the system, as Isento likely does, as they have accused you of making bad-faith accusations.

I would also like to point out that when Isento has posted a good list of diffs regarding your content, you have been misdirecting the conversation. While I appreciate the link to Isento's statement, they have already been disciplined for it. This AN/I is not about them, it's about you. To ignore the accusations of misconduct by you by pointing out the misbehavior of others is whataboutism and not a very good-faith tactic to engage in.

These are the reasons Isento and Alecsdaniel have said that your statements prove their points and I have to agree with them to a certain degree, which I don't necessarily want to. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that consensus was reached on that page even though WP:CON states that consensus is not when editors ignore others' concerns nor when there's 3 vs 1? And apologies that I made a suggestion of possible hounding on that talk page three months ago, but Isento's personal attack to me is not justified because of that, in the same way that my suggestion wasn't justified by his preceding personal attacks to me. And I don't understand why you're pinging other editors....

Please explain in what way I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" (and gaming the system)? That's a pretty serious claim to make and one that is considered an insult if it doesn't address a specific argument.

Which brings me on to this. I still don't understand exactly what my supposed violation of Wikipedia guidelines that warranted this ANI report was, any more than I was in an NPOV dispute which I don't understand why it would warrant such an approach. In my first response to this discussion, I said so, and have said so repeatedly throughout this discussion, but I am none the wiser. Also, there's nothing wrong with giving the full story to any administrator reading this because there is no "immunity" for reporters (WP:SHOT). Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The far more serious claim that I took serious offense to and ended up losing faith and seriousness for you was being accused of racism and misogyny: To quote Ivanvector in the previous report: "I read isento's comment from August (this one) criticizing a source as "just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing"", which in the next edit you described as "[isento] dismissing this article by saying "it just isn't a serious piece of commentary" because the work of a black female writer "is just some neurotic vapid lecture" and said it "sounds extremely misogynistic and racist"." When I warned you about it in August as a personal attack, you doubled-down on the claim: "Calling out your racism and misogyny is not considered a personal attack, because there is evidence of this behaviour" Now, I was going thru a lot at the time in my life, so I was bone-headed enough to talk down to you in response, and from there, I ended up stooping to your level further, as Gwennie-nyan suggested. There was no legitimate reason for accusing me of that. And you never owned up to it. I don't want to be a hypocrite and assume bad-faith as to why you'd accuse me of that, or why you'd continue denying that you have demonstrated a problem. So I am left with no other conclusion than it has been a mental health issue. To avoid the complication of improving an article we both have an interest in, for instance, I really hope we don't need an interaction ban, but it seems from your responses that you still don't get the problem, which resigns me to leaning toward Gwennie's proposal, sad to say. isento (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, for your understanding, consensus is a variable thing. If you're facing superior numerical resistance, the strength of the argument you need is much stronger than if otherwise. However the spirit of consensus is plurality is probably the best, not always, but probably. One of the biggest factors in gaming and wikilawyering is trying to cite policy to go against the spirit of policy, cherry-picking arguments, or such that make you look better without actually improving your case.

Regardless, you just did it again, we're not talking about Isento's conduct, we're talking about yours. They already received their 3-day block for it. In fact, this AN/I report is directly a result of their admonition by the admins, recommending they file more reports instead of fighting you on talk pages if they have a concern. (Additionally, I ping other editors when I reference them in case they want to comment on or correct my portrayal of their comments.)

Full stories are fine, but it's quite clear you cherry-pick Isento's comments out more than you defend your own. There's not immunity for reporters, no, but unless it's extremely evident that a report is made in bad faith, part of assuming good faith is to assume the reporters have the best of intentions. Equally another part is to discuss and try to have the accused explain their actions. Isento has owned up to their bad conduct, admitted it, accepted their punishment, and is trying to follow admin recommendations for the future. No one expects an editor to be perfect, heck I'm not, but we do expect some modicum of self-awareness and self-critique. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: I do not understand how I can explain my actions if no-one explains their problems with them to me. Am I right in saying that you're claiming that I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" solely because I said that reaching consensus involves incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns, and that you believe the spirit of consensus is not based on incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns? If so, I'd have to strongly disagree. Further, I'd appreciate more examples that warranted the unsubstantiated claim of a "significant amount of wikilawyering" and gaming the system, and tenditious editing. And that's not what the administrator said; they said that they should report "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if an editor is having an NPOV dispute with someone. And Isento has not "owned up" to it because they continue to tell me that I have mental health issues. I don't see why you expect me to be okay with these insults. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Having had some interactions with Isento, it is my fair opinion that he is the problematic one, not Bgkc4444. In regards to Beyoncé's 346 ASCAP-registered songwriting credits, Isento typed : "If I were to compile 346 parking tickets, that would not make me a professional criminal.", "It is up to editors to make judgement calls." All editors were calm, but he increasingly got emotional and argumentative. In my observation, he's the one that showed tendentious and POV pushing issues, even editing my own post and repeatedly using the history page to antagonize other editors. Yes, Isento was disciplined for his actions, but he did not show much remorse, calling ANI a "kangaroo court" [15]. Also, on one occasion, Bgkc4444 questioned consensus in regards to the lead of Beyoncé's article but did not edit the lead to reflect her position. There was then another RfC in regards to the infobox, and consensus was reached. Israell (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that when having a disagreement with Bgkc4444 over the "Black is King" article, as seen here [16], a strange thing happened, which I am not sure if it's notable or not. I've added a review in that article in which I mentioned that some African people didn't like their portrayal in the film, to which Bgkc4444 replied that "Also you previously said that it was "Africans" who said your criticism, and yet you're Romanian" - my nationality, ethnicity or any other part of my identity, I think, shouldn't matter, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Futhermure, he continued by mentioning that "As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles.", which, frankly, seems to accuse ME of racism, as I was a fan of a white artist (as he clearly pointed out several times during our conversations) who added negative content in that article - even if properly sourced. I believe that is very serious suggestion which shouldn't be treated lightly, Gwennie-nyan. I've let it slide, but after reading what Isento had to say, it seems that this is not the only time he has done so. It further affected my personal time on Wikipedia, as I was now debating if adding a negative review meant I was contributing in some way to the micro or macro aggressions that Black people have to face every day. Please take notice of this comment as well. Thank you! Alecsdaniel (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe Alecsdaniel knows that's not what happened and that they shouldn't misrepresent what I said or the case. They added three positive reviews, two from Black Americans and one from Africans, but picked out-of-context negative-sounding sentences from the reviews and put it in the article, despite all three reviews refuting those negative points. They said it was because they wanted to represent the views of "actual Africans", but the one sentence that they did bring from a review written by Africans wasn't written by the reviewers, but was by a Twitter user that the reviewers quoted and said they disagreed with. I tried to clearly explain how this violated the policies related to issues such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but was told by Alecsdaniel right from the beginning: "you are showing a clear bias" and that "often fans of singers like Beyonce and Lady Gaga take control of an article". These are claims they stuck by, even though I have said many times both before Alecsdaniel said that and after that I welcome negative points in this article and this is not what the content dispute is about and have added a policy-compliant summary of negative points to the article as well. They then told me "it is not a personal attack, my comment about those fandoms come from my direct interaction with those fandoms", which is not a justification for their actions. Isento then joined in against me and started an RfC. Alecdaniel's one of only two contributions to this was, after Isento told me "Five paragraphs of regurtitated praise and you're quibbling over a few measly sentences suggesting less-than-flattering yet valid thoughts? Forget personal attacks. We're dealing with a Beyhive attack.", they replied "So it would seem ...". The unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that Alecdaniel's additions violated the policies about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and that editor, Isento and I were having a lengthy and (mostly) constructive discussion about the material.

Months later, Alecsdaniel then readded the exact same material that they knew violates Wikipedia guidelines without further discussion, and acting against what was spoken about in the discussion, saying "There was a vote, the paragraph stays" despite the fact that polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the main conclusion from the discussion was that the material violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, something which they haven't recognised (eg. they then told Timeheist: "I can't even imagine what you consider "material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia" if reviews from trust-worthy sources fall into that category for you".) Then I started a section on their talk page so that we could discuss this. Alecsdaniel unfortunately met me with claims of "You simply want it buried", "If you cared about being objective", and "I am afraid you don't understand what an encyclopedia is", as well as "some fandoms are notoriously ... difficult, even here, and you only seem only too willing to push that narrative". I raised the issue of their personal attacks, but I was told "I feel like you are reading too much into what I say or do - and not even paying attention to everything". Alecsdaniel then also said that they added those negative points because these were things that they personally believed when watching the film. That is when I highlighted the fact that they're not African, not to say that their concerns should be ignored (and I obviously think the opposite because I was the one taking part in a lengthy constructive discussion on their suggestions, not them, added material to the article to match what they wanted, and started a discussion on their talk page), but to highlight that their argument changed from that the material that violates Wikipedia guidelines should be added because it was written by "actual Africans" to because those were their personal beliefs. And no, I never called them a racist or said they were engaging in micro or macro aggressions, but I apologise if my comment suggested that or if they felt that I was making personal attacks. Again, if I believed Alecsdaniel was only making these edits because of some malicious agenda, I would not have constructively engaged in the RfC discussion, tried to reach consensus, edited the article to accommodate their views, or written a message on their talk page. In fact, the opposite of these 4 points applies to Alecsdaniel's actions. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Israell, I agree some of their behavior has not been acceptable. They have been (to some extent) and will be held to account if it becomes problematic. I have heard similar opinions from other editors regarding Bgkc4444 as you have regarding Isento, I think a general two-way interaction ban is the most fair to two editors. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: To reply to your point in the other thread, I've repeatedly asked you and Isento to explain your assertions about my behavior, but still I receive no reply - I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "Don't just wiki-link a bunch of policies... Quote what you mean." and also "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'." Further, "bringing up that again isn't always the best thing to do" and "if it becomes problematic" aren't the best comment to make on a case where an editor who had just been blocked for personal attacks against an editor repeatedly tells that editor that they have mental health issues. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, understanding is important and since you and I are having trouble seeing eye-to-eye, let's try changing the format to be more clear. Please respond to this message with specific assertions you need explained (preferably one per line) and I will do my best to reply to them in an itemized fashion (as I've done elsewhere).

(Also, side note which is optional but helpful, consider putting quotes in {{Talk quote inline}} or {{!xt}} templates depending on venue. This can make it much easier to read by separating quotes from message text.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan Thanks. Just starting on two points, you said:

• "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering"
• "Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out"

I do not believe either assertion is correct. I went to the help desk to ask about wikilawyering because the way you were describing it didn't make much sense and seemed to go against Wikipedia's guidelines itself. I was told "Wikilawyering tends to give me a certain vibe that a person thinks they are clever, and above the rules due to their cleverness. You did none of that." You repeatedly claimed that the spirit of consensus isn't about reaching some conclusion together (which is what the "con" part of consensus refers to) but instead about whether it's 3 vs 1; however, this is not based on the policy itself (and again, I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'.") and this actually goes against what the policy specifically says. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thank you for listing this plainly (apologies for the delay, life has been very busy for me)

• regarding wikilawyering: In some of your general talk posts, you seem to constantly try to cite policy or guidelines in a very copy-paste-link manner and try to argue them like this is a court of law or tribunal, it's not. While policies are more rigid and there's WP:IAR waiting in the wings too, ultimately rules on the Wiki are mostly fluid (except for certain legally-required rules WMF enforces). Additionally you seem to apply them mostly to excuse yourself but not others. Unequal application is not a practice that is typically found among those arguing in good faith.
• regarding tendentious-ness and POV-pushing: you tend to edit in a way that (assuming good faith) is poorly-worded from a social point-of-view. It seems to imply that your edits and perspective are best in certain situations, and the core focus on tendentious-ness is repeated WP:NPOV issues.

I would like to point out that the ANI Advice you linked isn't a policy or guideline, but an essay. It's not considered authoritative. It is a single user's perspective. Additionally, that quote about WikiLawyering is, again another editors perspective on the issue. These perspectives above, however, are mine. The aggregation of perspective is the basic element of consensus. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As someone shared their experience with this user, I also want to. Particularly gatekeeping "Savage (song)", in which I removed content from bad sources months ago, citing the reasons, several times. I've checked the article again after all this time, and he put it back again. There's a considerable level of wp:fancruft with his edits, saturing articles... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced material (Billboard isn't a "bad source") and making trivial edits (random spaces, removal of full quotes) is not constructive editing, and I've tried starting a discussion with you four times here, here, here, and here, but for some reason you don't engage. It'd be preferable for everyone if you pick one of those to continue the content dispute instead of ANI where your actions will be scrutinized also. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged so I thought I'd chime in. It looks like my interaction with Bgkc4444 at Surprise album has already been brought up. I felt their edits of up-playing Beyonce and downplaying all other artists on that page demonstrated a clear bias. There's a lot to read here, so I admit I didn't read all of it, but I hope it has not gone unnoticed that this discussion is about Bgkc4444's bad-faith assumptions and the majority of their responses here seem to assume bad faith and take a defensive tone. My interactions with Bgkc4444 have been meandering and loaded with aimless whataboutism tangents that don't actually go anywhere, so I do not wish to comment here further. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolution Proposal

(Non-administrator comment) As a non-admin who has dug into this issue, I would like to propose the admins implement the following proposal:

• Talk/Interaction Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 interacting with the other, anywhere, unless required by policy, enforced by blocks. (This would hopefully resolve the ongoing issue between the two editors.)
• Topic Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 from Beyonce-related pages, broadly-construed. (Recommended by Levivich)
• Formal Admonishment
  • of Bgkc4444 for tendentious editing, wikilawyering, and periodical whataboutism.
  • of Isento for tendentious editing, hounding Bgkc4444, and casting aspersions.
• Mentorship for both Isento and Bgkc4444 to help them learn from this incident and to move forward in more productive fashion for the project.

Respectfully, ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) (Updated: 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

After reading this thread and some of the talk page discussions linked therein, I think this proposal is too weak. Warnings have already been issued; this isn't the first ANI thread. As far as I can tell, both editors are creating disruption in the topic area that is wasting other editors' time. A 2-way interaction ban will stop them from disrupting each other, but not from disrupting everyone else (plus, ibans are a pain to enforce for editors who edit in the same topic area). I think tban them both from Beyonce, broadly construed. Maybe also an iban, but an iban alone won't help. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, added your suggestion above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So how long is this block gonna be this time? isento (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, it hopefully won't be necessary, provided you both abide by the iban, provided it's implemented. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I'm down for an iban. I'm also down for simply disengaging from "poorly worded" remarks by editors. I am down for healthier activity and conduct. isento (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I'm glad you're beginning to take this route. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

[17] isento (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses

I haven't been involved in any Beyonce-related articles since my block four weeks ago and I hadn't planned to. I was pinged to the talk page of Surprise album a few weeks ago by a different editor because I had contributed there in the past, and Bgkc444 was there, on a Beyonce-related matter. I responded appropriately and strictly to the content, and they responded back tendentiously, as much on editors as on the content. And I felt obligated to report it as an instance in a long-term pattern, regardless of whether I had been involved in that pattern, because that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report. I would really rather they see the light too, so to speak, and tbh, a topic ban feels embarrassing, almost as embarrassing as my past interactions with them. As Gwennie suggested before, I brought this on myself by stooping to their level and I should've known better. But I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles. Tackling the content disputes, I will admit, was more inspired by offense to observing biased and tendentious editing. I did not intend to cause them distress or to offend them, but I did end up doing so out of my own distress and offense with them. And whether I should've tackled those disputes or not, doing so the way I did was never constructive in the big picture - it was always going to depend on the cooperation of more editors than just me or them, and the infighting simply alienated that process. I do believe I had a problem with civility even before this at times, and I am grateful this process has helped me evolve and become more patient and self-aware, and less ego-driven. I hope you can trust I won't pursue or indulge in an interaction with them, by the off-chance an opportunity presents itself, and settle on an iban. Unfortunately, Bgkc4444 and one of their cohorts appears to be in complete denial still about the former's problematic behavior and in denial of the fact that I have taken responsibility for my behavior, judging by this recent remark. So it's hard to blame whatever choice you make. But these are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. isento (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you for your comment. I tried reading up on WP:DE and I don't see why my actions warrant a topic ban. For point 1 ("continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors"), as soon as I made an edit that was reverted quoting my "fetishism", I started a discussion on the talk page. And that is what I now do for any content disagreement, and I always reply to Isento's and other's points in discussions, but Isento typically ignores mine, sometimes explicitly. For point 2 ("fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research"), I am also not doing that, as everything I included was cited and not misrepresenting the source, and in fact I tried to make two different sentences fit this requirement because they were heavily misrepresenting the sources, but those too were reverted. Point 3 ("Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging") haven't done either. For point 4 ("Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.) again I have not done so, and in fact Isento explicitly said to ignore my opinion in a discussion and then falsely claimed that a consensus was achieved. And finally point 5 ("Rejects or ignores community input") I have said many times that it would have been much more preferable to go through the correct routes of dispute resolution instead of reporting me straight to ANI.

Further, I do not see how my actions can be seen as disrupting "progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" in general. I have always edited to improve the encyclopedia and have always engaged in discussion when Isento and others disagree with something in content I've added and, again, start those discussions myself because I truly want these articles to be encyclopedic. Yes, this is a topic I edit a lot in, and believe I've always been making constructive edits to articles in this topic, such as writing over 90% of Black Is King, 70% of Black Parade (song), and so on. A topic ban seems to me to be a severe sanction for this.

And just quickly on Isento's points (because his behavior is being discussed in a later thread) "that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report" is an incorrect statement because what the admin advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute. I am happy to see Isento admit that he was editing Beyonce-related articles because of me personally (to note it wasn't just questioning my edits because Isento added a whole new "controversy" section to the main Beyonce article), so thank you, and if Isento did not do so to intentionally cause distress then I apologise for previously saying that. (Later edit:) On second thought, I don't believe I can fully say that. Isento says that he only edits on Beyonce topics because of me, but not all of those cases were "content disputes". For example, a week after Isento received a formal warning for his attacks on me regarding a Beyonce-related content dispute, Isento wrote a section dedicated to a "controversy" on the main Beyoncé article. This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on, and by Isento's own admission he edits on Beyonce-related articles specifically because of me, so this suggests to me that that edit was some form of 'payback' for the content disputes not going in the way he wanted and him being sanctioned. Again, I cannot be in denial if I repeatedly ask to be explained my wrongdoings and receive no reply (however Gwennie-nyan has now agreed to offer her opinion, so thank you) and it cannot be said that you have taken responsibility for your behavior when you still repeatedly tell me I have mental health issues and continue to stand by that assertion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It was not incorrect. Bgkc4444's response at the talk page, cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago and accusation of editors of "bury[ing] that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album", was an inappropriate post, which is what Ivanvector had advised to report.

I did not specify Bgkc4444 as the exclusive cause of my presence in those articles. I specified "biased and tendentious editing" as what had "more inspired" me to tackle the articles. It would be unfair to say Bgkc4444 was the cause of inaccuracies and misuse of sources crediting the subject with more than was true, such as this and this, that I rectified.

Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised, disputing the source-integrity of the section in this edit and suggesting in another comment that I was "so hell-bent on trying to paint Beyonce as a thief then of course the editor would insert an indiscriminate collection of opinions that support their belief from every random musician or journalist they can find."

I would have kindly responded to content-specific points had they not been overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me or bad-faith accusations such as those I've highlighted. isento (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeating in full one of the two comments Isento made in the original discussion that was directly stated about the issue in the later discussion is not "cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago" and the discussion wasn't "overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me" either as the large majority of what I wrote wasn't anything to do with what Isento said in the previous discussion. And, yes, I was in an NPOV dispute where Fezmar9 and I said that each other were respectively trying to exaggerate or downplay issues in the article (e.g. comments made against me include "fetishism" [18], "One look at your edit history suggests your motivations in beefing up Beyonce content here are extremely biased based on your personal perception of the facts. The page already mentions Beyonce plenty as is, leave well enough alone." [19], "you're extremely biased" [20], and so on) - I have said that throughout this discussion.

Again, what Ivanvector advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute, and not if someone makes inappropriate posts. This shows how quoting things out-of-context can completely change the meaning of the material. Apologies for misunderstanding that comment about Isento's editing habits on Beyonce-related articles. "Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised" is an incorrect assertion, because I didn't claim that I never disputed Isento's edit, I said "This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on", meaning at the time Isento wrote the controversy section. And I didn't assert that that quote was what Isento was doing, in fact I said "I hope that's not what you're doing here and, again, hope that you do the right thing for this topic." Finally, no excuse should be made for telling another editor they have mental health issues, especially not after being blocked for making personal attacks on that same editor the same month. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That they responded in kind to Fezmar9's suggestions indicates a problem on their part too, a problem they still deny, which is likely why an admin will just lean toward a topic ban instead of showing faith with an iban. That they continue to misconstrue my revelation of mental health issues in connection to their admission in the oast of an issue is further indication that such bad-faith attitudes won't cease. My mental health suffered too in part from these attitudes. isento (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What I said in my response to Fezmar9 was inappropriate and unnecessary and responses to incivility should always be non-retaliatory. I don't have a problem saying that. I am not misconstruing anything and I am tired, to be honest, of repeating this. Isento condescendingly told me: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." I wrote a message on his talk page regarding this, but he "replaced" it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today" without responding. He then replied on ANI, claiming "You have admitted to having mental health issues" and then bringing links to when I said that his incivility and personal has affected my mental health and explained how that made me feel, which is not admitting I have mental health issues (and also doesn't mention growing up in an abusive household, being handicapped by it or engaging in idolatory), and is also a topic on which he previously said I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Isento then says that me trying to discuss his incivility with him on his talk page evidences "a problem", despite the fact that WP:CIVIL lists talk page discussions as the first port of call to address an incidence of incivility, not ANI. I explain all of this to him, but he then denies he ever said it and again makes incorrect claims about me. I again respond explaining how his claims about not making personal attacks are incorrect. He then replied saying: "I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego". He also doubled down on the assertion that I have mental health issues. I have now just seen that Isento replied to Timeheist in the thread below, after Timeheist mentioned Isento's claims of me having mental health issues, saying that Timeheist only called him out on his personal attacks because Timeheist is prejudiced, writing: "If you had read my original comments and set aside your prejudices, you might have seen that." Isento says "I've apologized either way", but unfortunately this is evidently untrue from this conversation. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I went back through the posts you linked and the links in those posts as well. You, for good or ill, their post. They were saying your actions affected their mental health in context, not that they have mental health issues in general.

Bgkc4444, I'll take it from here as a third party. If you make something known and Isento needs to be confronted or rebutted, I'll take care of it. It doesn't serve purpose for you to rebut further because it continues/escalates the back and forth between you and Isento. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What exactly did I do to their mental health? Because their editing has been consistently tendentious before and since then. isento (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing like "your constant need to make my editing experience less enjoyable" makes it seem like it's a mental health problem, particularly when they use such phrasing in reference to their mental health ([21]). They are combative and tendentious, yet playing the victim; hypersensitive to themselves but insensitive under the guise of politisse (a loud "Thank you!" following a false accusation of racism and misogyny?) to others in the way of their content changes, suggesting I am personally out to get them for the sake of ruining their enjoyment, when it's clearly been the biased nature of their content changes that has been the real issue in those content disputes. Just recently they referenced other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them, when in fact those other editors is one collaborator in favor of their Beyonce-article changes, for which I'm seeing now they've been reported about back in April (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Bgkc4444) by JzG, to which Bgkc4444 showed early signs of accusing others of mischaracterising them. I honestly cannot keep up with responding to all of their points, and often I feel demoralized by the bad-faith nature of said points. It is daunting communicating with them. At some point, if I have a deeply vested interest in a content change that conflicts with what they want, I am not sure if I will not likely lose my nerve or simply bow out. Which is why I am in favor of an interaction ban. If a topic ban for us both it must be, so be it. At this point I have nothing here to fight for or defend myself against. I think their behavior speaks for itself, and other editors have confirmed that. isento (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, both of you are clearly off-base when it comes to this specific interaction. Bgkc4444 feels and has repeatedly expressed a feeling that you are dogging them across the wiki. They're trying to contribute, albeit in a possibly misguided or inexperienced way at times. You are both accusing the other of things which aren't true via mischaracterization. I attribute this to the total breakdown between you two. Good faith doesn't exist between you two anymore. As a result, every interact is met by increasing hostility and emotion-laded responses. Like I told Bgkc4444, if you need to respond to anyone, respond to me, and I will mediate this, lest the responses get more uncivil. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for offering to help. It's important to note that I actually haven't "repeatedly expressed" that Isento is hounding me in this discussion and I apologised for previously saying that he did, so I feel that this claim is false. (Side note: I wrote a message here so that you could explain your other claims against me that I feel are false such as "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering". I hope that you can respond to it if possible because it might help move the discussion forward, thank you.) I'm not sure how bringing that old report here is constructive or meant to prove something when evidently it was a misunderstanding that could've easily been resolved with a polite talk page discussion (as with this case), with Mazca immediately dismissing the report. Unfortunately, Isento's comments even here and now indicate that the personal attacks will not stop. It is also not just a problem that Isento has with me, because I am reminded of one of the times I wrote a polite message on his talk page about his incivility, where my message was under a message from Tony1 from the day before about Isento not following Wikipedia's rules, to which Isento replied asking Tony1 if they had mental health issues (specifically Asperger's), as Isento repeatedly told me I have. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That was a joke, from The League, season 2, episode 10. It's on Hulu. Check it out. isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am on the spectrum too tbh. Perhaps that has been a source of misreading certain remarks of mine as negative. isento (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, wanted to point out that you should understand that even if you have x it's not okay to speculate or asperse other editors as x ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So, for example, no aspersing Asperger's? EEng 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

^As per him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been exasperating. Let's just move on. isento (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, if you're experiencing this much wikistress, why not take a wikibreak? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not really. That was more a takeoff on the other Asperger puns above. (ex-asper-ating) But yes, enough of this issue. isento (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the wherewithal to care about this anymore. I want to put the past behind me, let bygones be bygones, and continue focusing on content rather than editors at articles. You guys can too if you really want... isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. isento (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Related tendentious behavior from Israell

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]... as you can see, this is not exclusive to Bgkc4444. The aggression continues without incentive for reform. isento (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot

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

Pasdecomplot was last month subject of an ANI thread (archived here), which concluded with a community-imposed one-month block (which expired a few days ago), and a community-imposed editing restriction from commenting on the motivations of other editors anywhere other than at ANI. Today, in a discussion at WP:RSN about the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review, they made this comment, which includes the following: All of which makes the continued pushback on the author and on the journal seem rather out of balance with RS standards, especially since the same editors are pushing to replace Tibetan Political Review with a source by Radio Free Asia, which is super curious given several of those editor's views on RFA, as found in RSN archive 313. Apart from being off-topic (it says nothing about the reliability of TPR), I interpret that as implying that the other editors involved in the thread are being hypocritical in how they are treating the two sources, and it falls squarely within the type of behaviour that their TBan was intended to put a stop to.

I went to Pasdecomplot's talk page to tell them that I thought they were in breach of their TBan, and ask them to withdraw that specific paragraph. The full discussion can be read at User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Your_editing_restriction, but to summarise, they modified the statement slightly, but refused to withdraw the commentary on other editors comments about a different source, and told me that they don't think this type of comment is covered by their TBan.

For me, it is unequivocal - this is off-topic commentary about other users being 'super curious' - I can't say for certain what they're intending to imply by 'super curious' - whether that's duplicitous, or hypocritical, or in some other way underhand. However, in a discussion that ought to be about sourcing, content and policy, there is no place for comments like that from any editor, far less one who is subject to an editing restriction of this type. Since Pasdecomplot disagrees, I am asking the community to comment on whether or not this type of behaviour is covered by their ban. Since I am asking for clarification of the exact intent of a recent discussion, I am pinging those editors who were involved in that discussion to allow them to clarify their positions: Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, Tide rolls, EdJohnston, Cullen328, Levivich, Wugapodes, Pawnkingthree. Also pinging Barkeep49, who closed that discussion and implemented the consensus. Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The original quote you've given above I would say does, as it reads like editors are being biased. Anything that could imply that editors are acting in bad faith or attempting to push a POV is a violation, in my view.

The amended comment is: All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)

This wording is slightly confusing to me, but it reads more like "these editors have supported X wording sourced to Y source, and so they consider Y source reliable. But Y source is not more reliable than Z source." which I would not say is a violation, rather an argument on content (that Z source is more reliable than Y). It may be a slightly fallacious argument, but that wouldn't make it a TBAN violation. If your view is also that these two comments are materially distinct, then I think it's worth giving the benefit of doubt to shabby wording as PDC claims at the linked discussion. I'll note I've only skimmed this discussion.

At the same time, the wording you proposed on his talk is far clearer of the boundaries here. If I were PDC I'd tailor my wording very carefully, and always opt for the less implicative wording where there are multiple ways of wording something. AGF is a style of thinking that reflects in writing, not the other way around, so imo unless you genuinely believe that editors are acting in semi-good faith I think it's very difficult to comply with this restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, ah - it seems that they changed the text to that while I was drafting this. I didn't receive the ping, since they didn't sign that post; I checked their talk page prior to submitting this to see if they'd replied again, but I should have checked back at RSN to see if they'd acted. I agree that the wording, as it currently stands, is better. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even after PDC's amendments (diff) to their RSN comment, their comments about other editors' positions about Radio Free Asia are still off-topic and also seem to misrepresent other editors' comments. None of the RSN thread participants had mentioned RFA at RSN or at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, nor have any of them said at the archived RSN thread that PDC refers to that RFA is unreliable. Only Esiymbro and Normchou said anything about RFA at the Nyingchi talk page and they haven't participated in the RSN thread.

After the revision, PDC still left unaltered the other implication of hypocrisy against El komodos drago in their RSN comment:

Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [28] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.

It just seems very off-topic for the RSN thread about the Tibetan Political Review where nobody else has mentioned RFA or Xinhua – the only relation is that one of the editors at the RSN thread may have commented about those sources in the past. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ProcrastinatingReader, it's exactly as you wrote, "these editors have supported X wording sourced to Y source, and so they consider Y source reliable. But Y source is not more reliable than Z source." which I would not say is a violation, rather an argument on content The intention was a discussion on content and reliability, and I apologise if the edits were misunderstood. Girth Summit has already posted the thread from user talk, after which I again edited to address their concerns and pinged for their approval. I respectfully submit my ongoing concern to the community about the fact the ban can be interpreted as it was today, and we're all spending time to review interpretations. I apologise for the lack of clarity in the original edit, since it permitted another interpretation to occur. I will humbly take the advice to be even more careful that all edits do not allow room for such interpretations, I will be even more careful with exact wording to describe edits, content and sources. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: CaradhrasAiguo and Valereee and MarkH21 participated in the RSN archive 313, where comments of RFA were made. The first editor has often made comments as to their reliability on various edits. And please note that RFA remains after several reverts by editors Nyingchi#Economy, including MarkH21. The interpretation of hypocracy has already respectfully been addressed at RSN, and the editor invited me to comment at the other RSN, which should not be the cause additional worries. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why the ping didn't go through, except for that the re-edits occurred after the timestamp:(Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)[User:Pasdecomplot From 14:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Readded edit from 14:26 that's being refracted [29]) Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo is indefinitely blocked and cannot comment on the RSN thread, while neither Valereee nor I have said that RFA is reliable or unreliable at the archived RSN thread. There isn't a single editor in the current RSN thread who said anything to support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313, so it is a misrepresentation of other editors' comments. The off-topic questioning of El D's views about Xinhua is also unaddressed.

Keeping your comments focused about the actual discussion topics, refraining from commenting about other editors' views on other topics, and double-checking what you claim other editors have said will keep discussions moving along smoothly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, based on various arguments PDC has made (like at Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#Requested_move_24_October_2020 and a related move request at Talk:11th Panchen Lama controversy), I think they believe that RSN thread ended with consensus that International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet and Radio Free Asia were all declared in that RSN to be reliable sources because that RSN didn't specifically declare any of them to be not RS. What the discussion actually seemed to me to have consensus on was that we needed to discuss them each individually, but PDC has been arguing that Free Tibet is a RS for Tibetan Buddhism & China ever since. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the original statement is problematic, and would have been fine with simply bringing it to PDC's attention so they could fix it. I agree the revision is better, though still not great. But my bigger concern is the pushback from PDC at their talk, arguing that "it's super curious to me" is "totally valid given the ongoing saga at Ningchi." I agree with PDC that further precision/clarification is clearly needed. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just so the community understands, what I try to humorously term as a "saga" at Nyingchi began with reverts and a AN3 re CaradhrasAiguo (now indeffed as I read above). It was declined, and talk page discussions ensued at Nyingchi. Various editors participated, then more, then the RSN. Reedited information with RFA (by Normchou and not reverted) remains at Nyingchi under a different subtitle Nyingchi#Economy. Fyi, here's info on RFA at RSN archive 313: I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) The general agreement there, led by MarkH21, with comments by Valereee, was that all needed inline citations and sources from RS at minimum. But, the closing stated all needed separate RSN's. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• And, not having time to file separate RSN's I've been adhering to MarkH21's general statements while allowing for individual cases, as also noted in the archive. Thus, the concerns about other editors using RFA at Nyingchi.
• Please note that the statement above, I think they believe that RSN thread ended with consensus that...were all declared in that RSN to be reliable sources could not be more incorrect as a position on what I believe. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Do people want my views on this and if so which part? ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  @El komodos drago: Sure, on any part you'd like to give your views on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, with regards to Pasdecomplot's reference to me, I do not feel that it was relevant to the current RSN or to the process of building an encyclopedia in general but I take a broad interpretation of AGF and am willing to believe Pasdecomplot intended the point to be relevant. I have no understanding of how WP:AN works or what a TBAN is so I have no opinion on any particular outcome. I am eternally appreciative of the cool of the administrators who work here (and Wikipedia as a whole), and I will leave it to them. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In response to Girth's request for clarification: yes, I think the quoted original comment is a comment about editors that is prohibited (and noting that the "comment-on-edits-not-editors tban" really applies to everyone per pillars and policy). Really in an RSN thread or article talk page (i.e., outside a noticeboard like ANI), there should be no reason to have "editor" be the subject or object of any sentence. In this case, in "editors are pushing", "editors" is the subject of the verb "pushing". And in "which is super curious given several of those editor's views", "editor's views" is the object of the preposition "given". Grammar lesson aside, these constitute discussing editors and their motivations, plus there's the implication of hypocrisy. The revised wording is better, but still not really OK, because the subject of the sentence is still editors, and it's still implying if not hypocrisy then inconsistency between editors' current and past views. This is unhelpful in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if editors are inconsistent or hypocrites or outright liars or POV pushers. None of that affects whether or not a source is reliable. Do they have good arguments/evidence about the reliability of a source? That's all that matters. Hitler himself could make a damn good argument for the reliability of a source; an argument shouldn't be discounted because of who is making it or what they said/did in the past. There's really no cause to bring up editors' prior views if we're discussing edits not editors. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify that the issue I didn't express correctly was the reliability of RFA as versus Tibetan Political Review, and was not trying to comment on motivations of the editors themselves, but rather on stated or implied consensus as they apply to issues of CON for reliability. Again, I will be ever more careful and cautious on wording.

Being that the language of the ban used "commenting on motivations" and did not include 'implying motivations' or 'edits that could be interpreted as implying motivation', I did not approach the issue at RSN with enough care or consideration of possible interpretations. Again, it's now very clear and I offer sincere apologies to all.Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, now that you understand, are you willing to make the changes Girth Summit was originally requesting on your user talk? —valereee (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Newer aspersions

• FYI: PDC's new comment at GeneralNotability's talk page accuses editor AdoTang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of following a pattern of editing articles pertaining to Tibet, with Chinese POV, and therefore of being a sockpuppet of Lieutenant of Melkor/Caradhras Aiguo: I think Chucky (a nickname) might still be here.
  This does not appear to exactly conform to a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. It seems that PDC's interpretation of other editors' motivations is incredibly narrow, even after PDC clarified that they now understand it to mean edits that could be interpreted as implying motivation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure about the ban but practically I’d say asking an SPI clerk (also the blocking admin) on their user talk about a concern about further sock puppetry by a currently blocked sock is more reasonable than posting said concern to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• These template warnings on val's UTP are concerning: Dec 23, Dec 25. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I just got my own present from PDC for my second edit to the article (diff) 20 hours after my first edit) and after Girth Summit's two explanations to PDC (1, 2). The templates flow as freely as wine. I guess Fuhghettaboutit's explanation didn't curb the flow. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked (again): PDC has been blocked for one week by Girth Summit for violating their editing restriction with this comment. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae

• Talk:Amanda Kloots (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tenebrae's activities toward editors that disagree with them in an RFC Talk:Amanda Kloots#RFC about including sons name and their usertalkpage have been downright WP:BATTLEGROUND. They apparently filed a retaliatory SPI against two of the editors[30] and continue to make comments and condescending strawman conjectures about editors who assert BLPNAME [31][32][33][34][35] after being asked not to.[36][37] The most bizarre strawman was the unsolicited mention of Trump and his supporters [38][39] as some sort of perjorative attack. I am actually a Justin Trudeau supporter. :) Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

e/c:

Retaliatory action by an editor who posted deliberately provocative and inciting claims such as that NBC News' Today show could not be used as reliable source since it — and the venerable theater magazine Playbill — were "pop-culture sources" and could not be cited for a WP:BLP. This editor also claimed an opinion essay was a policy/guideline that had to be followed. This editor has been uncivil and baiting, such as an edit summary that read simply, "Yawn." And now this — a last resort after none of his arguments have withstood logic and such reality as, literally, a textbook definition that he refuted because ... well, just because, apparently. I could tell you more.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your continuing to mischaracterise my BLPNAME argument[40] just show that you just refuse to WP:LISTEN despite another editor making a very similar argument earlier.[41] You've been at this for at least 6 years and were even blocked over edit warring over the insertion of children's names into celebrity articles without gaining consensus[42][43] showing that you still don't understand WP:ONUS to this day.[44] Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. IP named in Tenebrae's evidence-free SPI here (under a different IP - my ISP changes it frequently for no good reason). I recommend everyone to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KyleJoan, and see just how silly it got. And note that this was the second SPI my IP had been raised in as supposedly connected to KyleJoan - Tenebrae knew even before he/she started it that there was no prospect of it going anywhere. It appears that simply disagreeing with Tenebrae is seen as sufficient grounds to make socking accusations. And that anything whatever done after that is further 'proof'. Editing occasionally as an IP these days (used to have an account - lost my password) I have come to expect the occasional accusation of socking if I show any signs of understanding Wikipedia policy etc, but this was beyond the pale. Anyone who thinks that e.g. starting editing within two years of another editor (a decade ago), and disagreeing with the person you are supposed to be a sock of [45] is valid 'evidence' for a SPI should probably be topic-banned from filing SPIs entirely. A total waste of time better put to use elsewhere. I was inclined to leave the whole thing behind me, but having seen how Tenebrae has continued their badgering on the Kloots talk page, I can fully understand why Morbidthoughts has called for something to be done. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This anon IP is telling blatant untruths. Plenty of evidence was presented in the SPI. The entire reason it's called "evidence" and not "proof" is that we don't know but have reasonable suspicion of sock activity. And as this anon IP itself notes, another editor had the same suspicion of this IP being a sock. (And to address this IP's italicized remark, in my 15 years here I have personally seen socks pretend to argue with themselves on talk pages as a way to try to throw off investigators.)

I will also say this anon IP and its predecessor have a record anyone can see of being hostile and aggressive, and is taking this opportunity to air unrelated grievances as payback for the SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor responsible for the previous SPI involving my (then) IP has been blocked - for socking. As for hostility and aggression, see Talk:Amanda Kloots, and see for yourself where the aggression was coming from. And as for 'unrelated grievances', I haven't a clue what Tenebrae is referring too. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've presented my views about Tenebrae's conduct in an ANI report not too long ago, which you can read in full here. It should also be noted that in said report, an administrator asked both Tenebrae and me to stop making contentious edits at Amanda Kloots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd call this edit contentious. KyleJoan^talk 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan filed false and malicious 3RR and SPI accusations against me that admins summarily threw out within hours: [46] and [47]. This is all tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system.

And ohmigod, I've just looked at what KyleJoan calls a "contentious" edit ... and it's this absolutely straightforward and factual actor's credit: "...and was billed as Amanda-Kloots Larsen for the Broadway productions Follies (2011-2012) and Bullets Over Broadway (2014)." KyleJoan's claim is as bad-faith as anyone can ever get.

For perspective on User:Morbidthoughts, read his or her extended rant on my talk page falsely insisting The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. That is the kind of bizarre and deliberately argumentative mindset at work here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So, it's all "tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system" unless Tenebrae does it? Fascinating... 109.158.199.97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The malicious filings by KyleJoan, whom I believe you know, were each thrown out summarily within hours. See links in my post above. Whereas the SPI against you that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory" was not; it warranted and received investigation.

MorbidThoughts' arguments at Talk:Amanda Kloots and on my talk page were so easily refuted that MorbidThought resorted to arguing that NBC News' Today and the venerable theater magazine Playbill were not RS for biographical information, and that The Broadway League was not RS for Broadway credits. I countered those claims, and with no coherent argument in response, MorbidThoughts comes here, apparently because someone countering his or her claims is "battling." This filing is unwarranted and, I believe, a waste of admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the false and malicious 3RR, Nil Einne wrote that calling it "false" seems a bit of a stretch; regarding the SPI against [109.158.199.97] that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory", the closing administrator also called it retaliatory here. KyleJoan^talk 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I only 'know' KyleJoan to the extent that I've disagreed with them on Talk:Amanda Kloots. And the 'evidence' you submitted for the SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you. It should have been self-evident to anyone who has been around Wikipedia as long as you have that it was going to convince nobody. You seem utterly incapable of seeing honest disagreement as anything but evidence for some sort of conspiracy against you. And while clearly you weren't the only one causing problems on that talk page (see e.g. the sock who got banned for filing the earlier SPI), your continued refusal to let the RfC take its course without engaging in endless argumentation, together with your repeated claims that being a journalist makes you an expert with the last say, is the prime reason that the Kloots biography has remained the poorly-written fluff it is. It would probably be better for the reputation of Wikipedia if the whole thing was scrubbed, everyone involved told to go away and do something useful, and new volunteers who understood how to read sources and then create an appropriate encyclopaedic entry per Wikipedia guidelines were to start from scratch. Wikipedia doesn't deserve this nonsense. Kloots doesn't deserve this nonsense. The readers don't deserve this nonsense. Not over a minor 'celebrity' that a year ago nobody had heard of. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

RE:"SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you": I've hesitated to use the word, but you are now lying in the face of evidence that anyone can see for themselves here, including a lengthy list of time-stamps, two points below them, and two additional points added later. I invite anyone reading this to see for themselves that this IP is being blatantly untruthful.

This IP as well, here and on the contested page, continues to make remarkable and yet contradictory claims: Amanda Kloots is a cohost of CBS' major daytime talk show The Talk, and so clearly notable and not "a minor 'celebrity'" below this IP's standards for an encyclopedia. Yet the same IP wants to whitewash the article to not include the pertinent biographical fact of Kloots' child's name, which Kloots and her late husband released to the media and of whom Kloots has written frequently, with coverage by major programs like NBC's Today. Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone.

In any case, tomorrow is Christmas. I don't know about anyone else, but I have family. May I suggest we take a respite until after Christmas?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your "lengthy list of timestamps" proved precisely nothing beyond the fact that I had been editing on the same day as KyleJoan, and your remaining 'points' amount again to nothing beyond further indications that you cannot respond to people disagreeing with you without seeing some sort of ridiculous conspiracy.

And if you really wanted to 'take a respite', you always had the option of not responding here yourself. But no, here as on the Kloots' talk page, you have to have the last word. Complete with personal attacks you seem not to want replied to. That isn't going to happen. Call me a liar and I'll respond as an when I like.

I'll wish everyone else here a Merry Christmas and/or other seasonal greetings as appropriate. And restate, as I already have, that ample evidence for Tenebrae's battleground behaviour can be found on the article talk page, and at the rejected SPI. And for that matter, here on WP:ANI. If anyone is looking for an excuse to hide from relatives, or wants to spoil their Christmas, they are welcome to read it all now. Otherwise, it might be better to do so when the festivities are over. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well you did lie by saying I presented no objective evidence. And if you're going to be boldfacing your points, well, I guess I should as well , or balance/

I don't believe there are any ANI-level issues here. A couple of editors — one of them an anon-IP, now on his/her second anon IP since the recent SPI, who says they've lost their registered-ID password — are arguing their gut emotions over "right and wrong", and when faced with logic turn belligerent and now "go to the courts." It's no wonder I used a Trump-supporter analogy once — jocularly and tongue-in-cheek. I'd like now to suggest WP:BOOMERANG against the initial complainant for this misuse of Wikipedia resources and all of our and admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And yet again, you present yourself as sole the arbiter of what constitutes 'objective evidence'. While refusing to acknowledge that there has been absolutely no support whatsoever for your bogus SPI offered offered by anyone, either here or on the SPI itself: a SPI that User:Sro23 closed stating that "These are clearly two different people", and that "Maybe it's time to start handing out sanctions for bad-faith SPI's because I'm about ready to call it quits". [48] Your abject refusal to acknowledge that people can hold good-faith differences of opinion with you, and your subsequent endless attempts to present yourself as the final judge of who is right, who is wrong, and who is conspiring against you, on the basis of such ridiculous claims as a suggestion that beginning editing within two years of another editor - a decade ago - is proof of socking, while accusing others of 'Trump-supporter'-like behaviour is utterly laughable, and beneath contempt.

As for my account, I am clearly going to have to make further attempts to find the password, since the logical follow up, if this isn't settles satisfactorily here, may well involve ArbCom, and may possibly also include other aspects of your questionable editing history. You seem, as a prolific editor, to have some degree of protection here, but counting on that to remain the situation indefinitely would be entirely unwise. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Annnnd here come the threats. I have not asked for for ever even implied I wanted any "protection," as you call it. And I would suggest you look up the dictionary definition of "objective." A plain list timestamps is a series of objective facts. It was nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, but is simply neutral, objective evidence of a pattern showing you and KyleJoan's editing never overlapped. No one know how the admin ultimately will rule, but that doesn't mean we don't present objective, factual evidence.

I'll also note this piece of behavioral evidenceL how you both dig through years of the paper trail of an editor with whom you disagree, in an effort to uncover "dirt" to sling mud at him. I provided factual, objective links to concretely demonstrate that you and KyleJoan both took this unusual tack. Evidence doesn't have to be proof: It only has to be objective, demonstrable fact -- such as timestamps and links.

As the admin below states, "I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution." I'm happy to follow Fences&Windows advice.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A list of timestamps may well be objective fact. Your suggestion that it constitutes 'objective evidence' for socking is however complete and utter bollocks. Nobody who looks at the so-called evidence presented at the SPI could possibly mistake it for objectivity. And if you really want to follow 'dispute resolution' I suggest you stop calling people liars.

And yes, I've been 'digging'. I didn't need to dig far, given that your block log made it clear that the gratuitous off-topic comments you made at Talk:Amand Kloots regarding the first bogus SPI for my (then) IP came from someone who had personal experience on the matter. It was you who started digging first.

If I was you (thankfully I'm not), I might well consider it wise to consider another alternative to 'dispute resolution', and walk away from the Kloots article entirely. Wikipedia has an article on the First law of holes: it is something of a stub, and could probably be usefully expanded. I'm sure that someone with your experience would be able to do so. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. You actually take pride in going back through years of an editor who disagrees with you in order to throw dirt and muddy the waters with attacks that have nothing to do with your own behavior. And you can't have it both ways: Something is either a list of objective facts or it's not. My timestamps showing no overlap between you and KyleJoan is objective evidence. I called it evidence from the start — not "proof." Anyone who present any SPI case can only provide evidence, not proof. That's how it works. One cannot say, "Oh, it wasn't objective because it wasn't proof." The timestamps and the similar dirt-digging behavior of KyleJoan were properly presented evidence.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't take 'going back through years of an editor' who brings up off-topic clearly bogus SPIs in a talk page discussion (contrary to WP:TPG) to look at a block log. A practice I'd freely recommend to anyone facing false socking accusations in such circumstances, given how often those given to making such false socking accusations seem to be caught socking themselves. Not 'proof', of course, but evidence. And furthermore, when someone repeatedly asserts, during what should have been a collaborative attempt to solve a content dispute that their profession - as a journalist - makes them the final arbiter of what an article should contain, it is entirely reasonable to look at what else said editor has been doing, in order to see whether they have actually disclosed who they are, and if they are indeed a journalist. Not that WP:IMAJOURNALISTSOIGETTHEFINALSAY is policy anyway. If you don't want people looking at your editing history, I suggest you try not engaging in behaviour that will actively encourage people to look into it. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

General advice - comment on content, not each other. I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution: use appropriate noticeboards like WP:BLP/N, get a WP:3O, start an RfC. Fences&Windows 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

While I'd agree in general with your suggestion that dispute resolution rather than 'point scoring' would seem advisable, it is worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I got involved at all was because I responded to an RfC. 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.199.97 (talk)

I have gone ahead and notified BLPN about the RFC per the suggestion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

How many times can an editor continue to make snide comments about other editors before it becomes WP:UNCIVIL and meet the WP:NPA threshold for administrator intervention?

• "An insurance salesperson or plumber or surgeon who doesn't know what The Broadway League is should not be writing about theater."[49]
• "It's about self-appointed censors trying to prove they know better..."[50]
• "For someone with no experience or background but instead a "righting great wrongs crusader mentality..."[51]
• "You hubristically think you know better"[52]
• "...read his or her extended rant on my talk page"[53]
• "Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone."[54]

How are these ad hominem comments even acceptable in discussion space? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Like Fox News, you take comments out of context. If, instead, you would link to the entire particular post where these comments appear, and where readers here could view ent entire context, then that would be more conscionable and honest. Let's remember, you are the person who claims that The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. I urge anyone: Go to the context to see exactly what in Morbid's eccentric claims that I'm responding to with, I think, relative restraint.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The diffs were indeed linked to provide proper context. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, Tenebrae, you do seem to be insistent on continuing to cross a line in your posts here ("Like Fox News") so I am now specifically warning you, as you didn't take the hint to "comment on content, not each other" - outside of formal reports on the appropriate noticeboards, you must stop making ad hominem comments about other contributors, including IP contributors. You need to re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in full to understand how your comments are breaching policy, because I think you've become too comfortable talking to other editors in this manner. Your arguments do not need to involve discrediting others. Fences&Windows 12:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that with going both ways. Morbidthoughs, KyleJoan and the IP have all used aggressive, sarcastic, uncivil language toward me from the start, with Morbidthoughts in particular baiting me with nonsensical arguments like "the Today show is pop culture and not a reliable news source" and "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits." Would that not be fair and equitable?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What is not fair or equitable is your attributing quotes that I have never made to draw up a straw man. I challenge you to provide the diffs for those exact quotes. This misattribution is just another example of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already linked to your claim that The Broadway League wasn't RS for Broadway credits, here. What else was there? At one point you claimed an opinion essay as policy. Just let me know, and I'm happy to provide links. That said, I'm getting the impressions admins here are, understandably, a little tired of our back-and-forth.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The exact quote is not in that link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Really. Because I see you saying "no" to it twice: "Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020) ... "Standard legal boilerplate that disclaims any accuracy of their content. I don't see that with newspapers, magazines, academic journals or even the unreliable IMDB, an Amazon company. Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2020). Let the record show that I pointed out to you the same standard legal boilerplate at The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and The Television Academy.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You see the verbatim text "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits" anywhere? You do realise what a WP:QUOTE is, right? I shouldn't have to tell a "professional journalist" this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your denial and deflection is remarkable: The whole discussion was about you removing Kloots-Larsen's credit from Amanda Kloots, and then saying "naw," The Broadway League's Internet Broadway Database was not RS for Broadway credits. I shouldn't have to tell a "presumably literate person" this.

Your harassment of me is never going to end, is it?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just keep WP:GASLIGHTING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Familiar: Accusing someone else of that which you are doing. Anyone can read the thread on my talk page and see for themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's clear from that talk page, the RFC, the SPI, and this ANI that the differences in opinion over content were so "deliberately provocative and inciting" that they triggered a pattern of your making ad hominem comments and drawing up straw men to argue against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I leave that to other editors. I think they'll see your comments and edit summaries were unnecessarily rude and dismissive ("Yawn." "Naw."), uncivil, ill-informed and, most of all, deliberately baiting ... as have been some of your comments above in which you tried to deny things you said. Your behavior I find to be textbook harassment, and I implore admins to end this.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

And incidentally, "like Fox News" aside, I think we should address the point of my statement, which is Morbidthoughts cherrypicking quotes out-of=context. Morbidthoughts' behavior, including this ANI, has been unconscionable.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User: DePiep

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

I regret being here again.

Members of WP:ELEM have recently been editing the periodic table article, as an exercise in continuous cooperative editing.[55]

I politely raised some objection to some of these edits and notified my intention to revert some of them.[56]

Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward.[57] The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp.[58]

Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion. In doing so he said, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish."[59]

I today started editing the periodic table article. My edits included reverting one of Double sharp’s edits,[60] as I had previously flagged. This one reversion restored content that had been deleted by Double sharp.

Subsequently, all of my edits were reverted by User: DePiep, on the basis that I had not established consensus.[61] In so doing, DePiep reverted my revert, in breach of BRD.

Discussion at my talk page ensued.

In summary, DePiep responded with, among other things, "Yes in a 16k revert some comma might be reverted unintentionally"; TLDR [62]; I do not have consensus [63]; I should ask Double sharp beforehand [64]; and I am editing without discussion [65].

I have politely reached the end of my tether with this disruptive behaviour by DePeip, which has been raised in this forum on multiple previous occasions.

Hence I am here, requesting DePiep be disavowed of this behaviour, in a suitable manner, so that I may complete my current round of edits, consistent with previous discussions.

Thank you, — Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I saw this thread after I had posted to Sandbh to raise my concerns with him. It is my impression that Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem.
• Sandbh's announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG. R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected. I posted some thoughts and ideas, also encouraging Sandbh not to revert, and the discussion continued. I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.
• I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.
• I think that the discussions at WT:ELEM (which are difficult to follow being in multiple places and with very large reorganisations having been made by Sandbh and discussed at his user talk page) show that there are issues where all contributors except Sandbh have a generally consistent view. That being the case, DePiep's request for consensus is not unreasonable. A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment. In this talk page section, Sandbh would also not accept that a statistical analysis he carried out was an example of OR, despite the wording here that Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data, and decisions about which statistical methods and significance levels are appropriate.
• I do not see any sanction against DePiep as warranted at this time, even if he is not a model of politeness at all times.
• I do not think trying to argue which edits count as "B" and which as "R" is that important. It depends on time frames and perspectives... and, in any case, the bigger problem is that "D" either doesn't happen or becomes dysfunctional or swamped. The WT:ELEM history shows that 2020 has seen its size more than double from its previous high, to now over 600,000 bytes. It has seen 8,203 edits in 2020, the previous high point being 2,050 edits in 2013.
• I see Sandbh's discussion style as much more of a problem. The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping. EdChem (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel EdChem’s statement has several misrepresentations and errors. I’ve asked him, at his talk page, to please address my concerns as he sees fit. Sandbh (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• "misrepresentations and errors"?: then reply and refute those here. I will ignore this multi-page threading. By itself, this illustrates bad discussion discipline by Sandbh, which is one of the amplifying factors of the ELEM editing problem at hand. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh posted a list of 9 misrepresentations that he requested I correct.

• 1 and 2 concerned opinions that I expressed. After reading his post, my views have not changed, though I again emphasise that my impressions and opinions are mine alone and that ANI readers should look at the evidence and form their own views. As always, ANI's attention may focus on the topic raised by the OP, on the OP themself, or on others who comment, etc. I am open to scrutiny for my comments and actions, just as is everyone else.
• 3: Sandbh notes that he paid heed to the requests not to revert while there was a discussion. My point was that he has gone on to undo Double sharp's change, returning 16,000 bytes to the article. Reverting after a discussion where objections were raised is still reverting. Arguing Double sharp said it was ok when others had raised objections does not make going ahead ok. Pointing to WT:ELEM, a 600,000+ byte discussion page, is hardly helpful for other editors.
• 4: On R8R's proposal for Double sharp and Sandbh to step back, Sandbh is correct that DePiep objected. It is also true that Sandbh did not formally object, instead suggesting a drafting in your own user space approach. This did contrast, in my opinion, with Double sharp's willingness to try R8R's approach.
• 5: Yes, there were many posts on 19 to 24 December. The reversion was on 26 December and I maintain activity around Christmas (and on 25/26/27 December given time zones, etc) is atypical.
• 6, 7, 8, and 9: All raise WP:IDHT concerns, and 6 and 9 both reply to points that I do not make. No matter how many times Sandbh states that the policy OR does not apply to talk pages, he seems unable to accept the view that talk space is not an OR free-for-all. Further, he disputes what original research actually is, leaving aside the WP policy on handling it. Sandbh notes (point 7) that he did comment (though not !vote), and that I made a mistake here, which is correct and I apologise... but looking at the relevant discussion and the preceding !votes, there seems a clear consensus and Sandbh's view is in a minority of one.

This whole user talk post to me feels like a reply that seeks to score debating points for minor issues while ignoring the key aspects of my ANI post. To be absolutely clear:

• Sandbh, DePiep is not the problem here.
• In posting at ANI, you invite scrutiny and you, Sandbh, are a source of problems at ELEM, one that requires some action.

EdChem (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I quickly looked at the link in "Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion" above. I might be missing something but reading the comment in context appears to confirm EdChem's above "Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem", at least as far as Double sharp is concerned. Further, Double sharp's comment appears to an ignorant onlooker such as myself as an authoritative response to Sandbh. Is there any chance of getting opinions from people who understand the topic (hello Beetstra)? Given that the current situation is untenable, what remedy is recommended? Perhaps Sandbh should be topic banned for a month to at least give people a break during this holiday period? If anyone wants to comment on my statement, the place to do that is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elements, 12-28 November 2020, and WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55#ArbCom Case Request (Nov 2020), 15 November 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Here we go again! See here for slow moving edit war. I see nothing in Depeip's editing in terms of admins needing to do something. Sandbh I think has a case to answer EdChem's comments in an appropriate way. Other than that I see nothing but a close the thread down ASAP before walls appear demand! Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here. Games of the world (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• Not this again... I have been following the developments at WT:ELEM (project member), but only been more active the past two weeks (RL matters). I do not believe any sanctions against DePiep are warranted, for it is very true that many threads are unreadable and clearly have not led to any recent, substantial, and uncontroversial improvement to articles. I agree with EdChem that WT:ELEM has become unreadable, especially since there is no major progress to show for it. On the other hand, OR and lack of consensus have been persistent problems, and this is exactly why the changes to periodic table were reverted and the project has nothing to show for these unwieldy threads; it would contradict fundamental WP policy to build arguments and consensus around original research and the opinions of editors rather than established, undisputed facts. It seems that nobody at WT:ELEM (to name a few, myself, YBG, DePiep, and Double sharp) agrees with Sandbh on some of his proposals or matters related to group 3 and the periodic table; this blowout led to past ANI threads and the ArbCom case that have been judged as inappropriate by uninvolved editors and have not resolved the problem in any case.

Regarding BRD, the objective should be for DePiep, Sandbh, and any other involved editors to engage in civil discussion so that no edit wars erupt and the article is not the victim of a dispute. In this case, though, this is not the first time that Sandbh has made major changes with which someone at WT:ELEM has disagreed, and indeed Double sharp has taken a step back in order to not engage in heated discussions. I have not taken part myself because I do not want to edit war or repeat myself to no avail.

Also, BRD states explicitly: In general, BRD fails if: (1) there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make. (2) there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus.

The first is probably stretched because WT:ELEM does not override broader consensus, but at least holds true for the failed group 3 RfC. The second, though, accurately describes the current situation at WT:ELEM, as this is the same matter that megabytes of text have failed to resolve (i.e. stalemate, and a textbook case of TL;DR). Consequently, I'm not even sure if BRD is the correct way to approach the problem.

As far as solutions, my main recommendations would be to (1) establish clearer project guidelines to avoid these TL;DR threads and blowouts, (2) to redirect focus to articles on which there are no disagreements, so editors can use their energy and skills to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of reaffirm a stalemate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• In my post in the ARBCOM thread, I identified WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT as an incomplete list of the issues which I had seen in WT:ELEM. I should have included WP:SEALION, WP:OWN and WP:TL;DR. Narky Blert (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  At this point it's easier to just transclude {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  You have a point. Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply by DePiep

• (ec) Where to begin? I thank and compliment all responding editors here for their careful and well-describing replies. The replies show insight and understanding of the complicated recent history of the issue (five weeks?). In this, fellow-WP:ELEM members EdChem and ComplexRational are reflecting my thoughts in this (with more patience and eloquence). I note that two members, higly valuated by ELEM and with warm cooperating memories by me, have retired & blanked their userpages: YBG and Double sharp (a deep sigh over here, and a curse). If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN.

I am pondering to add a bulleted reply here too, more factual and less descriptive. For example:

• "Too bold". I started thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Too Bold (Dec 10):

1. [66].

2. re by Sandbh: 'Bold edits don't require consensus'

3. my reply: Not one [of Sandbh's] bullet is about 'time to talk'.

• re "continuous cooperative editing": I call BS. Repeatedly, since mid-November, Sandbh (and Sandbh only) refers to some editing process labelled "continuous cooperative editing" [67][68]; first link names four subscripted editors. Also in the OP complaint here. I have not met any description (let alone definition), of this. To me, obviously kept an outsider to the concept, this is either (a) standard Wikipedia process or (b) a cult-creating process of preventing critique, as in: 'If you don't agree with this edit, you are breaking a secret bond'. Two of the four adhering editors have now blanked their userpages, indicating frustration.
• re "DePeip [sic] ... in this [ANI] forum" (in original complaint): A good opportunity to reply to this jab. First, it is disingeneous for invoking (a) unspecified BF talk and (b) unrelated and/or finished business. ("You are bad now because you were bad yesterday"). Anyway, let me remind Sandbh and others to this recent ANI thread (Sep 28), ignited by Sandbh. Closure: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented". Also note that multiple editors confirmed a staight BRD issue. IOW: Sure I am present at ANI. Vindicated. Time for Sandbh to read and digest.
• "Source handling": WT:ELEM has not solved the issue of source handling. A discussion + polls about WP:TERTIARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:PRIMARY > WP:OR(!) (wp talk NOTAFORUM, poll 2) went nowhere; I note the negative response by Sandbh showing evasion of commitment (8 members engaged). Then, a talk about doing DUE/UNDUE, FRINGE had not even started.
• Overall, my opinion is that this situation floats into sight the running problems in ELEM discussion process & productivity into better articles. Interaction is still re editors not the edits. The discussion problems started early this year, then the ArbCom Case request paused the problematic interaction—synthetically, as we learn now.
• Maybe more later. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

More replies by others

Brief comment by Sandbh: What brought me here was a breach of BRD by DePiep i.e. he reverted my revert. Even so, rather than re-reverting and bringing myself into breach of BRD, I attempted to discuss my concerns with DePiep, on my talk page. That led nowhere. If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post. I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

To prevent the walls of text phenomenon I have posted my thoughts at the talk pages of EdChem, Games of the world and ComplexRational. My simple ANI post took up 276 words. This thread, not counting this brief note, is approaching ten times that size. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Plus your WT:ELEM side-discussion. I ignore these off-ANI multi-page discussions. Might be considered WP:CANVASSING. Evades idea and intention of concise arguing. Still creates wall of text. All this is exemplary of current practices that frustrate and blunt discussions at WP:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, your 'please to see' comment [69] is quoting me out of context. This gives a false and harmful presentation of my statement [70]. Please correct this in situ or strike it. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• DePiep, I changed my post from…a

"I am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

…to:

I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: When I wrote 'out of context', I refer to: you left out the preceding sentence, where "me who caused this" refers to. Still missing. Also, I don't think it was necessary to repeat the sentence you corrected, uncorrected. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I can find no way to escape the conclusion that something needs to be done about Sandbh.
• Sandbh's comments at my user talk page (which I will address separately have now addressed above)) and those to Games of the world (user talk page thread) and ComplexRational (user talk page thread) lead me to conclude that Sandbh sees no issues with any of his editing (talk or article space) and that he truly believes the only problem is DePiep and BRD – as Sandbh put it the main hold up with respect to the PT article is that DePiep, in breach of BRD, reverted my revert.
• I am not sure that posting replies to user talk pages as a means of avoiding walls of text is appropriate as it fragments the discussion. Avoiding walls of text is best achieved by posting what is important and leaving it for others to decide. And yes, I recognise that this post is quite long.
• Consider this thread, which Sandbh characterised (to ComplexRational) as a discussion with DePiep that led to a "non-result." I posted at the end of it at about the same time this ANI was launched. I wrote that the request for revert-free editing as the best use of [Sandbh's] time when [Sandbh] have posted an intention to revert others certainly strikes me as seeing your contributions as worth more than those of others. DePiep saw an implied threat (to edit war, if I am interpreting him correctly). I can't read this thread and see one blameless editor being stymied from editing by another who should be taken to ANI to be "disavowed ... in a suitable manner" (whatever that means) – and yet, it appears that this is how Sandbh sees it. Even after past ANI threads, an ArbCom case request, and yet more discussion at WT:ELEM, Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM.
• In that same talk page thread, Sandbh asked me how Double sharp's comment So, you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish reads to me. My view was in the post to which Sanbh was responding, where I wrote:

  Sandbh, YBG is taking a break. Double sharp is stepping back and my reading of his comments is that he was expressing frustration at the editing environment. His withdrawal did not read to me to be an endorsement that you should go ahead with what you think is best; I read it as giving up having lost the will to continue discussing. DePiep is expressing frustration even more clearly, in my opinion. ... Editors leaving a project is never a good sign. My observations and the comments I have read lead me to suspect that you are a significant factor in both YBG's and Double sharp's choices. These are not good developments, in my opinion.

Sandbh characterised Double sharp's comment as Double sharp said I could do what I felt appropriate, subject to comments from others. Readers can draw their own conclusions on Double sharp's meaning – as I have said, I cannot speak for him – but I am concerned that Sandbh appears to read it quite differently from me.

• YBG's final post (edit summary: No, it is not acceptable) in the Rearranging threads at WT:ELEM thread at user talk:Sandbh make clear (at least to me) his frustration. Sandbh has noted that YBG and Double sharp have taken breaks before and will likely return. Hopefully this will prove correct, but it does not diminish the problem that both departures appear to me to be significantly related to Sandbh. Further, his comment that they will be back and that Project membership counts; contributions count more strikes me as dismissive of the significance of two departures from the small ELEM group, and appears to me to be coupled with the implication that Sandbh's article-space contributions somehow excuse any connection between himself and the departures.
• Sandbh has considerable knowledge to share. He has published in the primary literature and (IMO) struggles to differentiate between original (be it OR or by SYNTH) and encyclopaedic writing. Discussions tend to become long and repetitive as he sometimes adopts interpretations of policy that are problematic and his views do not take on board the perspectives of others – at times appearing like significant points have been forgotten / disregarded. I don't know if it is possible for him to contribute collaboratively and constructively so that our readers can benefit from his expertise without our editors being frustrated by constant disputes and / or stepping back.
• Sandbh, do you see how you are causing problems for ELEM editors? Is there a way we can help to minimise the problems while retaining your expertise? Because if there isn't, I fear ELEM will end up with no editors but you, or back at ArbCom, or with you topic banned by ANI. EdChem (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Note on BRD: It is my impression that the BRD cycle was broken when Sandbh proceeded with the revert on periodic table after several editors objected to his "notification of intent to revert" at WT:ELEM. The discussion between 19 and 25 December had a rough consensus in favor of Double sharp's removal, thus objecting to Sandbh's intent to reinstate it, yet he proceeded to do so despite this discussion. DePiep then most likely reverted as part of a new BRD cycle, since the "new consensus" was formed after Double sharp's removal was endorsed. While it may be a revert of a revert in the edit history, DePiep's revert would ideally lead to a new discussion (with Sandbh's edit being the "bold" edit) that would either support or oppose Sandbh's proposal. Instead of this content discussion, though, we are here at ANI. BRD is a rough guideline, so it should be roughly interpreted and adapted to specific situations, rather than applied as a strict policy with immediate consequences in case of violation. Although not the main scope of this ANI, the fact that discussions tend towards TL;DR makes this aspect of the cycle all the more difficult, and is causing editors to distance themselves from ELEM (which is a shame) or comment on contributors rather than content. That said, DePiep's revert was not part of the BRD cycle starting with Double sharp's edit, so it is not a breach. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you. I'm reluctant to comment as it just adds to the wall of text, and my "complaint" was simple enough. DePiep reverted my revert in breach of BRD. Is that or is that not a breach of BRD? Subsequently, the scope of this threat has expanded to mention everything but my simple complaint. As I said, "If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post." The end. If there are remaining issues with respect to my conduct, I ask that these please be raised elsewhere. Is this too much to ask?

By disavowing DePiep I meant, could I please have some clear, revert-free, editing space, so that I can restore and edit the content (in the context of concerns raised at WP:ELEM) deleted by Double sharp, and in the spirit of his comment, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish." Once I've finished my editing, interested WP:ELEM members can comment. That is the normal way editing occurs, as I understand it.

I had already done this with respect to one part of the restored text, before it was all re-reverted by DePiep, in breach of BRD as I understand it. Sandbh (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandbh. It's not about me, we know. It's, you are chasing away good editors. Now teach me, about BRD. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by YBG

As I have been mentioned extensively, I believe the community deserves to hear from me.

Regarding my long term assessment of ELEM and Sandbh

• I value the friendship I have with my fellow ELEM members, and consider Sandbh to be my closest friend among that group, in part due to our FtF encounter several years ago.
• In my opinion, Sandbh's style at WP have changed significantly since he began pursuing publications in peer reviewed chemistry journals. IMO, he does not seem to do well distinguishing the "hat" one must wear to contribute to such journals and the very different "hat" one must wear as an editor at WP.
• Meanwhile, others at ELEM are, I believe, becoming better at wearing their WP-editor hat than we were a half-decade or more ago.
• This has meant that in many areas about how best to contribute at WP, the editors at ELEM fall into two groups: Sandbh and everyone else.

Regarding my attempts to resolve what I perceived as one of the main problems at ELEM

1. I noticed that the volume of material shared at WT:ELEM seems to be WP:OR > WP:PRIMARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:TERTIARY, the exact opposite of the order in which we should consider these things.
2. I thought that this might be an underlying cause of our difficulties at ELEM.
3. I started an informal poll to see if others agreed with my assessment and perhaps nudge our project toward consensus.
4. Some agreed with me (with minor differences, many of which I agreed with.
5. However, Sandbh did not see a problem
6. I tried to explain the problems as I saw them, including the fact that there seemed to be wildly differing ideas about the use of WP:PSTS sources.
7. Sandbh replied that he saw no wildly differing views on sourcing.
8. So I started a 2nd informal poll about the potential harm of (a) reasonable limits, or (b) extensive use, of PRIMARY and OR at WT:ELEM.
9. Eight ELEM editors - everyone who !!voted -- agreed (with some minor caveats) that Editors should use 1RY/OR on talk pages only sparingly. Extensive use of such is harmful to our project..
10. Sandbh alone demurred. After much coaxing, the closest we got to an answer was The use of 1RY/OR as editors see fit may or may not improve our project. Limiting 1RY/OR to sparing use may or may not improve our project.
11. I then tried to get an answer as to what would distinguish problematic from non-problematic limits on or use of 1RY/OR at WT:ELEM, but I do not believe there has been an answer to this.

From this I draw the conclusion that not only does Sandbh have rather different ideas than the rest of WT:ELEM, but that he seems to have difficulty perceiving those differences.

Regarding the immediate cause of my wikibreak

• I generally follow the discussion at WT:ELEM by checking the diffs from my watchlist.
• Sandbh's extensive refactoring of WT:ELEM (which continued with several other changes), prevented me from continuing my normal routine
• I tried to patiently work out what the changes were but after spending an enormous amount of time, I was unable to.
• This seemed to me to be yet another case of Sandbh boldly doing something without taking others into consideration
• I considered several options (1) reverting the refactoring (but by that time there were other contributions) (2) raising the issue at ANI and (3) asking a question at teahouse.
• When I went to Sandbh's talk page, I found that EdChem had already commented. I added my own (stronger) objections.
• The ensuing discussion not only increased my frustration level, but convinced me that this was another example of Sandbh editing boldly without taking others into consideration - with no advance notice.
• I remain concerned that such major talk page reorganizations without the permission of (or even advance notice to) other editors could be a violation of WP:TPO.

This interaction seemed to confirm my impression of the differences between Sandbh's ideas and style and others' ideas and style, and his difficulty perceiving those differences. In the end, I opted for a wikibreak.

Regarding my wikibreak and future

• It is true that I have taken wikibreaks in the past.
• My prior wikibreaks have been intentional and seasonal, with my break and return planned in advance. Anyone can see that my breaks in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 were all at the same time of the year.
• My previous wikibreaks have never been to avoid problems encountered while being online, but to avoid problems caused by being online too much.
• I have never before been so frustrated, even during ELEM's previous visits to ANI and Arbcon.
• I have not yet decided whether, when, and to what extent I might return to WP, much less ELEM. I have other productive things I can do with my time.

I will continue on wikibreak for the forseeable future, receiving only weekly ping summaries. I invite editors to interact with me at my talk page - or if you want to reach me sooner, by email. YBG (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: a 6-month topic ban for Sandbh

Proposing: a 6-month topic ban for User:Sandbh from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. I looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Notification of intention to revert and, IMO, EdChem's description above of the events there is essentially correct. The problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements have been endemic, and with Arbcom recently almost accepting a case on the matter. Clearly, things are still not working out. One of the principal participants in the prior disputes, User:Double sharp, has stepped back, but the other one, User:Sandbh, has not. Another editor, User:YBG, has recently left as well (appparently Wikipedia and not just WikiProject Elements), and, again as EdChem notes above, and it appears that frustration with Sandbh has been a significant factor in that decision[71]. This ANI report, while filed by Sandbh in good faith, is substantively very much misguided and thus far has all the makings of another interminable unproductive ANI thread on these matters. The other party in these disputes, DePiep, although with some record of problematic behavior (mostly, as far as I can tell, on topics unrelated to chemistry), appears to have been essentially in the right, at least in terms of procedure, in relation to the recent issues at WikiProject Elements. User:Sandbh, although a long-term and well-intentioned user, is essentially an SPA with a narrow scope of editing interests concentrated exclusively around the periodic table. That rarely bodes well when getting involved in difficult/intractable content disputes. Sandbh has been at the center of the recent disputes at WikiProject Elements, and remains so, even after the departure of Double sharp's from the scene. Clearly, some radical external action is needed to relieve the situation at WikiProject Elements. IMO, giving User:Sandbh an enforced 6-month wikibreak from the topic of chemical elements would give everyone else at WikiProject Elements the room to work out the issues there in the meantime. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as the proposer. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Nsk92, what's an SPA? Sandbh (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• A Single Purpose Account. See WP:SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Nsk92, contrary to what you wrote above, YBG has not left WP nor has he left WP:ELEM.[72] He is still contactable via his talk page, and email.[73] Sandbh (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Considering support See also other posts in this. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated, after seeing behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not only did Sandbh dispute whether Sc and Y should be placed above La or Lu, they also used OR to argue that the former would also mean placing B and Al above Sc! Then they talked about how Be and Mg used to be placed above Zn and how some chemists (mostly those who study noble gases) even argue that He should be placed above Be instead of Ne because its atomic properties and crystal structure are more similar to Be, and the history of the placement of H due to its properites being a mix of an alkali metal and a halogen. This has not much to do with the fact that there is a very real dispute about whether Y should be placed above La or Lu. (See Group 3 element#Composition of group 3 for more information.) Then we can hold an RfC in peace.

  I also wanted to discuss how the current category color scheme fails WP:A11Y, but it got drowned out in this trivial argument. Pastels, anyone? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: LaundryPizza03, the discussion you refer to took place at the WP:ELEM talk page. All such discussion is freely entered into or ignored. The technical content you refer to has a long historical, and ongoing record in the literature. WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. The so-called OR I am alleged to have engaged in could be done by a ten-year old. In any event, you will not find any so-called OR in the article space. You can hold an RFC at any time, as I did and failed. You’re free to raise concerns about the colouring scheme, at any time, at the WP:ELEM page (as you have done, thank you) where this is a major topic. I see R8R has updated you as to where this is up to. Go the pastels! Sandbh (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. This is a complete mess which seems entirely to land on Sandbh's shoulders. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The disputes at WT:ELEM have spilled over into ANI several times and once into ARBCOM, and have taken up the best part of 1Mb. Two good editors have left WP, seemingly in frustration, and this complaint is directed against a third. It alone is 48Kb (by my count (29 December): 24% by Sandbh (10 posts), 13% by DePiep (7), and the balance by 12 other editors (27)), and it verges on vexatious. This is WP:SEALIONing (don't overlook the original Wondermark cartoon). Sandbh's attitude is incompatible with WP:TALK and collaborative editing.

This incident struck me. On 2 November 2020 (WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 53), Sandbh wrote (1) 'Consistent with WP:IAR, there is no "absolute" prohibition on anything at WP' and (2) 'I should've quoted WP:IAR, which is derived from WP:5P5, in full: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So it is not the case that anything goes at WP per WP:IAR, per se. It is more subtle than that. So, if e.g. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, or WP:BLP prevents you from improving WP, ignore them, per WP:IAR' (emphasis in the original; Wikilinks added). Those statements are preposterous, and no editor should have to waste time refuting them. Narky Blert (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Narky Blert, contrary to what you wrote above, neither Double sharp nor YBG have left WP. Both still belong to WP:ELEM.[74] Double sharp is more in lurk mode. As R8R wrote below, "Double sharp… admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table."[75] YBG is still contactable via his talk page, and PM. Both Double sharp and YBG have taken breaks in the past, and returned. As for WP:IAR, in nearly 10 years of editing I cannot recall ever relying on it to justify an edit in the article space. Sandbh (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Storm in a teacup (acknowledging residual concerns by EdChem). Per WP custom and practice policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort: WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. Nobody has in fact left WP or WP:ELEM. Six consensus proposals have already been posted at WP:ELEM.[76] In making this vote, I note DePiep just reverted some content I posted to this board.[77] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. What he did represents the kind of disruptive behaviour that was the subject of this complaint, which I attempted to withdraw. The last time he and I were here he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I've reposted my content. @EdChem and Levivich: fyi. ​ Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Please see my request for help.[78] I recognise my problematic conduct and am ready to work with EdChem, and other members of WP:ELEM to address this. I have already posted requests for consensus at WP:ELEM.[79] Sandbh (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The sealioning, wikilawyering, and self-righteous disruption on this page alone says that WP:ELEM -- and maybe Wikipedia as a whole -- needs the break. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sorry but this appears to be the only way to get some calm and stability into the area. Good editors don't leave (or almost leave) without reason. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - causing too much disruption, over a long period of time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not optimistic that Sandbh will suddenly "get it" during those six months. EdChem said Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM and I'm afraid that will still be the case down the road. There seems to be wide recognition that Sandbh has valuable expertise to contribute to ELEM; it's how Sandbh approaches collaborative editing that needs improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Adding: I've seen the two comments added by Sandbh today (Help request and My last post). Asking for help in meeting WP expectations is a positive step, although it's disappointing that it took so long to happen, particularly after the incredibly long and painful ANI discussion last month. But then Sandbh says I've acknowledged my problematic conduct; I haven't seen that. I've seen the realization that this time there might actually be a ban. I understand that Sandbh does not want a topic ban. I sympathize. But in my view, the two comments today are too little and too late. I stand by my support. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I recognise and acknowledge it took to long, and that I engaged in IDHT, among other things, to my cost. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Subject matter experts are a great help to building an encyclopaedia. However subject matter experts who struggle to adhere to our relatively simple guidelines for improving content can become a major problem. It's only six months. Take a breather and reflect. The periodic table article will still be here when you get back. Maybe try your hand at some other topics. I don't know, its up to you. It can't continue as it is though and this has gone on long enough. AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Request: Sandbh made a request for help below and at my user talk page and those of DePiep and R8R. Given the current state of !voting, it appears that this topic ban will be imposed soon. I have replied to Sandbh and I ask that this thread not be closed and the ban not implemented for a day or two so that Sandbh and I can discuss how I / we might be able to help without the restrictions of the topic ban interfering. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I will shortly propose a set of 6-month editing restrictions and conditions that I will propose to follow, to DePiep and EdChem. Thank you, EdChem. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020. Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Update: I've put my proposed 6-month editing restrictions and conditions to DePiep and EdChem, and will await their advice. A copy can be found at the top of my user pape. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020 (for everyone). Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• As he has noted above, Sandbh has posted a proposal on his user page. I posted some ideas for him on my user talk page 2 minutes prior to his making his post. I have now posted some thoughts for him on his proposal on my user talk page. ANI readers will see that they are quite different as I am considering a single user-space page be exempted from the tban whilst he is suggesting editing restrictions short of a tban. I hope for productive discussions shortly. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I thank EdChem for his thoughts, and his help. I acknowledge the strong likelihood of at least six months of editing restrictions. Subject to EdChem’s availability I hope to wrap up our discussions tomorrow. I won’t be online for the next 12 hours. I thank Johnuniq for their thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Unfortunately, it appears that Sandbh is trying to play it both ways. First Sandbh files a complaint against DePiep, and then, when multiple editors say that Sandbh is the problem and should be topic-banned, Sandbh tries to close the case. That gives the appearance that Sandbh wants to use WP:ANI when it is to their advantage and to run away when it is not. When this dispute was pending before ArbCom, I said, and I was speaking as a subject matter expert, that the multiple disputes were all matters of convention, and not of scientific correctness. It appears that Sandbh is the one who wants to "win" the content disputes. We don't need winning; we need collaboration. A topic-ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that the parties and ArbCom were all too optimistic in thinking that this dispute would be resolved after the last ArbCom request. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment only to clarify. I lodged my request to withdraw after one editor proposed a topic ban, rather than mutiple editors. I hope I have interpreted Robert correctly. I will revert this post if that is not the case. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Sandbh: (non-admin comment) I advise you to not delete, revert or refactor any posts on talk pages or noticeboards. That makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to withdraw something you've said, WP:STRIKE it. That happens at WP:XFD all the time, and works very well. Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question to Nsk92 as the proposer of this TBAN, and to anyone else willing to comment... where are the boundaries of a topic ban "from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed"? As a chemist, I can imagine a lot of territory that I could argue was connected to the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed, and I can also imagine a lot of places where I would see such an argument as an unhelpful / inappropriate stretch (from a WP point of view). I know that boundaries are hard to define and are a matter of judgement, but given all chemical reactions involve chemical elements or compounds of chemical elements, that all substances consist of chemical elements, their compounds, and mixtures, and that chemistry deals with matter, energy, and change, does this TBAN extend essentially to the entirety of chemistry? Does it cover much of biology and medicine and pharmacology, at least in so far as the chemical elements are relevant? For example, would editing cisplatin be a problem if mentioning its action of binding to the N7 of guanine bases in DNA? ANI will impose a ban on whatever scope it sees as fit, I accept that, and I can't argue that one is not warranted in the circumstances... but in fairness to Sandbh and to all the ELEM editors who may see him in other parts of the encyclopaedia, I do think it is appropriate to have some degree of clarity on where this ban is meant to cover. We all know how edits that are perceived as attempts to test the boundaries of a TBAN are treated at ANI. In my dealings with Sandbh, I have learned that he can adopt quite literal interpretations at times. While I think that he needs to work on that, I think it would be unfair of ANI to set him up with a TBAN that is unclear in extent and where he would see a topic as outside his ban (and certainly outside the areas that have been contentious) but which could be interpreted differently here. EdChem (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would support the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about. I think it involves details of how the periodic table should be presented and I believe one comment I saw mentioned that sources differ regarding those details. That issue needs to be resolved, even if the outcome is sub-optimal because a never-ending dispute is corrosive for the community. That is, I would be happy if Sandbh were restrained from editing or commenting regarding that issue, broadly construed, but I know of no reason they shouldn't work on other chemical matters provided there was no boundary testing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions

1. For the next 3−6 months I won't edit articles marked as being of interest to WP:ELEM, unless there is WP:ELEM consensus, as determined by someone else than me. Exceptions A. Vandalism reverts; gnomish work e.g. spelling or grammar corrections; links; correcting mistakes or missing parts in citations; minor housekeeping; edit requests by a WP:ELEM member. B. In support of the goals of WP:ELEM: 1. Under the watch of R8R I'd like to edit aluminium to complete the work of bringing it up to FAC standard. I've worked with R8R previously when we attained a bronze star for astatine. 2. As lead editor, I'd like to edit the non-controversial nonmetal article to bring it (i) into line with the categorisation scheme recently agreed at WP:ELEM, including by me; and (ii) up to FAC standard. 2. I won't ping WP:ELEM editors, unless unless I'm pinged 3. Subject to EdChem's agreement I propose to zoom with him, to discuss and clarify his concerns, including IDHT, and seek further guidance on the way ahead. I'll post a summary of this to wherever is deemed appropriate. He's already raised these concerns with me; there's nothing like a f-t-f meeting, even if remotely. 4. If these restrict/conditions are accepted I'll alert YBG, DS and R8R about them via PM. 5. Such further restrictions as the closing admin determines. 6. I propose to draft a WP:ESSAY on ANI protocol, practice and observations based on my experiences here.

As flagged, I'll wait to hear from EdChem. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing my complaint

​​​​​​​​ Is there a protocol for so doing?

I feel that the stress of pursuing my complaint is not worth the bother of resolving the question of whether a re-revert of deleted content is a breach of BRD.

I subsequently intend to seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there. While the periodic table is shown as FA, it is no longer of that standard. Which was what the "fuss" was about. It'll be slow going but we'll get there.

As Games of the world said, "Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here." --- Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

When a report is filed on the noticeboards, it's generally the case that the behavior of all the participants in the dispute is examined. Considering that a proposal has been filed asking for you to be sanctioned, it's rather late to withdraw your complaint, and doing so will not stop consideration of that proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

While I welcome Sandbh's intention to nullify their request to "disavow" [sic] me, for whatever reasons, I prefer this thread to be continued. Multiple editors, involved and uninvolved, have noted irregularities in the editing & discussing process, and so it could be benefiting WP:ELEM & this Wiki to address these. Included in what Sandbh calls the "fuzz" is the issue of two project members who walked away from the project, apparently with frustration. Also, since ELEM may be scrutinized once more as a (paused) potential ArbCom Case, an ANI outcome could prevent the project from breaking down. "We found ourself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost." -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura / esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte / che nel pensier rinova la paura! Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This thread is indeed open and drawing input from uninvolved editors, so it should remain open until a clear solution is reached. Otherwise, the problem will remain, and we'll find ourselves here again in no time.

And on another note, if it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review, where uninvolved editors can give a (hopefully) impartial review of the article content. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh

Thank you for your post, DePiep.

I'm no longer stressed since I notified this board of:

• my request to withdraw my complaint against DePiep; and
• that I would seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there.

My two consensus requests at WP:ELEM are here and here. I've had one response to each request: No and no, from DePiep.

Re: "what Sandbh calls the "fuzz", I have no idea what this is referring to.

Double sharp has previously withdrawn from the project and subsequently returned. During his first withdrawal he remained in contact with myself and WP:ELEM. DS is still a member of the project [80] and is now in less active lurk mode.[81] YBG, who I have met ftf and count as a good friend, has taken at least one previous wikibreak, and returned to the project. Contrary to what Nsk99 wrote, YBG is still member of the project [82] and is contactable via his talk page.[83]

Re: "it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review", I formed the view the article was no longer up to FAR some months ago. Subsequently EdChem expressed the same view.[84] I don't have a diff as some our discussions were on user talk pages rather than at WP:ELEM. EdChem can confirm.

Rather than seeking FAR, that is what prompted the recent round of continuous improvement editing on the PT article—which I initiated[85]—and which resulted in some 220+ edits.

I'm still contributing to efforts to bring the PT article up to standard [86]. I notified WP:ELEM of my edit (68 words, or 1.9% of the article) and my reasoning.[87]. DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician"[88] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit.[89]

I have listed this revert at WP:ELEM with a request to obtain consensus.[90]

I regret the need to add to the 5,300+ word count. Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, you can withdraw your complaint against DePiep, but that won't stop ANI from considering the proposal relating to you.
• This is not the place to discuss content but, for the record, I confirm that I do have concerns about whether the periodic table article meets FA standards.
• Seeking consensus is good, but this thread started as you flagged an intent to revert (which is good), started a discussion and participated in it (also good), then took Double sharp's comment as a reason to carry out the revert anyway (not good), and was reverted by DePiep. You've suggested DePiep's revert violated BRD. It is suggested above that your revert was a new bold edit and thus DePiep's edit was the "R" in BRD. A less favourable analysis was that your revert following the discussion was against a (developing?) consensus and thus (arguably) disruptive. Whether either or both of you and DePiep violated the BRD guideline is much less important than whether there is an ongoing problem with editor behaviour / actions / whatever that is impacting the quality of article content and the editing process... and there is. This is why the posts above mostly skipped over the technical BRD question and went to ELEM dysfunctionality.
• For me, the above provides an example where your evaluation of consensus has been problematic. This is not an isolated problem as other examples exist on the WT:ELEM page, dealing with consensus on what is OR and what is appropriate on talk pages. I am genuinely torn on what options exist for moving forward. To be honest, noting DePiep has responded with "no" to your suggestions and then coming here to ANI to comment on him as you have is adding to my concerns. How do you see writing that DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician" [91] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit [92] is helpful? ANI doesn't deal with content and it appears to me that you are suggesting / implying that DePiep lacks the competence to edit the article, or is edit warring, or disruptive, etc... which seems inconsistent with withdrawing your complaint?
• I am sure this is an unpleasant experience and you have so much knowledge to share. However, ANI readers / contributors are concerned with the editing environment for all and the impact on articles. They are assessing your approach, your actions as part of the ELEM team, your contributions to WT:ELEM, etc, and whether the topic area would benefit from you being restricted (or even excluded from it). What I advise is to reflect on your actions and explain what you see as problems and how to address them. Can you persuade uninvolved admins and editors that action is not needed from ANI, or suggest what action would help? EdChem (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been summoned here by User:DePiep. I've been rather inactive for the last month or so and only watched the ongoing developments at WT:ELEM from the sidelines (and I didn't watch them too closely), although I have intervened once, unsuccessfully, when an intervention seemed in order, as it was previously mentioned in this section by other editors.

As for the original post, I don't think DePiep has committed any action for which DePiep should be held responsible. I admit I do think some arguments could be made better---especially when it comes to rationalization of DePiep's words, because some remarks are blunt but the explanation for this bluntness is not quite as clear as I would expect---but I haven't been able to identify a single red line that was crossed that would necessitate any action against DePiep, and I would oppose any such action being taken now. That being said, that's not Sandbh was asking for, at least as I read his post. I read his post as "please make him let me add my contribution," not "block him so that I could add it." As for the contribution itself, my understanding on the issue is---and I stand ready to correct myself if I misunderstood something---is that there's been no explicit agreement to make it mandatory to seek consensus to add new material, and as such, I could understand where Sandbh's frustration about being blocked from adding it until consensus was reached (I'll return to the topic of consensus later) came from. After it was made abundantly clear that this is where things stand today, Sandbh accepted that; it was in this spirit that the original post was retracted (or at least it was attempted to get the post retracted) and it was in the same spirit that Sandbh petitioned to seek such a consensus at WT:ELEM; problem solved, in one way or another.

As for where thing stand today and whether should be any sanction against Sandbh, the issue seems very uncertain. What would such a sanction really achieve today? I'm leaving aside the topic of whether a sanction would be deserved---ANI, as I understand it, doesn't do justice, it tries to help build the encyclopedia (right?)---what would it effectively achieve today? We most certainly would lose the knowledgeable author that Sandbh is, and what we get in return? Sandbh's main disagreement was with Double sharp, who admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table. I haven't had a conflict with Sandbh and I'm going to keep it that way. ComplexRational hasn't had a conflict with Sandbh and is also likely not going to get himself into one. And that's it, that's all editors left at WP:ELEM now; only DePiep has problems with Sandbh and Sandbh has problems only with DePiep, and even the two of them have very different main areas of interest within our project: Sandbh writes articles and DePiep doesn't, instead doing primarily supplementary work, including outstanding contributions on graphics.

As for consensus building for periodic table, that seems rather unlikely today. I assume that there are four editors left in the project, and I'm not going to intervene as long as there are no editors on the verge of leaving, and ComplexRational hasn't intervened too much in this sort of issue, either, and as I see it, DePiep asking for a consensus essentially means asking for a veto power over future additions. I'm not at all implying that this was the original intent---I don't believe it was that---but it does look like this is what "consensus building" essentially boils down to in current circumstances... is it really that good of an idea, today?

My proposal for a solution would be that an external arbiter outlines how things should proceed in the future (I think EdChem could assume this position or at least contribute to such an outline)---maybe survey opinions on what such a description should contain---and have Sandbh and DePiep commit to that and warn that there will be consequences if that commitment, given as the outcome of this ANI incident, is not honored. I'm ready to join Sandbh and DePiep in making such a commitment if my participation is seen as a positive addition. I'm suggesting this because if one gives a word to do something, that'll be a stronger commitment than just a policy being somewhere there; after all, a policy is subject to avoidance at times, at least some editors may see it as such (see WP:IAR); moreover, if they both agree to the same thing, there won't be any feeling that someone is affected disproportionately (and undeservedly) more than the other one, and parity is important since in this very section, both Sandbh and DePiep have made comments about the other one that they could find an unpleasant accusation. Restriction by such an agreement could help recreate the positive climate Double sharp and YBG could return to. Most importantly, if there ever is a problem that arises after the outline has been approved, then it's easy to point out what the violation was, and it will be clear that punishment is deserved. Failure to commit to (hopefully) reasonable demands in the outline will also be rather telling.--R8R (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why were are discussing a "breach" of BRD as if it's some sort of bright line policy violation or worthy of an ANI over a single instance. If this is a general or discretionary sanctions area with enforced BRD, then that should have been mentioned in the opening statement and further for DS, it would likely be better to bring this up at WP:ARE or in both cases, maybe just speaking personally to the admin who introduced the page restriction. If not, then as always BRD is good practice and and an editor who consistently ignores BRD is likely to be a problem editor but it's dumb to bring an ANI case over a single alleged "breach" since it's not an explicit policy violation let alone a bright-line one. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with R8R's conclusion that this is an issue between me and Sandbh. For example re periodic table: until Dec 25, I have not intervened since Sandbh starting "restructuring" it. Started: Nov 15, -7k, and R8R -15k. So there were serious issues re the editing, and the article is about to loose its FA star—all without me. Also, R8R is playing down the fact that two contributors left. As for ComplexRational's involvement: CR's absense is not a confimation of "no problem"; just read CR's posts in this thread. I think the issue does not need to be brought down to editors instead of edits. btw, I did not 'summon' R8R, but noticed them [93]. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A couple of clarification points: when I said that ComplexRational and I had no problems with Sandbh, I meant no problems that prevented anyone from improving the encyclopedia, rather than mere disapproval. I also note that I did not use the word "summon" to cast negative light onto DePiep; if that's how my wording is perceived (I'm struggling to see how that could be the case, but let's say that's it), please rest assured it wasn't the case. Other than that, I have nothing to add to the comment I've already given without repeating myself.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, 'notification/summoning' misunderstanding is gone. Then re User:R8R. Others might correct me, but I still do not see why this would be about me having to make 1:n agreements or commitments. Unless editors can convince me of usefullness, I am not open for such side-deals. I recall other ELEM editors created side-agreement(s) in November when the CaseRequest was open, and a generic wide open pacification truce R8R and Sandbh did not sign up to. Now here we are. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Too whom it may concern

1. In nearly ten years of editing I have never engaged in edit-warring 2. In 2020, vandalism aside, I made one revert of deleted content, which was re-reverted by DePiep 3. Before making this revert I gave notification of my intention to do so 4. Discussion ensued 5. Only after the editor who deleted my original content agreed to let me edit as I wished, with others commenting, did I revert 6. I subsequently started editing the restored content in response to concerns raised by Double sharp, before being re-reverted 7. Discussion at the WP:ELEM talk page is freely entered into, or ignored

I'll respond to EdChem and R8R's helpful contributions, shortly. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Given R8R is a long-serving member of WP:ELEM he understands what is going on. I support his perspective and comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

​ So am I, so do I. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

​EdChem, thanks.

I only reverted after the discussion of my intent to do so petered out, including a suggested way ahead. I took the absence of further discussion as, effectively, consensus, especially since Double sharp, who deleted my content in the first place, withdrew from the discussion, and said I could edit as I pleased, subject to comments by others. I understand this is custom and practice at WP i.e. re when a discussion peters out.

My revert was not a new bold edit. Any WP editor has the right to revert at any time, as a way of seeking consensus. If DePiep had concerns with my revert he could’ve discussed these at the WP:ELEM talk page. Instead, he re-reverted.

As noted, I’ve never engaged in edit-warring. This year, among other edits, I made some to the periodic table article. Double sharp raised some concerns. In response I initiated the fresh energy for the periodic table article editing exercise. 220+ edits ensued. I subsequently notified my intention to revert just one of Double sharp’s multiple edits. The rest is history.

Re DePiep’s subject matter expertise, I raised this since the reasons for his re-revert, and his subsequent “no” responses to my consensus requests, included content for which he has no subject matter expertise, as he himself has freely admitted. In other words, this is not about content, it is about conduct. In this regard, note that even after Double sharp said I could edit as I pleased, DePiep was still expecting me to seek approval from Double sharp [94]. If that’s not disruptive blocking behaviour, then I don’t know what is.

As to the way ahead, the background to the “dispute” concerns a single article out of the hundreds that WP:ELEM has an interest in, and one revert at that.

As I can’t edit the PT article without being re-reverted, blocked, or reverted by DePiep, I’ve posted four requests for consensus at the WP:ELEM talk page.

As to the way ahead at the WP:ELEM talk page, all discussion there is freely entered into, or not. In the past, some discussion has been quite heated. I no longer engage in that kind of less than polite discussion.

More generally, in terms of “disavowing” DePiep, I simply ask that he contributes to WP:ELEM in a team-building sense, as a member of WP:ELEM, by engaging in discussion before reverting the work of other team members. That is a courtesy Double sharp extended to me, and me to him. Apparently this is courtesy that DePiep has chosen not to extend to me. Once again, this is a conduct issue not a content issue.

Since I’ve asked to withdraw my complaint, and am now engaged in consensus seeking at WP:ELEM, the whole thing has become moot IMO, in any event. @Nil Einne and Games of the world: have expressed similar sentiments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, there is a topic ban proposal being considered, one that has a reasonable chance of passing, so the whole thing is not at all moot.
• What I infer from the above is that
  • you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content
  • DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you
  • that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation
  • that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team
  • that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely
  • that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour
  • that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour

Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem:: thanks for this effort. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you both for your interest.

Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep.

Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in.

DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh?

Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO.

Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down.

OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so.

Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I'm not aware of what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition.

Post near-ArbCom:

• Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented.
• WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch.

I hope this clearly sets things out.

Your thoughts (you too, DePiep)? --- Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a TL;DR. Otherwise, readers might catch the wrong detail/subline as important etc etc. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

and, this is your reply to EdChem's "fair summary?", right? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, it is understood that you oppose any Tban / think it is unwarranted, etc. But, looking at my qustion, is what I posted a fair summary of your view? Or, "accurate / reasonable but for XXX" – in which case, what is XXX? Or, "no" it's inaccurate/ unfair – in which case, how? Or, ...? EdChem (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you. I've turned EdChem's and my responses into a table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem. The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do? --- Sandbh (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: The post in which Sandbh created the table mentioned here has been reverted by DePiep. Further details below. EdChem (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, please no. Don't. Just reply to EdChem's posts. (formal note, Sandbh: I will not take ANI disruptions like this lightly any more). -DePiep (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh I have reverted your tabilisation. Please, just reply. [95] -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC):

• In reply to Levivich's question, which has since been removed, and because it was my post that was restructured and everyone may be confused:
  • Levivich, this is how I posed the question to Sandbh. It was very much meant as an attempt to clarify / summarise the view that Sandbh has of the situation. This was Sandbh's reply, which prompted DePiep to seek a shorter reply and also to post the above 'this is your reply' question. I also sought clarification, which is what prompted Sandbh to reorganise my question / summary and his response into the above table. Perhaps he chose this approach after I moved a comment that he inserted into mine earlier today at WT:ELEM and added a note politely pointing to TPG. I am surprised that this restructuring of my ANI post has occurred and based on the post that DePiep made, I suspect that he is too. I think that the result is that what has happened is only clear by examining the diffs, though undoing the post would also create potential confusion and distract from the point I was seeking to understand – what Sandbh actually sees as the situation. In any case, I thank you for asking and giving me the opportunity to clarify. EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • PS: While typing the above, DePiep has reverted and asked Sanbh to reply conventionally and posted to you. I'm slotting this (after ec) wherever seems plausible. Please, will someone not involved help to keep this on track? EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Yes, it was me reverting Sandbh. Are we OK all? Promise: won't happen again -- by S.). Alle reverts & corrections OK by me (except by Sandbh). -DePiep (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Restoring my content reverted by DePeip

DePiep reverted some content I posted to this board, further to above section, in response to EdChem's questions.[96] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. The last time he and I were here, he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I trust he will extend that courtesy to me now. @EdChem and Levivich:, I'm reposting my reverted content. It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing. Sandbh (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the edit summary? Undid revision 997146585 by Sandbh (talk) this is !vote area, no discussion. )If you want to diuscuss my conclusion?? - go elsewhere.)

"It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing" If your method involves ignoring talk page norms and guidelines for you exclusive benefit, nope, you're not. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Calton, the disruptive revert I referred to was as per the diff. Non-reason given by DePiep was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Sandbh (talk) to last revision by Narky Blert)." Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @EdChem, DePiep, and Levivich: I regret the confusion cause by my IGF refactorisation of EdChem's comments, which has now been undone by DePiep.

I've copied EdChem's 7 to 8 dot point assessment/comments [97] and added my responses into the following table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem.

The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do?

Levivich, the 1-8 items are a verbatim copy of EdChem's comments.

EdChem's assessment & Sandbh's comments

EdChem	Sandbh
1. you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content	Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in.
2. DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you	DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh?
3. that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation	Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO.
4. that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team	See above
5. that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely	Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down.
6. that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour	OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so. Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I don't know what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition. If there are any aspects of my conduct that I've overlooked I'll be pleased to address them.
7. that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour	Post ArbCom, Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented. 2020 has been an exceptionally productive year as far as the PT article goes: 512 edits, more than any year since 2012, which is when we got it back up to FA. WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch.
8. Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)	Some parts of it are fair; for some other parts I've responded above. That's the TLDR, basically.
Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep.

DePiep Stop deleting content posted by others! Vikram Vincent 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• The refactoring that has gone on here makes following it all difficult. DePiep reverting the conversion of my post and Sandbh's response into a table was certainly justifiable. Though it might have been better done by an uninvolved editor, it was necessary – and I say that accepting that Sandbh genuinely did not see it as problematic. Reverting the comment added after DePiep's vote was understandable given it is a !vote section (as calton also noted), though it would again have been better done by an uninvolved editor. However, I don't see the justification for reverting Sandbh's presentation of the table as his chosen response to my question. I was seeking a more concise and brief response, but I can't direct how Sandbh responds and nor can anyone else (so long as the reply is clearly all Sandbh's content, policy compliant, etc). DePiep, I think you are too close to the situation to be doing any more reverting of anything that is not absolutely clear cut. It is adding friction and heat where they are not needed and so I ask that you hold back from reverting and instead ask for someone uninvolved to consider action (which excludes me, of course). EdChem (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: I was pondering an immediate edit block for Sandbh for this page. Their edits were disrupting the discussion full stop, both by rearragning posts and by changing topics &tc. Already multiple ANI reports have gone useless (=made unable to conclude) this way. Needed is an authorty (a cleck?) for this page to keep threads in good order. My goal is to keep this ANI productive. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Help request

I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental health sense; help in in a "how to meet WP expectations" sense. I'm obviously missing something. I have not read any more recent posts, including EdChem's comments above.

Is my goose cooked?

I have asked @EdChem, DePiep, and R8R: for any help they could provide.

thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: I won't be online again until tomorrow morning my time; in about 10 to 12 hours.

My last post

​​​​​​​​​​​ I intend for this to be my last post to this thread.

I don't know what else I can do to express contrition. I've acknowledged my problematic conduct. I've reached out to WP:ELEM colleagues asking for their help. I'm ready to work cooperatively with WP:ELEM members.

Barring further developments I intend to work quietly on seeking consensus at WP:ELEM, and constructively working on related articles of interest.

To everybody here, and to WP:ELEM colleagues, I look forward to 2021 being an improvement on the train-wreck that was 2020.

--- Sandbh (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Further developments in the caliph distruption

I'm pretty sure Arbcom and most admins will be aware of this, but the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has just relit the fire after things were dying down. See [98] (thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for making me aware of this). They are now demanding we remove "misleading, wrong, deceptive and deceitful information through articles published on Wikipedia portraying Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim". Pahunkat (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone helpfully created WP:CALIPH. The "hosting of caricatures of Holy Prophet (PBUH)" is different. I guess it's wait and see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t checked the latest on this development but, if not already done, I think it’s worth semi protecting related talk pages for a short duration and/or the use of an edit filter to send a warn message to non-autoconfirmed users, because editnotices don’t show on mobile. From my recollection in similar past cases, semiprot of talk does not de facto have a knockoff effect. The theory was that it shifts this burden to the Teahouse, but I don’t remember that being significantly true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If we are comparing with SSR, Teahouse had some [99] but Helpdesk had more [100]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, warn edit filter to send a message and revert if people still post nonsense, I guess. Any willing EFMs? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Both ArbCom and the back office are aware of the overall situation, but this is the first I've heard of it heating up again. That's unfortunate. This is just me talking, but I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the both the office and the committee's stance on this is "content issue, take it up with the community." I can alert the functionaries mailing list that this is resurfacing though, more eyes should help. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Edit filter may need to be switched back to disallow if things get out of control. Pahunkat (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• To continue from someone from the last thread: should we try to implement 1RR sanctions per WP:ARBIPA? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• That probably runs into the same issue that led the last thread to dismiss that claim: the very vast majority of these problematic edits are hit-and-runs by a new account that will most likely never edit again, making 1RR solely a burden on good-faith editors and utterly irrelevant to fixing the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I saw, it's indeed generally editors who do nothing except post to a talkpage once or make a single pass at one (or occasionally several) article edits. They have no intent of actually discussing or reading any header, notice, or response--strictly write-only one-time accounts. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

1RR sanctions would not be helpful, as per the Bushranger and my comments on the last thread. Most are hit-and-run so I'd recommend revert and warn, RPP for pages which are constantly targeted and report particularly disruptive editors to AIV (or block if you are an admin). Pahunkat (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate may be needed soon. Every time protection expires we get more people posting here, and it's starting to resurface again after it expired on the 29th. Right now nothing is needed. Pahunkat (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated Editing by User:Amigao

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

I was going to report Amigao for editing warring but I do wonder if this users editing needs further investigation and if they should instead be banned from editing posts regarding depreciation links instead. I came across them because they edited on this article but you can see from their own talk page and their contributions, that the user has issues with this type of editing.

They appear to be editing almost at bot level with no consideration of what they are editing. Removing of links and ignoring things like instead of trying to find reliable sources or tagging instead. It says even on the deprecated sources page that Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.

I'm willing and will look for another source for the quote in article that started this but it was hardly a controversial comment and think Amigao overall editing needs assessment. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 13:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Amigao should be less bot-like in removing deprecated sources. I reverted a careless removal of theirs the other day [101] and I also saw a deprecated source removal that I think was unhelpful in a different article last month [102]. Their most recent contributions list [103] shows them removing four deprecs from four different articles in one minute [104], [105], [106], [107], which is bot territory. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

His approach is highly disruptive as he makes zero effort to replace the sources he's removing. I would support a topic ban on removing sources without providing a replacement. Number 57 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've dropped them a warning per WP:MEATBOT (and WP:DISCUSS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Doesn't seem to have made any difference – they have continued the same behaviour today. Might need a block to get them to engage? Number 57 22:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I've been watching their contributions are they haven't really changed. Still editing at a pace that means they can't really assess the references they are removing. Also shows what have seen previously in that the Amigao just refuses to engage in discussion. Hasn't commented here or on any talk page. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Quite so. Blocked for 24 hours per WP:MEATBOT and WP:ENGAGE. Communication is not optional, it's on them to communicate now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So, while they've slowed down, there's still no attempt being made to replace sources. The comments on their talk page suggest they have zero intention of changing their behaviour, while an unblock request contained a clearly untrue claim that they 'do [their] best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used'. Number 57 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." - Amigao (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that lot of Amigao's post-block deprecated source removals still need cleaning up afterward [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]. I'm not endorsing RT, but most of the examples that Amigao is removing are routine news coverage that's indistinguishable from what can easily be found in reliable sources. Amigao is making no effort to find those other sources, and if this activity were useful it seems like somebody would script a bot to do it [113]. There is no evidence that Amigao understands why their edits are controversial, and it looks like WP:IDHT. [114]. I support a topic ban on removal of deprecs. Geogene (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself." - Amigao (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page and pinged a couple of you. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This seems more like a policy discussion at this stage, similar to the one here Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines in which some on this thread had participated. Removal of an unreliable (deprecated) source does not require "replacement" per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. Oftentimes the underlying content also needs to be removed outright as it was recently with Oleksandr Yefremov. - Amigao (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not over-ride the policy and guidelines concerning deprecated sources (WP:V and WP:RS). Deprecated sources such as RT should not be used outside of extremely limited situations such as WP:ABOUTSELF. The burden and onus are not on those removing an unreliable (deprecated) source, but rather on those seeking to maintain its inclusion. - Amigao (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why the AN/I entry got duplicated, but it wasn't intentional. -- Amigao (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You did the damage in this edit; I have now cleaned up by removing the duplicated section and restoring the one you deleted. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - Amigao (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying this is a "policy discusion", but it isn't. It's quite simple: You've been repeatedly asked by multiple editors to stop mass removing sources without making any effort to provide an alternative, and this is what you should do. If you keep up the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and pretend nothing is wrong, you are either going to banned from doing this, or you will be blocked again. This shouldn't be hard to understand. Number 57 17:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion of removal of unreliable (deprecated) sources. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." This is consistent with my editing concerning unreliable (deprecated) sources. It would be helpful if you could explain why WP:BURDEN would not apply here. Also, you raised similar issues here Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines last month and other editors pointed out that policy was not in your favor. - Amigao (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For additional reference, the deprecated source being removed is RT and here's the May 2020 RfC that found that it was an unreliable source for Wikipedia content: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#RfC:_RT_(Russia_Today). - Amigao (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this is a discussion of your behaviour, hence why it is happening here and not at WP:RSN. If you are really going to continue to not hear what you are being told, it's not going to end well. Number 57 23:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide policy-backed reasons why the behavior in question - removal of unreliable deprecated sources such as RT - is somehow a violation. As stated before, core policies and guidelines like WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources remain in force and these edits are consistent with them. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not change the applicability of WP:V and WP:RS concerning unreliable deprecated sources of disinformation. - Amigao (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide policy-backed reasons the policies in question are WP:MEATBOT, WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, also guidelines/guideline supplements WP:DISRUPT (especially WP:IDHT) and WP:ENGAGE. Bottom line: even if your editing is within policy as written, if it is requested by the community that you stop your actions and engage in a discussion about them, you do do, because the relevant essay is WP:NODEADLINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE is a great essay, but it's not a policy or guideline, and a counterpoint essay to it is WP:NOW. WP:NOW is highly relevant here because it speaks to the urgency of dealing with content that fails WP:V and WP:RS, which deprecated sources almost always do. Also, these edits follow WP:CAUTIOUS because removal of an unreliable deprecated source is seldom a major change to an article. Also, important to note that no one is advocating removal all unreliable deprecated sources because there are limited acceptable uses in WP:ABOUTSELF. The articles on Michael Flynn or Slavoj Žižek are examples of RT being used in a manner consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. As a side note, I think this is a good discussion and we're all working in good faith to improve the verifiability and reliability of the encyclopedia. - Amigao (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Disruptive Editing

• Snake0124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monica Witt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User talk:Snake0124 has been making disruptive edits on Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). Plot summaries are suppose to be brief but Snake0124 keeps adding unnecessary content that either clutters or does not benefit the plot summary (1, 2, 3). Additionally, Snake0124 keeps restoring the following edits repeatedly despite reverts: back in May (1, 2, 3, 4); back in September (1); this month (1, 2, 3, 4). The characters are never referred to as mercenaries or referenced as US former service members but Snake0124 keeps restoring these unfounded edits. If you examine their talk page, you can see Snake0124 has built a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Their reply to my warning (1) makes it clear that Snake0124 has not familiarized themselves with Wiki guidelines despite repeated warnings by other editors. Snake0124 has only been blocked once for 48 hours. A longer block must be enforced. Enough is enough. Armegon (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy, If I had a dollar for every time I saw a content dispute that involved the use of the adjective "terrorist" vs a different word to describe something, I'd be... well... I'd have some spending cash, let's just put it that way. :-) The changes I'm seeing don't seem to significantly alter the article or the section; they just add some words and information to sentences that are being disputed and removed. What I'm also seeing is that the reversion of such additions are being justified with the use of original research. When I see edit summaries such as this one and this one stating things such as "the film says so" and "the film doesn't say so", that doesn't amount to anything without verifiable sources (which may or may not exist). In the end, it looks to be coming down to a "yes it is" and "no it isn't" situation. Have you created a discussion on the article's talk page and asked for input and discussion involving other editors there? There's a protocol that we should be following that will help with this dispute. Forgive me if I missed anything, but I'm not seeing where such a discussion has taken place at all. What you believe isn't benefiting the plot summary might be seen as doing so by others. Resolve things by consensus and go up the ladder in the dispute resolution protocol if you need to. I think filing this report here was a bit premature. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That being said, Snake0124, can you please respond to this ANI and provide any input regarding this dispute? What's going on? How can we come to a consensus and resolve this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think there may issues with Snake0124's edits and apparent ownership of articles, especially regarding plot summaries, which is made more problematic since Snake0124 does not ever use edit summaries, such as with this revert of copyediting: [115]. There also seem to be many examples where they have repeatedly reverted other editors who disagreed with their changes without any edit summary or other explanation. It seems like there at least needs to be some kind of reasoning given by Snake0124 for their edits when they are repeatedly changing content back to their preference. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, it's quite obvious that User:Armegon has no basis for their complaints. They as does all of the other users that have been complaining to me about conducting rather annoying edits from their perspective, obviously never researched nor do they watch any of the films or TV series that have been edited by dozens of other users. Please tell Armegon to supply proof, evidence, common sense, logic to prove and / or verify their complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake0124 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I already have provided "proof, evidence, common sense, logic" to verify my complaints. All the diffs are right there above. If anyone wants further evidence, look at Snake's talk page. They have generated a history of disruptive editing in the span of a single year. I am clearly not the only editor to have found issue with Snake's conduct. Snake must refrain from adding WP:OR content that is not referenced in the film. I removed Snake's edits per WP:FILMPLOT. It clearly states to avoid technical detail and not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. Armegon (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I went to Snake0124's talk page to warn over disruptive editing at Monica Witt and refusing to discuss on that talk page. Instead I found notice of this discussion over the same behavior at a different article. What is the next course of action? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Snake was blocked in August for 48 hours due to adding unsourced content and that clearly wasn't enough. A longer block must be enforced. Perhaps a week? And User talk:Snake0124 must familiarize themselves with Wiki guidelines. Armegon (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Firejuggler86

• Firejuggler86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I see that from July 2019 until recently, Firejuggler86 received nine warnings for disruptive editing. On top of that, I gave them three more warnings yesterday, after I noticed several disruptive edits. Recent problematic edits include:

• Dec 5: Corrupting another user's talk page comment.
• Dec 18: Personal attacks.
• Dec 18: Replacing "Native American" with the (often considered offensive/archaic/inaccurate) "(American) Indian".
• Dec 19: Removing a reference without mentioning its removal in the edit summary.
• Dec 21: Corrupting a different user's talk page comment.
• Dec 26: Shoutily removing a "citation needed" template. (I reverted that, & gave suitable citations.)
• Dec 27, after my warnings: Changing claims attributed to specific cited sources without any indication that those sources support the change.
• Dec 27, after my warnings: Unreasonably asking editors to provide the sources relied upon by a reliable source.
• Dec 30, after my warnings: Replacing a term used by a cited source, with an edit summary questioning the reliability of that source (despite the source's adequately close agreement with other WP:RS cited in the article).

I'm unlikely to have time to clean up after Firejuggler86 indefinitely, and the warnings don't seem to have done the trick, so administrator assistance would be welcome. Zazpot (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 05:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 08:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Firejuggler86 - Can you please respond to the issues being reported here? What's going on? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, I'm afraid I need to take a wikibreak for at least a day or two, so I'm going to have to leave this case entirely in your (or other admins') hands. Apologies for that. If the case is still live when I log back in (and if I have been pinged), I will of course reply at that time. Thanks in advance for your understanding, Zazpot (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Zazpot - No worries! Have a great Wikibreak - we'll make sure this is handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition of CSD tags on articles

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

Recently, I have seen an alert on my userpage as one of the article created being nominated for SD by User:RationalPuff. I have gone through page and seen that it was already reverted. To look into the proper cause of SD, I've gone into the appropriate user's contributors, whose contributions related to SDs for random articles were all reverted. To control this probable mayhem, I placed a warning on his page to avoid unnecessary tagging of articles for SD. For which I got reverted on his page saying, it appears to be WP:BULLY. Although suggesting him to go through WP:FIELD, before nominating random articles, he started targeting the article Venkatesh Gattem stating I have been already receiving ad hominem attack on my talk page from the creator of the article as I previously tagged it for speedy deletion & meatpuppetry/WP:UPE violations.

It is clear that the subject is from same university which I've studied along with. Being personally known to the subject doesn't always mean meat-puppetry, I made it sure that none of the article's data violates Wikipedia NPoV and used resources to support the same. My editing trends clearly says I'm very less active than usual on Wikipedia and may not monitor the progress and debate. And when it comes to article's reason for deletion: The sources clearly state that Guinness World Record was never directly given from the president but the photograph was taken just for representational purpose by the subject. And I generally don't like to debate things, which leads me to choose Demography and Architecture related articles on this website. Can someone please process this PROD, since I may not be available for upcoming days which may result in deletion of article in 7days.--iMahesh (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• You can remove the PROD tag yourself if you disagree with it (WP:CONTESTED), though I suggest that wil simply mean the article being taken to AfD instead. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yes, I can always simply disagree with and remove the Prod but at this point I don't want any kind of Edit-war between us, which will hamper both of our times. Since, I was called WP:BULLY & causing hominem attack by the nominator I think its better for someone else to complete the process.--iMahesh (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note, iMahesh creator of the article Venkatesh Gattem has admitted COI in the above which he never disclosed up until I raised suspicions. This did violate WP:COI regardless it was good faith edit. In this circumstances the iMahesh may not be allowed to do any further edits to the article.RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no absolute restriction on making COI edits. And even then, the fact that this editor personally knows the article subject does not constitute a disruptive COI on its own, nor does failing to mention it until now mean a COI was concealed. I'll note that in this article, you tagged it for G11 despite it not being unambiguous spam. At best it should've been tagged as A7, but I think it's pretty likely the statement about being in the Guinness Book of World Records would count as a WP:CCS sufficient to defeat an A7 nomination. RationalPuff, it seems to me that you were in the wrong here. Please be more careful with CSD tagging in the future. The other complaints about IM3847's behavior are not, in my view, relevant. You're not a new user, so there's no WP:BITE issue. Your knee-jerk description of IM3847's warning as "bullying" is flatly bogus. You don't get to call a single warning template, no matter how incorrectly it was used, bullying. Because, quite frankly, if you can't tolerate harsh, upset, confused reactions from article creators you really shouldn't be doing CSD patrolling. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm actually not impressed with IM3847's use of a level 4 templated warning, but I'm even more disappointed that we have yet another new page patroller with less than 200 edits trying to speedy pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Although actually, quite a lot of the articles they're tagging are quite old. And some of them are clearly non-notable ... Drums Kumaran, for example. There are a lot of articles like this lying around which often go unnoticed for a long time. I would suggest to them that they stick with PROD rather than speedy, however. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • True, Puff isn't making the newbie mistake of targeting articles seconds after creation. But to me Floq's point still rings true in light of just how technical the CSD criteria can be. Like understanding WP:CCS for the A7 family. To inexperienced editors, the legalistic way in which these criteria are used—and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that—can really trip them up. I think that's happened here, and it's why some involvement in other aspects of deletion is probably a better idea before diving into CSD. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Apologies for my ignorance but I genuinely want to understand your point. Is the number of edits only indicaton of ability or is there a guidance that discourage such actions? Anyone can simply rack up loads of edit counts simply sending welcome messages and doing other similar things. Does that make them able or reliable? If so, I would need to rethink how I use my time on Wikipedia going forward. I have been spending quite of personal time, like many others. I do not intend to build an impressive statistics but would rather prefer to contribute productively. Of late I have been focusing on misinformation on Wikipedia and there have been some success parcularly BLP entries via bogus World Records and fake degrees. Tabloid journalism in India make these obscure and hard to spot often. I have strong reasons to doubt nobility and verifiabliry of all CSD/PROD tagged recently. Appreciate your views.RationalPuff (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am generally against new editors doing anti-vandal work, new page patrol, or deletion work. They almost always approach things like a bull in a china shop, and it seems to attract a large percentage of people fascinated by the gamification. Their "learning on the job" can easily chase off productive editors. In a perfect world, these areas are where really experienced people would work, except not many do (including me; i've long since burned out on anti-vandalism). It is not the edit count exactly, it is the edit count as a proxy for experience and/or judgement. I wouldn't be happy to see someone with 2000 welcome templates do this work either. I take Black Kite's point that this isn't actually new page patrol, that was inaccurate on my part. Perhaps I misinterpreted your misuse of WP:BULLY, and instead you are one of the rare limited-experience editors with a firm grasp on deletion policy and that you normally have a thicker skin. Perhaps you have somewhat more experience than 200 edits would imply. Time will tell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, technically not new, since they joined in 2007 — but for all intents and purposes, pretty much. Myself, I don't think I really touched any of that stuff until I became an admin. I think all I did in that first year (2004) was just pure content stuff. Of course, WP:PERM rights didn't exist then. You really had to be an admin to do those things effectively. Anyway, Venkatesh Gattem does seem pretty spammy. Which may well be par for the course for the project; something I find difficult to gauge with confidence one way or the other. El_C 01:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: @Floquenbeam: Thanks for your thoughts above. However, what I gathered so far, it matters less if a deletion request was appropriate at CSD or PROD but more importantly who raised the request. We have seen my PROD too was taken down swiftly and the creator made no efforts to discuss or refute my points despite providing some strong evidence for it, which gives a sense of entitlement. If this is the case "inexperienced" editors straightaway have to go to AFD which again I'm sure will attract criticism for naivety or they perhaps simply choose to ignore issues in the articles lest their arguments are judged by their editcounts/levels. I do think this aspect of subjectiveness requires some deliberation.RationalPuff (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RationalPuff: You misinterpretated it, any one can nominate pages for deletion for a strong reason. But, its better to go with AfD rather than SDs and ProDs in this case. If the article just came out of New Pages feed, you can swiftly nominate it for speedy deletion, but its preferred to go through AfDs for an article older than a months/years. AfDs work better in this case, and its AfD whcih should've been done prior to SD/ProD.--iMahesh (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We have seen my PROD too was taken down swiftly Doesn’t mean anything. Anybody can decline a PROD, even the article creator, and the decline is binding. That it happened quickly is not very surprising given a CSD was declined. the creator made no efforts to discuss or refute my points despite providing some strong evidence for it With respect, I’ve not seen any points you’ve raised, here or elsewhere, that require refutation; I’ve certainly not seen any evidence (let alone strong evidence) you’ve presented of... really anything. If this is the case "inexperienced" editors straightaway have to go to AFD which again I'm sure will attract criticism for naivety or they perhaps simply choose to ignore issues in the articles lest their arguments are judged by their editcounts/levels. I do think this aspect of subjectiveness requires some deliberation. The place for such discussion—the claims of which I reject and which any experienced editor should also reject—is not here on ANI. The bottom line really should’ve been Floq’s point: You should not be doing deletion (particularly speedy deletion) at your level of experience. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:05,p 30 December 2020 (UTC)

drive by comment: I work with a lot of new translations and please please please while we are talking about this how can I propose we do something about the people nominating articles for deletion, perhaps formally require some level of experience for example? I have seen an epidemiologist working with plague and covid-19 described as clearly not notable, another article nominated because it was about a village in Indonesia (I mean, we do villages everywhere else (?)), a sort of Congolese Joan of Arc figure said to be non-notable, and a pioneer in Congolese film —an article I created myself for an cinema of Africa wikithon— described as possibly a joke.

Not to mention the people who said the Panama papers were not notable, just a routine criminal hack. If anyone has a suggestion about how to stop this, I am very open to suggestion. Would an RfC make a difference? I myself very rarely create articles anymore because I seem to inevitably wind up explaining to some British teenager (whose twenty edits are all about cricket or cartoon characters) that someone or something he has never heard of may nonetheless be notable. It’s wearying and no question also intimidates non-English speakers who might otherwise help with the backlog at WP:PNT.

This *definitely* happens more to articles about people with funny names or places where they don’t speak English. I know nothing about this particular incident and apologize for jumping on my soap box in the middle of it, but this is actually a huge problem that is costing us editors. Thank you for reading my wall of text. If someone has a suggestion please get in touch xoxox

TL;DR=inexperienced editors doing AfD do a LOT of harm Elinruby (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Deletionpedia, where one day there will be only two pages left: one on The Sum Total of Human Knowledge, and the other the AfD discussion for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing by EljanM

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

---

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

I have previously warned this user [116] for canvassing another editor with similar views to participate in a move discussion [117] in order to tilt/influence it in a certain way [118] [119] [120]. He blanked the warning soon afterwards [121], and is now canvassing again with regard to another set of move discussions [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, canvassing indeed. The editor mainly participates in RMs related to Azerbaijan. I can't see any point is sending warnings, the editor will just blank their talk page. A short block doesn't guarantee the editor won't stop canvassing after the block is lifted. An IBAN, no, this person seems like the type who will just look for someone else to have them participate in an RM. I think both an IBAN and a TBAN is in order, a IBAN with editors he's pinged or messaged to participate in RMs and a TBAN to anything mainly related to Azerbaijan. Every editor who's been pinged will also get the IBAN notice. Jerm (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And a block if the editor tries to ping or message anyone to participate in an RM. Jerm (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

They have proceeded to completely ignore the warning on their talk page and the discussion here and have left another message thanking one of the canvassed editor for their votes and suggesting they intend to canvas more in the future [130]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being nice by suggesting both an IBAN and a TBAN. Now I think a block is the best option seeing that the editor is ignoring this case and guaranteeing to canvass in the future. Jerm (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for 2 weeks, clear canvassing. If they continue we can consider arbitration enforcement topic ban. Having said this, the results of the discussions like Talk:Çaylaqqala#Requested move 21 December 2020 are currently determined by the number of users one can canvass to these discussions - every Armenian user would support, every Azerbaijani user would oppose, and no other user would even come close to these discussions. Policy-based arguments are typically not used in these discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point those articles are becoming a de facto walled garden. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User Sandy Anugrah not responsive to warnings, not editing collegially

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

I came across this editor when notifying them about the need to use an edit summary, and found five warnings already racked up on their user talk page. When I investigated, I found a typical case: zero talk page edits, never uses an edit summary. Has enough constructive edits to make other editors leave them mostly alone. I don't think this is good enough: WP:CIR. The user is blocked for 1 year on idwiki. Not a long editing history, didn't seem to be a fan of edit summaries there, either. I suspect, nevertheless, that Indonesian is their native language, and they are unable/unwilling to contribute original English, which is kinda a requirement on enwiki. In consulting with @Oshwah: he suggested an AN/I report was warranted. So I think instead of allowing this account to rack up unheeded warnings, we should help them sit up and take notice. Elizium23 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil

Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 2019, multiple warnings have been given to the editor, including being blocked for 24hrs in December 2019, with no effect. Even after the latest warning at Special:MobileDiff/996913355, editor has introduced content not related to the reference being linked at Special:MobileDiff/996964967. I had initially posted to WP:AIV but was redirected here. The bot added this to my report: User is in the category: User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Vikram Vincent 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: has ignored all the warnings, he continues to edit at Special:MobileDiff/997032417, deleting content without an edit summary. Vikram Vincent 18:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Another edit without summary or source at Special:MobileDiff/997429316. No change in behaviour. Vikram Vincent 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The changes being made by @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: to the series of articles are either unsourced or unrelated to the reference. Plus, they are spread over a long period of time. The editor refuses to engage on any of the talk pages or his own talk page. Any way to get his attention? Vikram Vincent 05:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach

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

My concern is that User:TylerKutschbach appears to be adding huge amounts of unsourced election results to US city and county articles. This is an active editor who has made almost 14,000 edits in 2020, mostly to add election results or change demographic data. Of a total 22,022 edits, just 11 have been on a talk page.

Yesterday I noticed this edit where TylerKutschbach added the results of the 1880 United States presidential election. This source was already in the article (though with an access date of 2018-07-03), so I assumed the edit was sourced by that link. When I visited the source cited, I was unable to locate those specific 1880 election results.

I started a discussion User talk:TylerKutschbach#Kenton County, Kentucky:

• [131] - I asked where to find the 1880 election results in the source cited.
• [132] - TylerKutschbach responded, "You can look at the Wikipedia page for the 1880 county results for Kentucky".
• [133] - I told TylerKutschbach that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and again asked where in the source cited I could find the 1880 election results.
• [134] - When TylerKutschbach continued to edit articles about election results, I asked again where to find the 1880 election results in the source cited.
• [135] - TylerKutschbach responded "The user Luokehao found the results on US Election Atlas".
• [136] - I asked again for clarification.

TylerKutschbach then reverted three edits to restore content about election results: [137][138][139].

Similar past edits:

• [140] - last November
• [141] - last October
• [142] - last September

Warnings this past year about unsourced content:

• [143] - User:David J Johnson
• [144] - User:SounderBruce
• [145] - User:Schazjmd

Previous ANI reports:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User:TylerKutschbach
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#User:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my warning was about introducing incorrect information; TK reverted my revert with an explanation in the edit summary, and when I looked more closely at the pre-existing source, I agreed with TK's edit, so my initial revert was incorrect. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have been adding county election results from 1880 to 1908 because I saw the results on Wikipedia and someone added the results for each county by viewing US Election Atlas. TylerKutschbach

There's an issue here; the results are not on US Election Atlas as TylerKutschbach is repeatedly claiming. They are on Wikipedia, sourced to http://geoelections.free.fr/ , which sources them from W. D. Burnham : Presidential Ballots, 1836-1892. That book is available through the Internet Archive; I can verify the major-party results for Kenton County, Kentucky for 1880 are as presented in that book, though the third-party data is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach continues to revert edits which remove the unsourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil personal Attack and unsourced POV Pusher

• AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adminitartor should review edits made by User:AMomen88! This new user vandalizing page with unsourced edits like Bangladesh( SEE edits history) , removing other user edits (see Cabinet of Bangladesh talk page) despite warning from other experienced users und made uncivil personal attacks like this here [this.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barind#Comments]. It is a request, admin need to take his uncivil behavior seriously, punishment needed here as warning not working to ensure comfort for other civil users and the sake of WIKI. A topic ban on Bangladesh related pages for constantly Vandal edits and block for gross personal attacks are needed. Thanks in advance –2A0A:A546:7CA7:0:7DF7:94C7:1576:9460 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC). Signature added by Barind (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please log into your account when you make a complaint such as this. Also, you are require to notify AMomen88 of this complaint which is stated in a brightly colored box you should have seen when you added your complaint to this page. I have done this for you. But since you logged out of your regular editing account to post this and provided no diffs/edits, only links to pages, I'm not sure how seriously this will be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I advise the administrator to read the deeply personal and offensive remarks that Barind made towards me on the Cabinet of Bangladesh talk page. It is obvious that this editor is using multiple accounts (something he has previously been blocked for). AMomen88 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I refer to the administrator Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barind/Archive which shows the user has a long history of using personal attacks and abusing policy. I advise action is taken to prevent further violations of Wikipedia policy. AMomen88 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Liz, unfortunately I can’t login while I’m not on desktop and not regular here due to pandemic works- (already in account page mentioned). You can read here some c words [146]. If you thing such bad words acceptable here then I’ve no words to say!! Edits against sources see here [147] again [148], other user edits removed by him here [149] [150], just take a look his edit history not constructive at all n most of them already removed by many users. You’re most welcome to use check user for both. If you find any sock activities you may block. Have hardly time for one account. Using multiple accounts out of question!- Barind (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The only "c words" I can see at the link you provide are "comments", "charlatan" and "challenged". If it's those to which you're referring, then yes, we find such words acceptable here. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the whole situation yet, but I would say that referring to another editor as "intellectually challenged" seems to violate WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that comment was in response to this one. Under the circumstances I'd allow a fair amount of "if you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it" leeway. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the decision of the administrators. It is self-evident that the now former editor is more than prepared to dish out criticism, but takes great offence when criticism is dished out to them. Thanks AMomen88 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: It appears Barind has retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 19:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• @AMomen88:, consider yourself officially warned that posts like this are personal attacks and are prohibited by policy; if that behavior recurs you are likely to wind up blocked. Beyond that, the OP has departed the premises so this should be closable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger:, Apologies for any unbecoming comments. I hope you understand they were in response to personal comments directed towards me (as noted by an administrator). If Barind was still an active user, I hope he would of faced the same sanction.

Loves Woolf1882

• Loves Woolf1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Truth gatekeeper)

A topic ban on Ethiopia-related topics, especially Tigray conflict, Mai Kadra massacre, Awol Allo, Abiy Ahmed, should be considered for this user on the grounds that other users need an excessive amount of patience in order to obtain editing consensus and have already been discouraged from editing. This editor has provided some references and POVs (pro-TPLF, anti-Abiy Ahmed, anti-ENDF) that were absent from these pages. So a topic ban to protect other editors and to protect the consistency of content with Wikipedia guidelines should be weighed against the user's positive role in diversifying the POVs in the articles. There are currently discretionary sanctions on Horn of Africa articles.

Past editing behaviour (2019):

• Concerns in early 2019: WP:OVERLINK; POV editing; difficulty in writing article text matching the sources; difficulty in separating self-declared POV from editorial choices; WP:OR; adding massive amounts of material to talk pages that make it difficult to focus and resolve specific points; edit war; Doug Weller and Drmies lost patience, and Doug titled one section as Timesink;
• Blocked; created a sockpuppet to avoid the block; requested unblocking unsuccessfully in March 2019; unblocked on 9 December 2020.

Recent editing behaviour (Dec 2020). Given the complex nature of editing Tigray conflict (lots of text to be consense on), I tried to obtain consensus in simpler cases.

• Tigray conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The current state of the talk page is difficult for any editor to work through because of the massive amounts of quotes and text that include errors and distract from specific editing.
  • The current POV tag on Tigray conflict was posted by Jogarz1921 in response to edits to the lead by Loves_Woolf1882. The corresponding talk page section describing the lead as too pro-TPLF led to a response by Loves_Woolf1882 with a long list of points and a list of references with big quotes, in which Loves_Woolf1882 complained that the article was not sufficiently pro-TPLF.
  • Small text example: In this talk page response, Loves_Woolf1882 has failed to understand that while adding quotes around "invaders" matches the source, the effect in the infobox gives the impression that Wikipedia is pro-TPLF. S/he insists on keeping "invaders".
• Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (simpler article)
  • Loves_Woolf1882 inserted a POV tag on Mai Kadra massacre, which (prior to his/her involvement) gave as much weight to news media interviews with refugees (anti-ENDF) as to preliminary enquiries by human rights organisations (AI, EHRC); the user gave a list of 11 references among which 5 failed to support the claim of new Mai-Kadra-massacre anti-ENDF sources; 1 supported the claim; 4 were video/audio sources; 1 source was redundant. Loves_Woolf1882 then gave massive quotes from the same sources, and added a 12th source. S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline. S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows; and still posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors.
  • This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims, per the sources, on the grounds that one source (Amnesty) talked about a "possibility"; and inserted original research "thoug[h] there is not ethnic group called Welkait-";
• Awol Allo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (another simple case):
  • I created the Awol Allo article so that this notable living person, currently anti-Abiy, could have an NPOVed and properly sourced article. The current talk page shows how much work it was to try to convince Loves_Woolf1882 about WP:OVERCITE and WP:SYNTH. The current compromise on one issue is that we have: "Awol stated in international media outlets like Al Jazeera, CNN and the BBC criticising what he saw as Abiy's growing authoritarianism, the repression of journalists and political dissidents in Ethiopia.[2] (For claims of growing authoritarianism under Abiy in 2020, see: [4][5][6][7][8][9])" in the article text. To avoid WP:OWN and an endless talk page argument, it would be risky for me to delete "(For claims of growing authoritarianism under Abiy in 2020, see: [4][5][6][7][8][9])". See also this WP:OVERCITE problem in the same article due to this same user: against those who resisted' Abiy's program.[4][5][6][7][8][9][11].

Obtaining consensus on small amounts of text on very specific issues with few editors on Mai Kadra massacre and Awol Allo was highly time-consuming and some results still violate policy. I feel that many Wikipedians have been discouraged from trying to handle the POV tag at Tigray conflict. I myself feel discouraged from creating related articles that, by their NPOVed, RSed content might quite likely be seen as anti-Abiy (which does not imply pro-TPLF), because I don't want to start off articles that would either become talk-page timesinks or diatribes in terms of content. A topic ban for a reasonable period (one month? six months?) would allow the user to learn WP:NPOV and summarising of content on topics that s/he doesn't feel involved in. All the same, it would be a pity to block a user whose discussions and edits do contain some valid new material. Boud (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this editor does not seem to be aware of the Horn of Africa DS. But if they were, this could go to WP:AE which is usually a better venue for dealing with this stuff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I don't think any of the "awareness" criteria were met--unfortunately. But it's a new case, of course, and I had to be reminded that it existed. I just placed the notification on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As i recall, during the unblock discussion on the other board, at least some mention was made of both the possibility of a topic ban and the issue with the editing attitude the previous name suggested, and i know that Loves Woolf was following it because a number of people who commented in it (including me) were pinged. They are, at the very least, aware of the fact that the Horn of Africa is a problematic area, even if not specifically of the DS. Myself, i suggest we keep this here, where Boud has brought it, and impose a thirty day topic ban; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

DS set aside, we can decide here on a topic ban. I favor one, including from the talk pages, and for more than 30 days. Boud has been doing a yeoman's job trying to solve this the collegial way, with no obvious result. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a doctor of things (not as clever as Dr. Biden, but still), so I'll drop my diagnosis here, briefly: this is a topic area that suffers from Wikipedia's slant toward Western, English, etc. topics. There is no large community of editors that can help filter things--content and editors--and so one single person (like Middayexpress) can have a much larger influence on a set of articles than in other topic areas. And there is no quality baseline for many articles, in terms of content, NPOV, and writing quality. These problems will not be solved until Wikipedia manages to attract more knowledgeable editors, both from the geographical area and from academia. Obviously the language (availability of sources in English) is a huge problem also. All the more reason for the WMF to do more to broaden our editorial field. How this can be done, I don't know, but it needs to be done. Our geographical/geopolitical bias really hurts us. Language education all throughout the West, where the majority of editors hail from, would help. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

* Hi Boud, about my past, I have already discussed this in details with the Administrators before. I don't think it is fair to bring things back after 2 years.

* Dear Administrators, many of User:Boud's points, I have before responded to on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag), so I please ask you read that first. With all due respect, User:Boud is misrepresenting my points here. My original NPOV complaint points can also be found above it on the same talk page (Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD)

* User:Boud is saying that adding in quotation "invaders" as exactly stated on the France 24 reference was wrong of me to do (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). However, I first explained on the Tigray conflict page LEAD that "invaders" was the term used by the TPLF(diff), and I put it in quotation at both the LEAD and the Info-box. I assume the Info-box should summarize the content of the page/LEAD. I have responded to this before on Talk:Tigray conflict#POV in the infobox.

* User:Boud said "S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that 'TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows'". However what Boud said is not correct, this not my POV point (and this “reply” line I once said when he accused me of degrading TPLF, is completely being used out of context, as I'll explain here). My NPOV points are the once I listed the link to above (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag and WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD). I even said this reply line only once to him/her when Boud said I like degraded TPLF by calling them "some party". I clarified this for Boud before on December 26, 2020:- "I believe you first said, I like degraded them by calling TPLF "some party", so I was just trying to undo the degrading". This was the last line on this link discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic ). Boud, first accused me of degrading TPLF by calling them "some party", then when I reply a 2nd sentence to undo my alleged TPLF degrading 1st statement, Boud says my 2nd new sentence is pro-TPLF and he posts it all over the place, including here. Now he is even saying that my this one reply sentence is the justification for my NPOV complaint, however, this is not true, and I have written the two links to the real justification of the NPOV tag I placed.

* Some of my suggestion are even ani-TPLF. For example, in Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag, I made the point that the Amnesty international report incriminated TPLF (not the Samri youth group). I asked things to be stated as on the Amnesty report (which said "forces loyal to the TPLF"), not Samri, and for the WP:SYNTH to be corrected. Implicating TPLF directly instead of Samri, thereby being anti-TPLF.

* Boud said "This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims...ethnic group called Welkait...". It is funny that Boud thanked me for correcting his this WP:SYNTH mistake on the talk page before, but now brings it here differently. Please admins read the flowing subsection about this point from the talk page, for fairness sake:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic

* Boud said "S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline." Again User:Boud, with all due respect I have answered this on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag. You said videos are difficult to check and wanted them (or wanted once that are already) transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. I have understood what the the WP:PUBLISHED guideline says, and it does not exclude the use of videos that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party, like the once I used. They are broadcasted but not yet archived (and it's not a requirement to archive them first). I asked for others (or your) "help" on how to archive them (until I figure out how to do them myself), but they still can be used as is according to WP:CITEVIDEO (since they were broadcasted by a reputable party).

* Even though Boud says that only 1 of my 15 recommended very credible articles is relevant, that is not true at all. I have before listed the relevant parts from all the 15 articles here:- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Replay to "Sources for perpetrators or victims of Mai Kadra massacre". And I even made a shortlist of only 5 specific once to include in the Mai Kadra massacre Wikipedia page (not counting the videos), as you read on the link above :- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag).

* All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News , Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets "inimical journalists" and "Yellow journalism". He does not agree with the addition of any content from the 15 articles because these are outlets which he calls "foreign propaganda outlets":- Talk:Tigray conflict#Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason

* As you may have read my compliant on the first bold link I wrote above:- what could be a better justification for NPOV tag than presenting the side of only one. The page only has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre##Federal government point of view) and gives the accusation of the one side (the federal government). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. The page also lacks significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic; and I have short listed 5 published reliable sources to added (and 1 or 2 video, giving the NBC News video a priority).

* Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.

* It is not fair to block me because of things that happened 2 years ago. Please review User:Boud's report and my response independently and decide if I did something wrong worthy of a block. Thank you. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Ultimateoutsider

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

User:Ultimateoutsider has serious WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and keeps on edit warring despite requests to gain consensus in respective article talk pages

• Added/replaced images in Mumbai, a GA-status article. But when reverted, engaged in edit warring. In the talk page when asked to abide by BRD, the user proposed some sort of bargain/compromise here as per which they will not edit the article of Mumbai if User:Prolix doesn't revert his bold changes in Delhi articles. When I told again reiterated about BRD, [151], this was the reply.
• Similar edit warring at New Delhi since 27 December, without engaging in discussion.
• Edit warred in Kokata article here, here. On top of that WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:OWN behavior at comment section, notably calling Prolix a loser and a crybaby here.
• Today, they restored unsourced content, reverting my edit here in the Karnal article. When warned about unsourced additions and notified in their talk page again, they retorted with a typical "this is my home city... I know more than everybody in Wikipedia" [152], [153]. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space.

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Ultimateoutsider, you need to get serious about communicating and following our guidelines. You need to start giving clear edit summaries of what you are doing (in most cases they are lacking completely) and you need to stop edit warring. What I see on Talk:Kolkata could technically be called "discussion", but in reality it's mostly yelling and personal attacks, and if you can't stop making it personal, then that's a third reason for any admin to block you. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. The edit warring and incivility must stop, and the communication and positive collaboration with other editors need to improve. If it doesn't, you will be blocked from editing. I don't want it to come to this; please respond to this ANI report and tell us what's going on and why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and Oshwah: Please see this personal attack today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had enough. Blocked for 48 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah:Take a look at this. Sigh... - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk - Whelp, there you go. This user's true colors are right there. Obviously they don't care or want to contribute to this project. I'll keep the 48 hour block; any admin is welcome to change the block without my input or blessing beforehand. Let me know if (or when) things continue, and the user will be blocked indefinitely. I'm hoping they're just letting off steam and will actually contribute positively to this project. Likely? No. Hopefully? Yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. It is also possible they'll try to disrupt using IPs. I'll notify you if that happens. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk - Please do. I'll be happy to show this user the door if they decide to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Yup, definitely. Thanks again . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Retired"--hmm. Thanks Oshwah. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresenting source and harassment of user

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

At Germans, they made a long edit (diff) including the claim that immigration has eroded the German social fabric and labor market. However, the source attributed that erosion to "globalization and the attendant neoliberal shift in economic policies". I detailed that problem at Talk:Germans#Misrepresentation of sources in line with far-right discourse (diff of my comment), (diff of their answer).

I feel personally harassed by them, because they alleged that I am on a campaign to cleanse Wikipedia of racism - meaning that they tracked my edits - and seemed to insinuate that I do POV edits in order to make Germany a more harmonious society (diff containing both quotes). The most recent case, but in my opinion not as serious as the former, was misrepresenting my position and ridiculing it by linking to WP:NOTDIC (diff). --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t read Krakkos’ comment about “cleans[ing] Wikipedia of racism” as being an allegation or accusation, but something of a compliment. Here’s a key quotation from the discussion: Abolishing German ethnicity may make Germany a more harmonious society, but erasing Wikipedia's coverage on the German ethnicity will certainly make Wikipedia less informative. (emphasis supplied). This is, at a glance (given how large the edits are here) my understanding of the dispute: You disagree with Krakkos’ edits as perhaps supporting a far-right agenda. Krakkos disagrees with your edits as an attempt to whitewash German history. To me, that’s a content dispute, and not the appropriate subject of a complaint here. The framing of this as harassment, with respect, strikes me as a case of selective quotation. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Johannes Moser writes in his encyclopedic entry article on Germans (page 175) that key challenges facing modern German society include globalization, neoliberalism, immigration and environmental changes, and that the social fabric and labor market has been eroded. I thought this was significant information which should be in our article about Germans. I wrote that the alleged social erosion was a result of both globalization and immigration. Your claim that i presented the social erosion only as a result of immigration is a misrepresentation of what i wrote, as can be seen from the diff. In retrospect, perhaps i should have mentioned all challenges mentioned by Moser in the same order as he did. In any regards, your outright removal of Moser's comments was not constructive.[154]

My comment on anti-racism was intended as a compliment. That you are strongly opposed to racism is the general impression from your user page and your comments at Talk:Germans. I strongly sympathize with your opposition to racism.

My note that you have advocated a dictionary definition for the Germans is not harassment. See Talk:Germans#Results of the RfC and this diff[155] for details. What is clearly harassment however, are your allegations that i edit "in line with far-right discourse" and have a "connection" to Hitler.[156] These are clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

Note that Rsk6400 was warned by EdJohnston four weeks ago after edit warring with KIENGIR at Germans. Despite the warning, Rsk6400 has continued to edit war not just by blanking material added by me,[157] but also by continuing to revert changes by KIENGIR.[158][159] Krakkos (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged in this discussion. I sorry to see this in the end of the year. With much respect, but Rsk6400's dislike of some community feedback and content issues not the first time ends up in a personal way (sometimes with quite strange "conclusions"&assertions - btw., about these hilarious "cleanse racism" accusations I expressed my opinion more times in the relevant talk page), which I find not helpful and contructive (given the fact we have at more pages WP compliant discussions with evidence, and in the end civilized way the content issues are being discussed and even reviewed by many fellow editors). This report is pointless, because by any means the issue would be a content issue, which is not the subject of a noticeboard report. What I can tell, Krakkos is a quality contributor in our community, and I could always work out a fine consensus with him. This report should be closed. More Happy and Peaceful New Year with lots of Happy Editing I wish all members of our community!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

Someone saying that you are on a "campaign to cleanse Wikipedia of racism" (which has already been clarified by Krakkos) and to think that they have tracked your contributions is not harassment. I also see this report pointless and I doubt it will accomplish anything. For not saying that, as Krakkos has mentioned, you too have made certain allegations. Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Having looked over this discussion, I can't help but agree that that distinct whistling noise is the sound of an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I don't think it's a BOOMERANG case. Except you, me, and the IP, all contributors so far have been on the same side of the dispute at Talk:Germans. I was warned, but against making reverts of the lead, see here. Both KIENGIR and I complied, but made edits to the rest of the article. I didn't say that Krakkos has a "connection" to Hitler, but that the connection between the Holocaust and the war had also been made by Hitler, see diff. no. 179 above. And yes, presenting the politically very sensitive issue of immigration in the voice of WP as cause of the erosion of the German social fabric is "in line with far-right discourse". I think, the source[160] has been misrepresented in a disruptive way. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy

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

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)

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 [161] 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 [162] 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.[163] 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 [164] 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 [165] 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 Well you also do this in which you go state attempt to defend well known Soviet pseudo intelectual who denies Soviet attrocities. 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)

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.

• 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 [166], [167], [168], 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)

• 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.[169] 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 [170] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE." [171][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 IIRC 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)
• 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 controversials 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

Disruptive editing by 78.60.127.225

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

This IP appeared earlier today (December 31, 2020) and began editing multiple professional wrestling event articles, changing sourced information, such as the results of matches to incorrect results. I went through their edit history and reverted them, but about 2 hours ago from time of this post, they came back and are performing the same disruptive edits that I have again reverted. The only thing they leave in their edit summary is "streaks" (I have no idea what they're trying to convey by that). If this was a one-off incident on one or two articles, I would have tried to reach out to them on their talk page, but this is blatant vandalism.

Full user contribution history for 78.60.127.225, where you can see the amount of disruptive edits they have done.

A few examples of them changing information to incorrect results:

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3
• Example 4

--JDC808 ♫ 15:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia of alternate reality

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

---

Hi. Just looking for some other opinions about what should be done (if anything) about a user who appears to be creating an Wikipedia of alternate reality in their user space. I suspect this is the same user who I've stumbled across before, using a different account name, because of the similarities to the articles and topics.

Their contributions can be see here. As you can see, quite a few articles in their user space of impressively detailed, but fictional, accounts of things like tennis tournaments, military battles and the Eurovision song contest.

I would consider that WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE apply, and perhaps WP:SOCK. But otherwise they appear to be harmless, and it could be argued they are using their sandbox appropriately to learn Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This shows that 97.5% of their edits (2,523) are in their user space, with only a tiny number on actual articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer is likely Sallysnail4 – Thjarkur (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed as clear sockpuppet of Sallysnail4. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

JMyrleFuller continued unsourced WP:CBALL edits

JMyrleFuller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continued CBALL edits following ANI in January 2020.

• 2020 NFL season Revision as of 22:14, 30 December 2020
• 2020 NFL season Revision as of 10:07, 31 December 2020

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#JMyrleFuller pattern of unsourced and WP:CBALL edits. AldezD (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Block

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

---

I was wondering if an admin could indefinitely block and revoke access to the talk page of this account? I'm too busy and frustrated to continue to be on here. Thanks a lot. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, can be lifted by anyone at any time upon request (which will obviously have to go through UTRS or email) without needing to contact me first. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:David

Will someone close Talk:David#Triplestein?. I'm fed up with too much talk and no verifiable quotes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By my count, there were a dozen verifiable quotes. Keep in mind, Tgeorg has already tried to shut down the talk page on this point under claims of the point being fringe, but it turned out that half the scholars in the field adhered to what Tgeorg claimed was "fringe".Editshmedt (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Provide a verifiable quote that David ruled over Samaria or leave the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have provided half a dozen archaeological papers and quotes suggesting verification of a general region called the United Monarchy. I am at a loss for words why you're demanding a quote that specifies one specific obscure city within the entire general region belonged to the polity.Editshmedt (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: Tgeorg, you are honestly one of the dumbest guys I've ever talked to. You need to calm down and read WP:NPA. We can quibble over whether David should be characterized as a chieftain, tribal leader, or king forever, but it is irrelevant. Can you find me a source that unequivocally states that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria? If you can'ta, then I don't think you have a leg to stand on. ImTheIP (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h for personal attacks--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I've just wasted ten minutes of my life going over the "discussion" there. This is clearly a content dispute in which you two are talking past each other far too much. I would suggest an RFC in which you would both state your positions and then withdraw to let others have their say. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I have a similar impression--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing accusations by M.Bitton

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

---

Hi, I just wanted to point out that M.Bitton is accusing myself of canvassing Flaspec on this page to help his point in objecting a change in this article (see TP). It seems clear that he might be attempting slander, possibly to delegitimize my variability because he objects to the proposed change and help his point. I will make myself clear that I was not canvassing Flaspec, the message that I left on his talk page was a request to explore that option, as it had zero influence on what his opinion/view might be (the fact that he uploaded this file before I was on his TP in the first place). I should also add that him and I have had a disagreement before on my Commons talk page, so M.Bitton's claims are baseless. Please have a word with him and let him know that accusations of canvassing are not appropriate and necessary to make a point on an article's talk page. EdDakhla 22:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

First things first: can you translate the messages[172] that Flaspec left you on your Commons talk page (so that everyone understands)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I can't translate it word by word because it is too much and transliterated, used latin characters to depict Maghrebi Arabic. Flaspec told me that he's "with me" and that we should show Western Sahara as part of Morocco, (even though it didn't have much to do with this projection which was just changing the projection view, not borders, so he disagreed with the revert I made (see TP section title). I said showing Western Sahara as part of Morocco is a good idea but we can't do that for that particular file because of it's filename and would be a violation of guidelines plus no consensus was reached. The main point is, he expressed that several days before I went onto his talk page (see date), so there was no canvassing that occured like @M.Bitton alleges. EdDakhla 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You missed this part: Che7al hadi kanet l5arita dial bladna fiha sa7ra bel gris fe7al ila raha machi dialna tamaman. Jit ana 3melt upload jdid fih el 5arita dial l'mghrib b sa7ra dialo mesbogha bel 5edar meftoo7. We menbe3d bedelt smiya dial el File le9dim (eli fih sa7ra gris) b smiya dial had el File jdid (eli fih sa7ra mesbogha bel 5edar meftoo7) f nit les articles b loghat kamlin dial Wikipedia (logha toorkiya, logha hindiyya, etc...). Hadi hia a7ssan tari9a bach tzid sa7era lel 5arita dial l'mghrib w ila hder chi 7ankoor jawbo 9ollo upload your version in a separate file. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

How do you know what I have missed or may not missed? He says "there has been a map of our country missing the Sahara region for a long time, colored in grey as if though it is not ours. I came and uploaded a new file (highlighted the Sahara in a lighter green) and put it in Wikipedia articles of all languages (Turkish language, Hindi, etc...). (Referring to his preferred version of the projection) This is the best way to show the Sahara to the map of Morocco or someone else will respond by saying upload your own version in a separate file". @M.Bitton, clearly you understand if you knew exactly what I missed out, but it's just further helping my case that your canvassing claim is baseless. EdDakhla 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That and more that you have "missed". The bottom line is that you contacted someone whose views (nationalistic POV pushing) are clearly in line with yours. They created a baseless POV map and just like they said, they added it to over 40 wiki projects in one sitting (replacing long-standing maps with theirs). It's very hard to believe that your message is anything but canvassing given what they told you and what happened on Commons (long term edit warring over maps and personal attacks that got you first account blocked, and finally lying and socking that got you indefed). I will ping some of the editors, @De728631, Jeff G., and TommyG:, who are familiar with your modus operandi and who may have something to say about what appears to be cross-wiki abuse. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop editing other people's comments. This isn't the first time as you did the same thing in your "first" comment (where you removed all the IP's signatures). M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you may be a little out of touch with reality if you're gonna bring up some irrelevant allegation that I am a sockpuppet of another user who was distruptive because of a baseless suspecion. If you want to talk about "baseless nationalistic POV pushing", let's take a look at your contributions and it becomes increasingly evident that you are POV pushing nationalist views on Algeria, as well as obssessive and abusive edit/revert history to strongly impose a pro-Polisario agenda (constantly defiling ANY file that may include an portion of Western Sahara as part of Morocco). Let's add that the editor you're alleging me to be does not even exist on this wiki and has nothing to do with "cross wiki" or "abuse". As for "removing someone's comment", I made a mistake because I was trying to add my response but there was an edit conflict. Quite frankly this is moronic at this point. EdDakhla 23:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Enough, EdDakhla — stop projecting. You are the one who seems to be POV pushing, not M.Bitton. M.Bitton is a long-time editor in good standing, you are a brand new user seemingly here to advance (including via WP:CANVASS) the Moroccan claim to Western Sahara. I am struggling to think of a reason of why you should not be indefinitely blocked with immediate effect, in fact. El_C 01:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El_C, Why should I be indefinitely blocked? I've made one edit considered "edit warring" and have since stopped. I have not personally attacked M.Bitton, and I suggest reviewing my contributions and you will see that I am not here just to "advance the Moroccan claim to Western Sahara". I should not be blocked based on a baseless allegation that I am another editor who does not even exist on this wiki, as that suspicion is pure speculation. EdDakhla 01:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the sock-puppetry, EdDakhla has a history of socking and lying about it. When suspected by Mathglot of not being a new editor, their reply on the 25th (4 days before being indefed for socking on Commons) was clearly a lie, just like the other lie on Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EdDakhla, I'm not really up to speed about the socking claim, but in any case, it would not be an WP:EW or a WP:SOCK block. It would be a WP:DE one, including but not limited to WP:CANVASS and WP:NLT violations. And no, I'm not going to examine each and every one of your contributions (like the full set of it, unprompted) — even though there aren't that many, that isn't a reasonable expectation. El_C 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The socking claim is certified baseless nonsense and just an unproven suspicion. I did not lie to Mathglot, as I am not the other editor from commons I'm being accused of socking. Need I say that the editor this guy is alleging me of socking has never existed or made an edit to this Wiki, and now accusations of lying, let's add that piling up in the list of personal attacks made by M.Bitton, certainly those blockable offenses. Regardless of what his "reputation" might be. EdDakhla 02:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What "offences"? "Lying" when? "Personal attacks" (list or otherwise) where? "Certified" how? By whom? You do realize that without accompanying these grievances with a WP:DIFF-derived evidentiary basis, there's simply isn't much to go on. Although, I will emphasize that WP:SPI ought to be the principal venue to request an investigation into socking. El_C 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Sure, open an investigation about me sockpuppeting. I am not the least worried because I have absolutely nothing to hide (especially on Wikipedia). As for "lying", you can clearly see M.Bitton is accusing me of that with invalid, and speculation based "evidence" (baseless). Personal attacks on Wikipedia talk pages are "offences" as far as I'm concerned. EdDakhla 02:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Because regards of opening a (baseless) investigation about me doing sockpuppetry on this wiki, the initial topic of this section of has drifted to something irrelevant. If you wish to open a section of my (false) alleged socket, feel free to do so in WP:SPI. EdDakhla 02:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. False claims can be considered personal attacks, but once you post here your behavior is just as open to scrutiny as the person you brought here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not archive this report, EdDakhla. Unless you have WP:DIFFs that support what you're saying, it's probably best you say nothing. El_C 02:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as I am the topic of discussion, you can bet I won't "stay silent", especially against absurd false claims. EdDakhla 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No evidence — no consideration. El_C 02:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdDakhla: if you're not going to "stay silent", you really should explain why your edits did not violate our canvassing guidelines. The point of our canvassing guidelines is that you should only make neutral notifications and the selection of who you notify should also be neutral. It seems clear that this didn't happen here, in fact you had good reason to think Flaspec's views were akin to your own and although they may have been the creator of the image, I'm not sure this is enough to justify you talking to them about adding it to another article. Selectively notifying editors who's views are akin to your own is one of the most common forms of canvassing. You obviously didn't know exactly what Flaspec would say in the discuss. But no one who canvasses ever does except in very very unusual circumstances. I personally normally wouldn't make a big deal over canvassing a single editor, still this seems to be a relatively inactive discussion so a single editor's comments may make a big difference into how it's perceived. More to the point, we're here because you opened a thread on ANI claiming you didn't canvass rather than because someone came here to complain you did. If you're unable to explain why your messages to Flaspec shouldn't be considered canvassing, then you should just apologise for your mistakes and perhaps we can move on. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, you've made a fair point and I probably did fail to prove I wasn't "canvassing" (I didn't even know what that was until today), so I apologise then. But I think we should also hear Flaspec's view on this before coming to a final conclusion. EdDakhla 04:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So, you apologize, but you also want to wait? I also like cake. No, the canvassing matter was already concluded when I made my first comment to this thread. I'm telling you that it was canvassing, which, now that you know what it is, just don't do it again. El_C 05:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your sarcasm wasn't taken well. I have not had any cake as I haven't achieved anything from this (if anything, this only panned out bad for me). Fine, close/archive this discussion then if "the matter is concluded" if you believe that. EdDakhla 05:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nil: If you're unable to explain why your messages to Flaspec shouldn't be considered canvassing, then you should just apologise for your mistakes and perhaps we can move on.

You: so I apologise then. But I think we should also hear Flaspec's view on this before coming to a final conclusion.

Me: I also like cake.

Anyway, the CANVASS matter is a done deal. Whether other components of this dispute merit further examination remains to be seen. For my part, if I am the one to close this thread, I will do so at a time of my choosing. El_C 05:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I don't want to get too deep into the content end of things, but now I'm thinking maybe what EdDakhla is saying is not without merit. I was looking at one of your edits which really gives me pause. It involves you having removed "Algeria-backed" from 2020 Western Saharan clashes. Then there's the discussion on the talk page (such as it is), which also does not inspire confidence. Polisario_Front#Relations_with_Algeria is quite unambiguous about this. As is the BBC from 3 weeks ago when they write "Algeria-backed Polisario Front." What are you doing? El_C 07:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As I explained in the edit summary, per NPOV, I expected to see both main supporters mentioned or none of them. When they agreed that we should mention both, I added the scholarly sources and moved on, and that's all there was to it. Their POV on the TP (accusations that ignore what was said and the fact that by that time I had already added the sources) didn't warrant a response. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Original poster EdDakhla is a proven sockpuppet of Taha Khattabi per c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Taha Khattabi, and did not post here with clean hands. See also m:srg#Global lock for EdDakhla.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, even if it made sense to draw an equivalence between French support for Morocco and Algerian support for the Polisario Front/SADR (which, on the face of it, seems questionable), removing the latter because of the absence of its counterpart is not how neutrality is expected to work on the project. Anyway, when Solavirum objected to your removal on the talk page, with them noting that most to all reliable sources deliberately quote "Algerian-backed" [then proceeds to cite multiple sources] and even goes on to further emphasizes that the background section needs to expanded and you're free to WP:BOLD. Removing significant information under WP:POV isn't justified (bold in the original). I'm sorry to say, but your terse and somewhat unresponsive That's your POV [etc.] reply strikes me as uninspiring, at best. Unsurprisingly, Solavirum's response to that is equally terse, merely noting that those sources are not my point of view. And so ends that exchange. Needless to say, this isn't a good look. El_C 15:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: You'll notice that I asked about whether we should remove or add them both (France's part is extensively covered in scholarly sources). They objected on the TP after I added the sources and That's you POV was in response to their "disruptive editing" accusation. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, first of all, I'm not seeing where they accused you of "disruptive editing" — I do see them preface their comments with your recent edits are unconstructive at its best, which it isn't at all the same thing. Anyway, the point is that we have a state and non-state (or quasi-state) actor, so I'm not sure how they can be seen as equivalent. I don't recall, for example, it being common to call Israel "French-backed" when it was its principal backer (prior to the Americans assuming that role). But even placing all of that aside, your response directly above (which is surprisingly terse), completely sidesteps the issue of you having removed something factual, ostensibly in the interest of neutrality, because a different fact was absent. You do realize that such an approach is contrary to policy, right? El_C 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: All I can say is that I asked about whether we should include or remove both actors (because I didn't want to add France out of the blue), when it became apparent that we should include both (per NPOV), I added the sources and moved on (there was no denying of the facts). The content that I added (backed by France) is also factual and encyclopedic. In hindsight, I should have added France and the sources instead of going through the trouble of asking about how we should present the information. M.Bitton (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I don't see where you ask that — the only comment of yours on that talk page is the one I quote above. Nor do I see how "it became apparent that we should include both (per NPOV)." Anyway, it's not a matter of it being factual, it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. But, look, regardless of all that, this was the only edit of yours that I looked at. Granted, maybe it was a case of bad editing lottery (I did learn about the edit from the talk page rather than having discovered it randomly), but you need to become cognizant that your editing as well as communications were subpar in this instance. And that if such occurrences are common in your editing, then you need to self-correct. Because failure to do so will inevitably catch up with you. Anyway, closing this report, will reiterate that in my summary. El_C 17:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Tognella99

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

---

• Tognella99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:David Prowse (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor with a week-old account is tossing their toys over a discussion about David Prowse's cause of death. The actor died a month ago and a few tabloids published that he died of COVID-19, and that rumour spread around the internet and through Star Wars fandom. I started a discussion about the quality of sourcing for the statement on December 5th; that discussion hasn't concluded but is leaning towards not including this info. Today, Tognella99 showed up on the talk page demanding that we say he died of COVID-19, added it themselves and was reverted, and then went on a tirade of personal attacks on the talk page, accusing Eggishorn and myself of "initiating a POV war" ([173], [174]), of editing in bad faith ([175]), of whatever this is, and my personal favourite, of canvassing. Keen users will note that this is my first post about the discussion on any page other than Talk:David Prowse, meanwhile Tognella99 themselves invited two users to join the discussion today. They've also made identical AN3 reports about Eggishorn and myself which have no merit whatsoever: prior to removing Tognella99's poorly sourced edit just now, my last edit regarding the cause of death was on December 16, about a week older than Tognella99's account, and my last edit on the talk page was a comment on December 23.

If any not-involved admins are around to give this user a time out, they need one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Doug for taking time out on New Year's Eve to handle this quickly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Protection for Cyndi Lauper

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

---

• Cyndi Lauper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've asked for page protection and blocks of several of the IPs. Repeated WP:BLP vandalism and nonsense by a Michigan user. Perhaps a rangeblock. Thanks and Happy New Year. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection done. Thanks— Diannaa (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Please rev/delete

The creepy cyber-harassment by 70.92.164.53 (talk · contribs). Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours and revdeleted the edits. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

ISHAT & KK

• ISHAT & KK (talk · contribs)

I founded this fan of KK (singer). He has already stated this things in his user page. He try to add his Facebook fanpage link in List of songs recorded by KK in the ref. Section and adds repeatedly after revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singersbio (talk • contribs) 06:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Casteist attack from IP

Personal casteist attack [176] by 2402:3A80:1004:C244:4E15:ABEE:65CA:E812 calling me a "kutta Tarkhan mistri". Kutta means dog in Indian languages and Tarkhan is a caste and 'mistri' means craftsman or worker. This IP is obvious sock of sockfarm User:Punjabier. Obvious attack by the sock here at my talk page. One can see how the socks are in a mission to establish that the Tarkhans are a lower caste [177], [178], and many edits like that. Kind of a revenge since Saini's are considered mali in the article with proper sources, which the user has problems with. They are very persistent in reverting/refuting it as can be seen in the article history with repeated requests in the talk page [179].

As for the edit here in Satinder Sartaaj, the source used is WP:CIRCULAR since in August 2019 (when the Times of India article was published), the Wikipedia article dated 21 August 2019 mentioned that the subject "Satinder Pal Singh Saini in a Punjabi Saini family" and it was unsourced. I beleive the article needs to be protected since time to time IPs keep adding 'saini' in it. Pinging @Þjarkur, Sitush, Cyphoidbomb, and Bonadea:. They are familiar with this sockfarm. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

IP sock continues casteist attack here, this time laced with threats of finding my address and dealing with me, alongwith typical cusses. Also added another source which is Wiki-like thus WP:UGC. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the first IP is blocked and the article is now semi-protected. I've blocked the second IP too, and I've rev-deleted the threat in the edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have done this myself, but I edited before my first cup of coffee.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I got your mail today ,all are not punjabier many more from punjab can try to edit wrong articles that you published, for improvement of articles. How you said saini are mali, give proof of your source ,you are created tensions by making wrong use of your authority ,all people you from Europe countries not know indian mentality as Flindfotberserk have shown see tarkhan article's now i have read after receiving mail because they have mentioned my name their than i hav read everything, see Tarkahn(punjab)article mr flindfotberserk have shown tarkhan caste to second poation ,only rajput mali used saini surname not all group since 1937 initially saini was rajput in the article's you can mention mali have started using Saini surnames in 1937.you can mention in this article but can not declared saini are mali. Mr flindfotberserk you are seniors editors try to make postive article's on wikipedia that creates happiness dont hate other caste people by writing bad life is very short dont spread hate remove bad things from every caste articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:101C:D43F:B86C:B4E6:F5DA:9446 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is hating any caste people. When it comes to Wikipedia content, the mentality of any group of people (Indian, European or whoever) is of no relevance. And Wikipedia is not here to create happiness (though if it does that indirectly, that's a welcome bonus). All that is happening here is that Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources (see WP:RS) is being enforced. So if you want to have something included in an article, you must provide reliable sources to support it. And if you want some sourced content removed, provide better sources that contradict it. And the place to do that is on the talk page of the article, not here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: i can provide you every reliable source but no body here are taken care of my reliable sources i dont know why how i can realized you, indian people who becomes seniors editors on wikipedia have everything know about wikipedia they easily blocked our account by comparing other peoples account by wrong doings . I can provide you every reliable please help. Please Read below Kindly pay attention to one of article name Saini

I am writing here about Saini caste article ,we live in backward country where People have wide interest in castism,caste is very sensitive topic in our countries in asia, every one from other caste trying to lower down morals of others or trying to show ourselves superior, Now i am coming to my point Saini caste exists mainly in punjab and its neighbouring states does not exist in uttar pardesh, madhya pradesh that have mentioned in saini caste articles ,

Now see article Tarkhan (Punjab) someone from india who is experienced editor name starting

Fylindfotberserk Belongs to tarkhan caste have ranked second to his caste also in the articles, he thanks to tarkhan people for economy development, they have declare saini caste to be a Mali, Mali is separate caste, in Rajasthan state one mali from rajput background have started using saini surname in 1937 how we can say sainis were mali, i am belongs to saini caste my ancestors were rajput in punjab not mali, i am not force you to change or edit saini articles, i simple request you please read below website link, that describe the history of Punjab saini caste ,with very reliable sources, you can find everything there. Please read history of saini caste please see by click on below mentioned link , orign of saini caste

http://www.sainionline.com/origin-from-surasenas

Also Gurdan saini was Saini rajput warriors who fought in 1400 AD. Mali caste fall under shudra varna does not have much land, also rajput never fight under the command of non rajput, so gurdan saini was rajput not mali,i am not disrespect mali caste but i am speaking the reality-truth ,punjab saini caste had won maximum number of param vir chakar in army you can see saini fall under martial casteclearly mentioned in article on Wikipedia, mali cannot apply in army jobs before 1937 i can provide you every reliable source kindly communicate with me I simply request change the hatnote summary of saini caste rest articles is corrected hatnote summary is not correct rajput mali have started using Saini surnames in 1937.you can mention in article but how you can said sainis were malis. Mali become saini in 1937 not saini becomes malies. thanks and Kind regards Electrical engineer Sub divisional officer India.

Please read carefully two of our policies, WP:BLP and WP:RS. After that, please go to the talk page of the article and argue, with reliable sources, why the article must be corrected.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: i dont know much about wikipedia i simply told you please read saini article with full attention in hatnote summary this article about saini(Mali) community of... Please remove Mali word pleased read census 1941 mali of other states than punjab become saini not saini becomes malies you can not say sainis are malies but rajput mali become saini in 1937

However, you need to know, may be not much, but at least something about Wikipedia if you want to have this accomplished. Reading the policies I have outlined above would be the easiest route. Continuing asking random users at random venues to modify the article is not going to help you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: This sock is being disruptive in the Talk:Saini page again [180]. This person has been regurgitating the same unreliable sources again and again for the past two years. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Also on my user talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please remove

The false media report posted on Loving Hut Wiki page It talks about cult and recruiting and is damaging to the restaurants. It was possibly put there by a competitor? Loving Hut is a plant based restaurant. That is all. Pls remove this nasty article, it has no place on loving hut wiki....

"In 2011, Phoenix New Times wrote that "detractors depict the Loving Huts as a recruiting mechanism for a cult with a dictatorial leader who exploits her followers" and that Loving Hut restaurants soft-peddle Ching Hai's messages "through free literature, DVDs of Hai's lectures, and the presence of TV screens fixed to the Supreme Master TV satellite channel in every restaurant."[6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.30.117 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Loving Hut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The content is cited and the cite supports the facts stated in the article. COI IPs are edit-warring to remove it. The article is now semi-protected by User:Mjroots, which seems to be an appropriate admin-level action. DMacks (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

See thread in Archive 1054, same IP as here. Was told to discuss, seems they don't like the answer given. If necessary, the protection can be extended to indefinite without needing to consult with me. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Loving hut wiki for those playing along. DMacks (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

49.196.30.117 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC) DMacks the article is non factual. And is damaging to Loving Hut Restaurants. The wiki of Loving Hut should be about Loving Hut and not some false media article. Please remove the article as it's NOT about Loving Hut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.30.117 (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "wiki of Loving Hut", it is a Wikipedia article about Loving Hut, which summarizes what independent reliable sources state about Loving Hut. If those sources are summarized accurately, there is not much we can do about it. If the source has published incorrect information, you will need to take that up with the source and get them to issue a retraction. You can also offer independent reliable sources that you have found which contradict the one in the article. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not censored, covers all positions on a subject, and is based on what reliable sources say on a subject. It is not a promotional tool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

To successful get this removed it will need to be demonstrated that either the Phoenix New Times issued a retraction of the article being cited or that there are multiple reliable sources (please see WP:RS to get an idea on what is considered a reliable soure) that have concluded that the Phoenix New Times coverage inaccurate. So far no evidence has been provided for either of these.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Mahar Regiment

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

---

• Talk:Mahar Regiment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, happy new year everybody. There's a legal threat against me where an IP and a named user discuss opening a case against me, "booking him under SC/ST prevention act". The IP says; Ghoshpreet singh replies. They might be the same person; both also posted on my talk page. I have asked them to withdraw the legal threat. I would appreciate admins with experience dealing with legal threats taking a look. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked both. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.— Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Sadko ARBMAC issues

• Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Narentines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Višeslav of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prosigoj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Peacemaker67:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, @Sandstein: - I recall all of you having experience in the WP:ARBMAC topic area - can you please help me assess if I'm free to appropriately sanction Sadko (talk · contribs) with a block or a topic ban for their recent behavior in Narentines / Talk:Narentines? (Obviously everyone else's constructive input is most welcome as well.) I used to edit that article many years ago, so there could be claims of WP:INVOLVED that I'd prefer to avoid. I looked at my edit history there, and the last couple of my edits there were removals of Croatian nationalist soapboxing, ironically enough as in this case it's a case of Serbian nationalist soapboxing. (Equal opportunity abuse, yay!) Sadko stopped the edit war before the WP:3RR would kick in, but their argument to plaster a nationally-loaded claim based on an ancient primary source is frankly preposterous, and they've continued to argue in a very combative manner towards User:Miki Filigranski in Talk there. Recently I also recall seeing them argue for a casual misinterpretation of sources at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans, and it was also a matter of stuffing ethnic designations into a lead section - there's a fairly clear pattern here. I did a quick search of AN/I archives and the several incidents over last year the indicate to me that they've been a persistent source of trouble in the topic area. In their contributions, it's not all black and white, but apparently they've been part of another set of edit wars at Višeslav of Serbia and Prosigoj where their edits seem to remove more modern-day book references than they added (I didn't assess every situation in detail). I don't see a particular reason to let this kind of behavior continue, but perhaps there is something I'm missing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Joy, without specific diffs I can't advise you, sorry. Sandstein 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1) I did not break 3RR. 2) Pinging random editors makes little sense. 3) There was no "misinterpretation" of any sources, please post a diff which states that. I was not the one to add that particular information, RS was used and the dispute was resolved. Do not put random stuff in a report to make it look more serious, please. 4) I have engaged on the talk page, even though the discussion was started with slurs, accusations and insinuations. 5) This very report and the comment which was very antagonistic and pointed at only one of the involved parties (without any arguments offered but a general opinion) is major WP:INVOLVED. [181] 6) I expect that one or two editors who had some disputes with some time in the past will jump in to paint "a bad picture" while ignoring my work on the project and the fact that, what this report failed to mention, I did not break 3RR, did not game the system, I engaged in the discussion and I was never ever banned for any serious reasons for 11 long years. 7) The editor who made the controversial, disputed, essay-like and undue edits which I challenged has only recently discriminated editors based on their alleged ethnicity "comments by Serbian editors Sadko and @Theonewithreason: are biased" [182] I don't think that any of you would enjoy a comment like that one. 8) My recent actions have been misinterpreted by the involved admin. 9) I really don't care much for this report and potential ban, even though I engaged in a discussion while facing slurs of "nationalist" or that I am "biased" because of my alleged roots and other nonsense. I have other Wiki and other projects where I can do even more work. 10) This report really proves little, on the contrary, if I engaged in edit-war why is not the same editor reported by administrator Joy? It seems like singling out in my book and I thought that everybody should be treated the same. I am surprised that, rather being the voice of reason and peace in a dispute, the editor making the report chooses to report only one out of two involved parties; that is very strange. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I added pagelinks and userlinks to the head of this report. There has also been a discussion at Talk:Narentines#DAI. The abbreviation 'DAI' refers to De Administrando Imperio. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is strange that an admin discerned which of the involved parties was at fault? Well, yeah, that's what happens when people's persistent disruptive editing wears admins down and deters them from acting. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this user seems to be reffering to MOS:ETHNICITY only to remove mentions of Croatian ethnicity in lead, but in biographies related to Serbs, he seems to ignore this rule. --Thebeon (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is also common for this user to sneakingly remove mentions of Croats, without any explanations, like here --Thebeon (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You simply do not understand what a "national theatre" is. There is a reason behind that edit. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And you understand what national theatre is? You write definitions of what national theatre is? Your deletion is clearly anti-Croatian because you don't like the fact that Croats have more national theaters than Serbs. Also, I provided three independent sources which clearly say that Croatian National Theatre in Mostar is in fact national theatre, which is absurd to say that it isn't, as its official name and status suggest.--Thebeon (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Lately I notice that editor Sadko insists on primary sources ie historical information although he knows and has already been told to him that such information's cannot be the main information's in some article without additional NPOV information's. We also have problems with various maps which show Serbs or Serbian territory in the Balkans and which have gone beyond what quality sources speak. The editor Maleschreiber also pointed out this fact. It's mostly about WP:OR issue. The last map in discussion is this map, [183]. As for the latest added information from quality RS, here we have information for "Vlachs of Serbia" article [184] and allegedly "tendentious editing" from my side although the article "Sanjak of Smederevo" also talks about that. Mikola22 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, Sadko's edits at no point violated 3RR. I fail to see why Sadko is being singled out for scrutiny here when a bevy of other editors over the past 18 months (most notably Mikola22, OyMosby and Maleschreiber) have engaged in hundreds of Balkan-related disputes with behaviour that is no more commendable or disreputable than Sadko's. Miki Filigranski was the editor who made the initial additions which started the dispute on all the articles in question, some of which are GAs, not Sadko. The onus is thus on Miki Filigranski to explain why the edits should stand, not vice versa, especially on the GAs, where the burden for inclusion is higher.

The other examples of Sadko's supposed tendentious behaviour provided by Joy are also giant nothing burgers. For example, the Yugoslav Partisans dispute. The onus is on Joy to explain why Sadko's support for adding the (reliably sourced) ethnic makeup of the Partisan movement to that article's lead section is a blockable or TBAN offence. Joy has previously mused about topic banning or blocking other users simply because they had the audacity to take the opposite view in a deletion discussion. [185] Well guess what. The Balkans are a contentious area. There are going to be vehement disputes and engaging in them without violating wiki policy isn't grounds for a TBAN or permanent block. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha talk about vested interests and doing what I am apparently accused of doing. I really hope this get’s closely looked at by admin oversight. Leave me out of your accusatory ramblings with little basis. What “Hundreds of Balkan related disputes”? Ironic accusation. I assume you haven’t been in hundred of disputes. I often have to clean up removed RS and info and pov edits. Funny you ignore any other Serbian editors. Which I shall not name in this libel. Want to accuse Peacemaker67 as well since like me he doesn’t always agree with you and Sadko? Or Miki Filigranski? I don’t know why you drag me into this. But having a go at me to protect or deflect on behalf of another user is a bad idea for someone with so many years of experience. It can boomerang. You may want to remove the personal callouts. Bud. Topic is Sadko and the allegations. OyMosby (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: neither of us have ever even been reported to ANI/AN3/AE, let alone blocked or logged to AE (Sadko). AB is trying to create a sense of false equivalency by claiming that Balkan editors are somewhat alike in order to distract the community from the topic of the discussion. It's a groundless WP:ASPERSION, but it should be ignored. We're not here to discuss WP:WHATABOUTlike arguments.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is insane, user Sadko deleted my comment. You have no right to delete anybodys comments on Wikipedia, that is vandalism.--Thebeon (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that he vandalizes Albania- and Croatia-related articles, insisting on unsupported claims for which he never tries to add any reliable sources, while simultaneously glorifies Serb-related articles without providing any third-party, reliable sources making them not encyclopedic and pushing heavily nationalistic POV.--Thebeon (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is obvious that User Sadko did not broke any of Wikipedia rules. Here stands accusation on 3RR rule, In which linked article did he reverted something more than 2 times? Neither. Latter accusation stand that they attacked other User on TP Viseslav and Narantenies - but it can been seen that in the first sentence they were attacked. After that it goes back and forward after which they started communicating. This are not strong arguments to block someone because based on this we could do the same on other editors. Theonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sadko did not provide a single valid substantiation for their reverts (and edits) in which removed reliably sourced information from reputable international and Croatian historians. They are literally inventing up stupid arguments to discredit the expertise of other non-Serbian historians because of which those reliable sources won't be used in the article. The old revisions were written from an extremely biased and Serbian point of view using only a selected few reliable sources which support a specific point of view in the interpretation of primary sources (in the case of Narentines and Višeslav of Serbia it is DAI). Sadko, as an experienced editor, is consciously pushing and defending revisions that are not written by the Wikipedian standard of neutral point of view. Their claim my edits have an UNDUE issue is shocking because the case is exactly the opposite as the articles have an UNDUE issue. In the same fashion, Sadko is heavily arguing, alongside Theonewithreason, the reliability of obviously unreliable Serbian site Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo on which are promoted various fringe, controversial and Greater Serbian theories and points of view. It's simply incredible and more than ironic that such an experienced editor isn't capable of recognizing the UNDUE/NPOV issue of an article, identifying a reliable source, and welcoming constructive edits without making up invalid arguments. Due to the amount of their experience, they must be aware of that, and as such their reaction is transparent and cannot be perceived other than behavior based on personal and biased (nationalistic) POV. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you mentioned my name in your review and I was not part in any of lately mentioned edits on Viseslav or Narantienes this goes under WP:HARRASMENT and you will be reported if you do it one more time, not to mention that on same page you attacked me and said that I was a Serbian biased editor with no reason, also I have right to give my opinion like editor Sadko does. That doesn't go against Wikipedia rules. If you are here basing your arguments based on opinions who are not agreed with you then you are wasting your time. Also this comment just proves that it is obvious that User MF is the one who starts attacks not SadkoTheonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Don’t bother @Theonewithreason: AB did the same exact thing with me and said if one cannot handle it then Wikipedia is not for them. Hehe. I guess we both can’t “handle” this website. Lol OyMosby (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right. Theonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Gave links to show. No point. Just enjoy the ride. ;)OyMosby (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: is it harassment saying a fact that you also advanced the reliability of a site that is promoting pro-Serbian propaganda? Well, I could go even further and say your defense of a fellow editor whose advancing and defending the same Serbian point of view is not by accident.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And how did I did that ? By posting a comment with a list of people who were part of directorial ? That is just an information. But go ahead. Please. Accuse me being anything you want. Btw constant repeating "pro Serbian" doesn't help your case here. Theonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, besides being other's advocate you're also a liar because you did not only and simply post a list of directorial. You agreed with Sadko and openly advocated the reliability of an obviously unreliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

...various fringe, controversial and Greater Serbian theories and points of view. And there we have it. Whoever disagrees with Miki is a Serbian nationalist. Don't you ever get tired of recycling these tired tropes and canards? Given that you are the user who has made hundreds of contentious edits to dozens of ARBCOM-sanctioned articles only a day or two before the New Year (some of which have been Good Articles for the better part of a decade) the onus is always going to be on you to justify these mass revisions. WP:BOLD only goes so far, and if you are reverted by multiple other users (as you were), that's a pretty good indicator that community consensus is lacking. Present arguments on the respective talk pages. Please. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Who are the "multiple editors" who have reverted him apart from Sadko and you? [186]? --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the second time a Serbian editor is removing a comment by other editors on this report. What's wrong with you? @Amanuensis Balkanicus, you together with your Serbian companions Sadko and Theonewithreason have some of the most bullshit comments ever. What should everybody do? Stop telling the truth and start lying about the reliability of sources that goes in favor of Serbians like three who are obviously trying to promote Serbian propaganda? Stating a fact about an unreliable source doesn't imply you're disagreeing with me nor to be a Serbian nationalist. However, just look at what we have here, you also commented there - all three of you are acting together, advocating reliability and defending here. I was not the only editor who noticed your shallow nationalist games as other editors already did before me saying that the source is created by an "SPS advocacy group" - and you three are the same. Pathetic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Blocking User who kept on Spreading false information without source

Hi, Wikipedia adminitrators, HJ Mitchell redirect me to this page from my request on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

• Panikilicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On :Talaud Islands: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Repeated adding HOAX content without any reliable sources supporting it, as she did here>> 123. Terrence Tan (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for creating an ANI thread and providing diff links; these had not been present in your original report. I'm removing the copied decline message by HJ Mitchell because it has been taken out of context. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:TranscendentMe

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

---

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

TranscendentMe made an edit [187] at Australia–China relations which included such strong POV pushing as changing "Xinjiang re-education camps" to “so called Xinjiang re-education camps.” Naturally I reverted them [188] and opened a talk page discussion [189]. They then reverted my revert [190] with the hypocritical edit summary “you want another edit warring? don't be ridiculous.” Based on this I placed an edit warring warning on their talk page [191] but did not revert them. Rather than respond to either the warning or the talk page section they placed an edit warring warning on my page [192]... I believe that this was an improper use of a warning template as I had only made a single revert and was following WP:BRD. This appears to be based on a personal policy they espouse on their talk page "Edit War is bilateral. Leaving a message on my page doesn't justify your position. I will probably do the same. Instead, go open a section in talk instead of here." They then followed that up with a comment on the talk page [193] which didn't explain their edit but rather was a series of personal attacks. I am seeking administrative action to curb the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of this editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Normchou: as they appear to have had similar WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with TranscendentMe on Australia–China relations a week ago and @EdJohnston: because they locked the page [194] as a result of the dispute between them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

POV or not it's your personal opinion, you reverted my whole edits based on only one phrase used that doesn't meet your satisfaction while ignoring the main contents and references I contributed, and in your comments" Are you for real? This sort of blatant POV pushing will not be tolerated." it looks pretty emotional to me and ironically you have a strong opinion yourself. Wikipedia should not be edit simply to fit into the narrative supported by editors of more numbers. I noticed you have a pretty rich history and are the kind of editors who always want to bring your dissent to administration rather than focus on the topic itself, who is being personal here? TranscendentMe (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick review regarding what they have done today. In this edit [195], they reverted some of my previous edits [196] [197] either without explanation or with a vague reference in the edit summary incompatible with community guidelines and policies. Regarding those more subtle, hard-to-notice edits they made, in the above edit their addition of "so-called" without proper referencing was clearly not in line with MOS:ACCUSED. Also, in this edit [198] "banned chemical, chloramphenicol" was not in the very citation they added. I still remember last time they did exactly the same thing to another paragraph [199], adding materials not in the source they cited despite what they claimed in the talk. Horse Eye's Back and I previously reported this user twice [200] (24, 47) within a week for this type of behavior, and it appears nothing has changed since. No new discussion was ever initiated by them regarding today's incident, nor were previous discussions revisited. What TranscendentMe has done is apparently unacceptable WP:NOTHERE behavior that should be scrutinized further. I'm kind of shocked they are still actively engaging in disruptive editing on Wikipedia with impunity. Normchou ^💬 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking now. Belligerent genocide denialist POV pushing is a good way to get blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Account dedicated to anti-Turkish agenda

• Kevo327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Kevo327 has made nearly 1000 edits in a span of 2 months since the start of Armenia-Azerbaijan war, all edits being related to Turkey and Armenia, whether it be from Tea in Turkey to Qarabağ FK football club. Nearly 500 Turkish village articles had their Turkish name removed for not being "referenced". The agenda of the account continues today, (1 January 2021) adding literal hoaxes, as I have noticed in an article I'd recently edited. Adding a hoax with 2 references next to it that have nothing to do with what the user put in to the article. [201] Tyler156 (talk)

Can this user be banned? I suspect they are paid to edit or may be connected to the Armenian Government, or an Armenian ultra nationalist NGO. Thank you. Please investigate this. Tyler156 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well let's see. has made nearly 1000 edits in a span of 2 months since the start of Armenia-Azerbaijan war, all edits being related to Turkey and Armenia yes i did, nothing wrong with this, Wikipedia doesn't ban having certain interests. Nearly 500 Turkish village articles had their Turkish name removed for not being "referenced". nearly 50 Syrian villages had their unofficial Turkish exonymes removed because there is no reference that says Turkish is spoken there or any other valid reason to include the Turkish exonym, this matter came up earlier this week and the leading discussion is still in my talk page The agenda of the account continues today, (1 January 2021) adding literal hoaxes, as I have noticed in an article I'd recently edited. Adding a hoax with 2 references next to it that have nothing to do with what the user put in to the article. The agenda? The Jerusalem post reference had the following in it "It is the largest expulsion of minorities by Turkey since the massacres and genocides of the First World War in the Ottoman Empire." Which you either didn't notice or didn't read the entire article.

suggesting to ban a user because you just don't like them and immediately assuming bad faith followed by name calling isn't a valid argument. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Longterm disruption, CSNY

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

---

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

Cassidd (talk · contribs) has received numerous warnings and been blocked in the past for disruptive editing, adding masses of unsourced content (see List of entertainment events at The Forum for a recent example), and lately, persistent removal of an AfD template from CSN 1977 and 1978 Reunion Tours. The article may or may not merit keeping, but the behavior doesn't work here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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