Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zloyvolsheb (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 1 March 2021 (resp to Des Vallee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

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

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

    Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [1]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.
    I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:
    I think this individuals contributions,[2] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).
    They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.
    They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).
    This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).
    I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)
    A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
      The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [3] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [4] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [5] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [6] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.
    I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.
    This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.
    Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.
    I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [7], [8],[9],[10],[11],[12]) and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [13] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

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

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

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

    Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [14]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [15] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.
    I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):
    On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»
    In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»
    In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»
    The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»
    Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop
    • Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [[16]]. To me it's pretty obvious when you look at his edits. To copy/paste what I wrote below:

    Thank you t. In regards to [[17]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[18]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[19]]. Or this [[20]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

    It seems that Timothy's thing is getting onto pages about early 20th century communism, push original research, report those who call him on his sources. Stix1776 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion.Stix1776 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [21] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [22],[23] on the same page where they did it before: [24], [25],[26],[27],[28]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([29]), ([30]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.
    Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [31], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.
    The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([32] [33] [34] [35]).
    There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.
    So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.
    So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova   T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [36] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads -talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [37], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Just going over the diffs that have been presented, this is reasonably sourced and attributed; this is removing a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that had gone completely uncited for months; and this (regarding this edit) seems like a reasonable dispute over sources and WP:DUE weight. That isn't to say that Bunnyyhop is necessarily right in each case, just that these are patently obviously legitimate content disputes, not something that could reasonably be used to justify sanctions. Perhaps Bunnyyhop could be more cautious about assuming good faith, to be sure, but it's a bit silly to raise that objection while simultaniously making accusations of bad faith over a content dispute; and I'm not seeing a lot of presumption of good faith extended towards Bunnyyhop in the talk history of that page, either. Is this earlier comment really indicative of someone who has WP:CLEANHANDS when it comes to assuming good faith in this dispute? --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose BunnyHop is systematically deleting unsourced claims and POV claims that are poorly sourced. These are commendable actions, not reason for sanctions. He/she should probably stop marking these are minor changes, but they should be allowed to keep up the good job. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer: Further !votes are in the following subsections and should be counted. Crossroads -talk- 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin evaluation and close

    • I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.
    Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.
    Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This again? User makes questionable edits, we get a bunch of people who seemingly have similar political views defend them for making POV-pushing edits about those views, etc (My hands aren't clean here either, I !voted in the previous ANI). This has turned into a mess. I have to agree with Neonorange here, this is going to waste more time and turn into another sprawling thread in which it's going to be hard to find a bunch of neutral admins that have the time to read through everything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. TimothyBlue summed it up well: "this individual[']s contributions show they are here to push a personal and pos[i]tive viewpoint of anything related to Marxis[m]–Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about" this topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: I say this even partially agreeing [38] with BunnyHop that at some of the article(s) in question, we would do better to distinguish between chattel slavery and other forms of forced labor. Being correct about one thing doesn't make BH's general approach to WP productive/collaborative and neutrally encyclopedic. There's just way too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING and WP:CIVILPOV approach being brought by BH. I don't feel that it's improved in the interim; see, e.g., the entire Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour thread (permalink).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continue to Support topic ban: related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed and admins should consider a NOTHERE site ban.
    More recent examples of POV pushing and editing against consensus
    • Removal of content they do not like, against talk page consensus: [39], [40]. See talk page here Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour
    • They want to remove GULAG, China and North Korea from examples of modern slavery (see talk page plus their edits), but added a section on US prisons [41]
    • They have repeatedly been rebuffed in their attempts to push their POV at Slavery, now there is this Talk:Slavery#Draft RfC, an attempt to dismantle an entire article simply because they want to remove the above negative information about communism.
    • Using AfD to delete content against their POV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red fascism
    • Inserting content wihtout due weight to push their POV [42]
    • Removing the title historian from Anne Applebaum (a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, with three major works on this area of Soviet history) - a BLP violation: [43]
    • Using extermely biased primary sources to push POV [44]
    • Misleading edit summaries to add maintenance tags for material that doesn't fit their POV [45]
    I think the example of adding the United States to examples of Modern Slavery, while removing North Korea, China and the GULAG shows this editor will not stop pushing their POV in articles related to communism.
    The evidence in this ANI and the previous ANI, should be enough for admins to end this DE POV pushing with a topic ban for articles related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed and consider a NOTHERE ban based on there edit history.  // Timothy :: talk  17:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bunnyyhop's statement: I believe this report is skewed, and my defend follows:
    Slavery article
    TimothyBlue's diffs are presented anachronically. I'll provide correctly timed diffs to not mislead anyone. On 19 February, I replied diff to Zloyvolsheb's response on 17 February, diff and asked Timothy to mediate a RfC to solve this dispute. To summarize my present argument: Academic sources clearly present a distinction between slavery and forced labor, as well as the International Labor Organization. However, some such as the Anti-Slavery International - although not academic - refer to forced labor as a form of contemporary slavery. The «History» section of the current Slavery article is Chattel Slavery's per WP:COMMONNAME, so, therefore, unfree labor cannot be included here but rather in unfree labor and «contemporary slavery». If we decide to include forced labor in the Slavery article, as proposed by Timothy, then we also have to include the history of Bonded labor, Forced migrant labor, Sex slavery, Forced marriage and child marriage, Child labour, Debt bondage, Wage slavery, and so on, which is absurd per Wikipedia guidelines. The current Slavery#Contemporary slavery could include a summary of forced labor (state-enforced and through the market), without creating subsections. This is my argument, and I don't recall it being addressed by those who refuse to move the content. diff Timothy replied that and went further in detail that «Slavery is a broad term;», ignoring what I and Zloyvolsheb pointed out previously while looking for a more neutral, objective approach. Ironically, the sole reply from those who reject any change in the source gathering section I opened did NOT include a single source. However, I decided to introduce a section on the United States penal labor system diff on 20 February, as well as other three edits, to introduce a Gulag scholar and add proper attribution.
    This prompted a response from Crossroads on 05:31 23 February diff, asserting that «expert sources ([...]) need to be clear that this is slavery, specifically», removing this newly inserted section about unfree labor in the US, using exactly (!!!) the point of my argument. He also removed diff the neutrality-section template, whilst accusing someone of "filibustering" and that "Not needed per talk page", although he NEVER participated, something I realized afterward.
    Responding to this, I removed on 16:08 of the same day the other two sections that did NOT mention slavery in any way, per Crossroads, diff.
    I removed on 16:11 diff redundant blockquotes, which violated WP:DUE and whose main point was already summarized without the need for blockquotes. I replaced the sourceless estimations of deaths with the proper estimation per the GULAG article on 16:33, diff, and added a source-needed template to a source-less phrase.
    Ironically, Timothy reverted on 17:04 diff those edits (including the ones adding sources), but did NOT revert all of it - only to Crossroad's, which is truly inconsistent - I used Crossroads' rationale, yet only MY edits were reverted. The edit summary was «Rv editing against talk page consensus to push POV», although this has NOT been discussed on the talk page, and probably won't be as Timothy decided to revert it and report it here instead of writing a proper response on the talk page.
    AfD
    A true concern - a WP:POVFORK - which was correctly and cordially argued against by two other editors, which I agree. Unfortunately, your response diff added nothing to the discussion, as it consisted mostly of NOT assuming good faith and personal attacks, commenting on the contributor instead of the content - which also applies to the current reply I'm commenting.
    The rest
    The rest is simply based on WP:PA and not WP:AGF, based on blatant exaggerations and misinterpretations, as well as cherry-picking parts of diffs. For instance, on Applebaum - the Pulitzer Prize is a prize for journalists, not historians, hence the replacement. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and historian would be better, but to say this is a WP:BLP violation is ridiculous. Such is the result of not WP:AGF.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is specifically not a shield against criticism, especially at ANI where behavioral problems are dealt with. Your addition to Slavery was clearly WP:POINT. It was a bunch of non-expert media sources like Vox and The Guardian, and some that are blatantly political like the "World Socialist Web Site". [46] The other recent evidence above from TimothyBlue is serious too. You should have reformed after barely escaping the last ANI without sanctions, but you've continued the same behavior. That is why a topic ban is necessary. Crossroads -talk- 21:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is needed inside and outside of ANI. So, the "problem" has now changed to the sources I used? I gathered that text as well as the sources from the main article, but they're easily checkable. I'm asking you to be objective, don't use weasel words such as "some that are blatantly political", when in reality it's just one. The WSWS quotes the ILO, which takes a 2-second search to verify: and %241.15&f=false here. It should be replaced, but I don't concur this justifies a "topic ban". --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • BH's comment above about why they added content about the US prison system, shows the time wasting game playing they are engaged in. This was not done to improve the article but to be pointy and serve their own purpose. Adding content they think is inappropriate, but doing so to serve another purpose is DE.  // Timothy :: talk  09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Although those who defend keeping the history of forced labor in the chattel slavery's history section do not really present any reasonable argument to hold it, and usually resort to other methods such as this ANI report and creating a false image of consensus, the article still presents the history of unfree labor in chattel slavery's section. I want to move it to their respective articles, but as it is, forced labor goes there. I'm surprised those who held the position that forced labor should be in the history section of that article are contradicting their position in this ANI now that I decided to expand it to include the United States, the country with the biggest prison population. In my opinion, this serves to show how unsolid the opinion of those who want to keep the history unfree labor in the section about the history of Chattel Slavery is. None of those who have recently defended a position opposite to mine participated in the source gathering section I opened on the 10th of February, only Timothy - which did NOT gather a single source. It seems as if Timothy is avoiding this «time-wasting game» by using ANI as a shield, evading making a proper argument to back their point. Timothy's reply that slavery is a broad term ignores that, A: The great majority of WP:RELIABLE sources MAKE a clear distinction between forced labor and slavery; B: The history section in that article is referent to chattel slavery; C: Penal labour, unfree labour, labour camps and contemporary slavery (the latter being a term used mostly by non-academic organizations such as the Anti-Slavery International) already have their own articles; D: If a term has multiple meanings, it should be WP:DAB; E: If we were to accept Timothy's argument that "slavery is a broad term" plenty of articles would have to be merged into that one, not just unfree labour (a clearly distinct term);
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chattel slavery is its own section, appropriately separate from the modern slavery section; no one has suggested doing what is claimed above. Based on BH's comments above about Wikipedia articles and trees, I think WP:CIR is a factor that should be considered, BH should not be attempting to restructure articles. I've started working on a child article for the chattel slavery summary section and others editors are working on the article; it will take work and time, but hopefully this will be submitted to GA review, but if BH is allowed to continue, including along the lines of what they suggest above, it will never be stable enough.  // Timothy :: talk  20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is directed at chattel slavery, hence the redirect. Slavery is used, per WP:COMMONNAME, referring to chattel slavery. This I failed to consider, as well as this: I have actually not seen a single WP:RELIABLE source saying forced labor is a form of slavery. I gathered a total of 6 reliable sources on this, and none support this conclusion. The source you uphold as justificative of this, Anne Applebaum, is WP:FRINGE, as a Gulag scholar disregards her introduction (where she makes such comparison - between the Gulag and slave camps), as well as all others which do NOT make such equation - between the Gulag and slave labor, and more importantly, between penal labor and slavery. It's hard to grasp what your argument is because you simply do not cite any sources. Also, I have NEVER been notified of any attempt to split the article (which would be my previous position regarding any splits, before considering WP:COMMONNAME). --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    diff: As it stands, Timothy reverted an obvious move from History (of Chattel Slavery) to Contemporary slavery without presenting any argument, solely "no consensus". --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarize my argument: I believe sections about forced/penal labor which do NOT get labeled as slavery by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that is, WP:RELIABLE sources should be removed from the slavery article per WP:OR, and if there's any minority view on the subject (as is the case with Anne Applebaum and the Gulag - which I don't know if it's considered WP:FRINGE) it should be included with WP:DUE weight in the contemporary slavery section, which is a summary-styled section on the cases of Chattel Slavery over at Contemporary slavery, without the need for a summary-styled topic. As it stands, penal labor camps are included in the history section about Chattel slavery summary-styled, which is completely WP:UNDUE and based on the WP:OR that these two clearly distinct terms - slavery (chattel slavery) and forced labor are equal. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among others things, the above comment is another example from BH of why Wikipedia has WP:CIR. If admins come to a consensus that my editing is unconstructive in this area, let me know and I will step back from the subject; for now I'm going back to working on the article, the chattel slavery article, and the outline and bibliography I'm creating for the topic.  // Timothy :: talk  23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your avoidance to discuss the point of the subject and the resort to guidelines such as WP:CIR without developing it any further bothers me. --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't bother you, because this is not the place to discuss content -- that's article talk pages -- it's the place to discuss behavior, specifically your behavior in blatantly pushing a pro-Communist PoV. If Bunnyyhop is going to be a productive editor, I think it has to be outside of his PoV subject area, so I think a topic ban from Marxism, communism, and socialism, broadly construed, as proposed above is a good idea. It's also time to stop them from WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion with walls of text and constant replies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved discussion material to Talk:Slavery#Clarification, and we'll see how to it goes now. I don't see how trying to strip blatant (imo) WP:OR based on editors' opinions amounts to pro-Communist POV pushing. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TimothyBlue's BRD misuse and reverting solely due to no consensus: 1 2
    I used the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences by Elsevier, a prestiged encyclopedia 1 2 3 4 (2001 & 2015), to include «[...] and various states in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World during the [[Cold War]» in the lead, to which Timothy reverted with an (absurd) edit summary: «POV edit unsupported by secondary sources. discuss on talk page and gain consensus».
    I removed a sentence that had a (fake) source, that is, not backed by the source included - as everyone can verify by clicking the Google Books link I included in the edit summary, and it was reverted due to «Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources. Discuss on talk with secondary sources per BRD».
    In this word spaghetti and probable gaslighting (ironically, this is where WP:CIR applies), it's comic that the latter one mentions exactly the reason of the removal as a justification to revert: unsupported by its source. --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Encyclopedias are not secondary sources and other editors have objected to your POV edit. There is no consensus and BRD is appropriate. You boldly added content, I reverted it based on no consensus and weight, and started a discussion on the talk page per BRD.  // Timothy :: talk  03:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TimothyBlue:, I find this an interesting example. In the diff shown, BunnyyHop added that the term "communist states" included countries in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World. You reverted him with an edit summary calling that a "POV edit unsupported by secondary sources". While I agree that Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources, it is also a fact that Yugoslavia and Cuba (both labelled as "communist states") were official members of the Non-Aligned Movement. (In fact, as the article on the Non-Aligned Movement states, it was founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.) So obviously there were communist states in the Non-Aligned Movement and in the Third World. So I don't think it made sense for you to revert, but also you labelled this a "POV edit" - what do you see as POV about it? The only explanation you're providing at the talk page is that BunnyyHop is "POV-pushing" [52]. Is that not a false accusation? How does that not look aggressive and completely uncalled-for? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that Cuba was non-aligned is laughable, (start with the Cuban Missle Crisis and go from there). Yugoslavia relations with the Soviet Union and other communist states varied, but they were clearly aligned with the communist bloc for most of their history. They joined the NAM to access western aid.
    If a consensus emerges that I am incorrect, I wills self revert per BRD. // Timothy :: talk  04:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but there is a difference between being "non-aligned" and being in the "Non-Aligned Movement"; a country may be non-aligned and in the Non-Aligned Movement (Yugoslavia) or aligned and in the Non-Aligned Movement (Cuba). Looks like a content dispute. IMHO, there was no reason to revert with that edit summary. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unsure why you tried to close this thread. Everyone is being scrutinized here, both the reporters and the defenders.
    I believe Timothy's reply above is a good example of the conflation of editors' opinion and action going on on these reverts. The fact that this encyclopedia is WP:SCHOLARSHIP and therefore WP:RELIABLE is completely ignored, and Timothy bases himself on a non-existent Wiki rule that encyclopedias should not be used. In fact, it's the opposite - in contentious topics it «may be helpful in evaluating due weight». These replies, both here and on the talk page, are WP:FORUM-styled responses. --BunnyyHop (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To BunnyyHop Your POV editing has not stopped, you are only here for advocacy. I am retired from Wikipedia, however your actions most recently proves this. Most recently you have removed cited material on the article Slavery and stated having a criticisms section is "undue," and remove sections of Anti-authoritarian left. The section you are attempting to gaslight into being "neutral" is text copy pasted from the Encyclopedia of Social sciences the direct wording being "The success of the Bolshevik comrades and Russian independence from exploitative monetary systems," a cherry picked source from a pro-Stalinist, you also trying to gaslight in defense of your actions stating "The revolution requires Tthe liquidation of the hostile classes." BunnyyHop's complete bludgeoning of text into claiming this is neutral is beyond me, and just demonstrates he will do anything to defend his actions, no matter how wrong they be. Des Vallee (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since "retiring" (after an article ban for edit warring) you've been reverting to hide ANI discussion that I have specifically asked to not hat [53]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zloyvolsheb Great case, to make personal attacks to me, really helps you in defending BunnyyHop to his dying breaths. A couple things, it's not a topic ban it's a single page what you are saying is objectively wrong. You told in an edit summary an excellent method of delivery, and you are the one who is adamant about this, three other editors have reverted you. Des Vallee (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that you were blocked from an article, just a few days ago, for edit warring, is not a "personal attack" on you. And no, "three other editors" have not reverted me. May I suggest that editors who are involved leave it to the uninvolved admins to determine what is or isn't relevant? What was the point of announcing "retirement" if you're going to continue to participate? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [citation needed]. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tally of discussion so far (not an admin)

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

    Support TBAN for BunnyHop

    Oppose TBAN for BunnyHop

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

    TimothyBlue: WP:BOOMERANG?

    Relating to the above discussion.

    At Communist state:

    • [54] BunnyyHop removes "The socio-economic nature of communist states, especially that of the Soviet Union as the first prominent example of a communist state, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production" which cited Sandle, Mark (1999). A Short History of Soviet Socialism. London: UCL Press. pp. 265–266.

    Edit summary "https://books.google.com/books?id=T_aNAgAAQBAJ pp. 265-266 do NOT mention any of this"

    Edit summary: "Undid revision 1009137963 by BunnyyHop (talk) Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources. Discuss on talk with secondary sources per BRD"

    • I was able to locate the book online at the Internet Archive. Link: [56]. There is indeed nothing on pages 265-266 that would support this content. We see an editor falsely accused of "POV-pushing" for removing falsely-sourced text and the accuser restores a misrepresented citation.
    • I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not even discussing the right page numbers here. And proposing this for one edit is preposterous. Admins should weigh this obvious vendetta when evaluating your !vote above. Crossroads -talk- 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am discussing the right pages, actually. (Page numbered 265 begins with "By the mid-1970s, the practice of popular participation and over-sight...") There's no vendetta; I don't think I've interacted with Timothy prior to February 2021. I wish him and Des Vallee all the best. I am just appalled by what's going on here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be worth mentioning just for the record that although Timothy never edited this article before, my edits were reverted two hours later. --BunnyyHop (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zloyvolsheb This is obviously an attempt for retaliation, see WP:BATTLEGROUND, attempting to retaliate against other editors is never a good idea. Moreover TimothyBlue is an excellent contributor who has contributed excellently to Wikipedia, especially to soviet articles. This is simply retaliatory nonsense. Des Vallee (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs vs. insinuations. Please stop. I can't remember interacting with you or TimothyBlue prior to this ANI thread, so I have no need to "retaliate" over any supposed personal grudge. Please look at WP:CLEANHANDS: "Make sure your hands are clean: You're looking for an administrator who wants to do justice, but to receive justice you must have been just." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could all three of you please WP:DROPTHESTICK. All three of you had a chance to present differing evidence and make your points. Adding more comments at this point doesn't aid the discussion, but instead makes it more difficult to read. Let uninvolved editors come to a community decision now. Shushugah (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

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

    Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
    2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
    3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."
    On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."
    Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [57][58] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [59] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads -talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [60] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [61] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

    At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([62], [63], & [64]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [65][66] and have been uncivil. [67]

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

    Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [68] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

    An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [69]

    See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [70]

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

    Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

    • 9 November 2020, American politics: [71]
    • 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [72]
    • 2 December 2018, American politics: [73]
    • 5 August 2018, BLP: [74]
    • 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [75]

    Crossroads -talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [76][77] This one was very nearly a violation: [78]

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

    Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [79] is not a personal attack? This [80] much like this [81] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads -talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [82] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [83][84] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads -talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [85] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads -talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [86] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

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

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

      These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I already pointed out where I struck the first comment after Gershonmk complained about it. The third comment has nothing to do with anyone's personal point of view, unless there's a legitimate point of view in which the various iterations of Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers/financiers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism (e.g. [87][88][89][90][91]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [92][93][94][95] denying the obvious reality that their proposed text was directly about the subject of the BLP, and therefore subject to stricter sourcing requirements. Such behavior is also a form of disruption. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even if it's not actually true", then I guarantee you are going to receive sanctions, probably sooner than later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Describing your pattern of battleground behavior ... requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. That's exactly what you just did: if you do not agree with San[g]deboeuf on a view that this editor feel[s] socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy. Unfalsifiable claims sure do come in handy when you want to accuse someone of acting in bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Again: Observing your behavior and that it is anti-collaborative, uncivil, and disruptive requires no assumptions about your faith, only observation that is what it is. I in fact believe your are acting entirely in good faith, of the WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH sort. An apparent belief that you are fighting the good fight doesn't magically make your behavior civil, collaborative, and constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects – where is the observable evidence of me WP:FILIBUSTERING anything at the talk page where Crossroads made that accusation? Note that WP:FILIBUSTERING specifically means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, not one you or Crossroads happen to disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just more WP:WIKILAWYER hand-waving. You cannot evade the community finding you disruptive by trying to nitpick over exact wording in guidelines and essays and policies. If you are being disruptive, you will be made to stop being disruptive. If you don't think FILIBUSTER applies, then try BLUDGEON, TE, etc. There is no question that you are disruptive when it comes to this topic area. I'll be "happy" to pore over details of a large number of diffs of your behavior if this ends up at AE or ArbCom, where that level of analysis is actually useful. At ANI, it's a waste of time. PS: In case you think you can start the BLUDGEON behavior again, you should recall that the last time we were discussing that I warned against it and pointed to someone blocked or T-banned for it, right on the same page the same day. The same is true this time around; see #Bludgeoning (Bus stop) just below, in which someone got outright site-banned for it. I encourage you to learn from this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC); PS added 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At ANI, it's a waste of time. How very convenient for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      To the contrary, it's a stressy ass-pain, in which we'll have one energy-sucking pile of drama only to have it do nothing useful, and then we'll get to do it all over again later at a more practical venue later. ANI has turned into pretty much a useless waste of time (and worse, just a noise factory), except for dealing with obvious nuts, socks, trolls, and spammers. It is no longer capable of handling issues relating to behavior of long-term editors. But be careful what you ask for. Since your recalcitrance and game-playing indicate a high probability you'll end up at AE or RfArb soon enough, I've already started this diff research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Everybody needs a hobby. Have fun. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't have it both ways; either you want to be diffed in detail or you don't. More to the point, see first law of holes. The very fact that WP is our hobby but your behavior (and your own demands in regard to concerns about your behavior) necessitates putting that constructive hobby on hold to deal with your disruption, and you think this is funny, is in and of itself reason enough for remedies against you. WP thrives on collaborative and neutral-minded editing, and is harmed by "just try to stop me" gadfly behavior, which becomes more and more difficult to distinguish from everyday trolling the longer it continues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[96]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Preservedmoose

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

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

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

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

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

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

    HistoryofIran has a history of removing reliable sources. User could not provide rational for why sources were removed, despite repeated requests on Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orontid_dynasty#Uncertain_origins_of_Orontids_needs_to_be_addressed (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [98] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:
    1. Removed seven WP:RS sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation.[99]
    2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[100] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[101]
    Looking at the evidence, it appears that user:Preservedmoose is persistently trying to "fix" what he doesn't like to see. Given that he tries to put news outlets and other non-WP:RS material[102][103] on par with academic scholars in order to push a pro-Armenian irredentist narrative, and even bluntly removes material written by academics specialized in the history of the region, I truly wonder if he's actually here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    4D4850, I've seen you 'disclose' that you're not an administrator a few times on this board. No worries; there's no need to do that. Everyone is invited to contribute, express their opinion, as well as propose (or oppose) what they think are appropriate actions to deal with problematic editing on this board. This is the "Administrators' Noticeboard", but it exists so that members of the community can get the attention of admins as well as the wider community, and seek administrator intervention on behalf of the project. With very few exceptions, at the end of the day, it's the community itself that decides what's appropriate and acceptable, including whether administrator actions are themselves appropriate. Yes, admins can [often] act unilaterally and impose sanctions using their best discretion, but they're ultimately just editors themselves, but who are also entrusted (by the community) with certain tools to protect the project, and help keep Wikipedia ticking. So like I said, you don't need to announce your non-admin status when posting a comment (everyone can see your user rights as well, if they wish; I don't think anyone will be confused as to whether you're an admin). Just letting you know. :) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Symmachus Auxiliarus: Ok, I just want people to know that I'm not one of the people provided with admin powers. I know I don't need to, but I also don't want people to confuse me with an admin up front due to throwing policy around (typically, I find personal attacks by the reported or the OP, and support blocks of the personal attacker.) I just think it's something people should know. Sorry if it clutters up ANI. 4D4850 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preservedmoose clearly has a pro-Armenian agenda, and is resorting to personal attacks rather than rational arguments. Perhaps his/her recent edits require scrutiny. I am not certain whether HistoryOfIran is right in emphasizing the Iranian influence on Commagene, but he/she is at least attempting to seek a resolution through the talk page. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban/block proposal

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

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

    David Gerard and Scott Siskind

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

    I urge all to read the linked discussion, and the following section.
    A group of editors, including Mo Billings, who appear to be fans of the subject, are claiming a COI that doesn't fit any requirement of WP:COI, and keep not putting together any complaint in a proper form, preferring to cast aspersions.
    One has raised an off-wiki tweet. In the course of the existing discussion, I have linked an email from 2014 from the author of the blog, in which he literally says he is an advocate of "human biodiversity" and wishes to use the blog to propagate this going forward - not yet in an RS so not usable on the article, but arguably supporting my off-wiki tweeted summary of the author's views with the author's own words.
    Not that an off-wiki tweet is a WP:COI at Wikipedia, and Mo Billings should understand this. We have a group of Slate Star Codex fans who seem to think not being a fan constitutes a COI, and editors of opposing views should be voted off the article.
    There is also an effort to get non-RSes into the article.
    Various editors casting aspersions, including Mo Billings, have been asked to properly substantiate their claims of COI in the accepted manner, or stop casting aspersions. Instead, they have continued casting aspersions - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I am not a fan of Slate Star Codex. I have no particular interest in it. I am not a contributor there. I am not even a reader of the blog (although I did read some pieces of Siskind's earlier work because of a dispute about including his name in the article here). My two edits to the COI discussion are this and this. I have already stated that David Gerard's involvement did not constitute a COI based on our guidelines. This ANI discussion is about his specific comments about Scott Siskind in that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're claiming a COI, but not a COI per policy? That is literally WP:ASPERSIONS, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not. I am reporting that you called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue. Mo Billings (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out I'm allowed to have off-wiki opinions about article subjects, including that the scientific racism advocate who sought out scientific racists for his blog and was famous for his prolixity could be summarised as "why say in a million words what you can say in 14" - and that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and does not constitute any sort of COI, either in Wikipedia terms or in colloquial terms, and that you're making a bizarre claim saying it does - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegation by Mo Billings notes that you have defended these allegations on Wikipedia, so this is not about your off-wiki behavior Aapjes (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a significant controversy or dispute in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note here, I'm the editor who most recently brought up an apparent COI on the article talk page, and I realized now that I handled it incorrectly and acted in a way more like casting aspersion than I intended (I thought I was handling it correctly but realize now that I misread the guidelines on handling COIs). Gbear605 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now one of those discussions that are going across the wiki. Here's the RSN section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_and_WaPo_on_NYT_on_Slate_Star_Codex - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NYT is rated Generally Reliable at WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The NYT article is, of course, support for this claim, as I noted on the talk page at length, also citing the SSC article the NYT linked as their evidence for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT article doesn't claim that Siskind is a Neo-Nazi or a supporter of "scientific racism" (which is not the same thing, anyway). You argued that the part on Murray proves this, but the NYT article only makes the vague assertion that Siskind aligned himself with Charles Murray, but doesn't say how. Surely this cannot be interpreted as a claim that Murray and Siskind have identical beliefs on all topics, which would be an absurd claim to make about two different people. If you follow the link they provide, he only did so on class differences, not racial differences. The page on Murray also merely claims that one of his works, The Bell Curve, has been accused of supporting "scientific racism", not that it is an established fact, or that any of his many other publications have been accused of such. The blog post by Siskind that the NYT article uses as evidence also makes no mention of The Bell Curve.
    On the topic of Siskind, you seem to believe that we should treat highly contentious claims as fact, without any need for proper WP:RS to support those claims. In general, you seem to have far, far lower standards of proof for allegations against Siskind than for other claims. Aapjes (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not for nothin' or nothin', but I still haven't seen any diffs of on wiki edits that would require sanctions. Last I checked, tweets shouldn't be used for evidence for on wiki sanctions unless it's coupled with poor wiki editing. See above where NedFausa got banned because of poor BLS editing AND tweets that showed they were on a mission to disparage the person they're editing here. I don't see that in this case. Nor do I agree there's a COI just because someone has made known on a non wiki website their opinion of someone. IF David Gerard never tweeted would anyone notice through their wiki editing that they would have those opinions? Valeince (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The talk page section linked at the top of this section has me and Grayfell asking for proper cites for these claims of COI, including me asking one claimant directly for diffs. They reply that they don't like noticeboards, but they saw the edits going past. I suggest that this would not pass muster at WP:COIN.
    This is an effort by fans of the article subject to vote non-fans off the article - David Gerard (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I started this discussion and I started it for one reason alone - your "14 words" comments. You can try to to frame this as something else if you like, but I have no particular interest in that blog, its supporters, or its enemies. This is about your actions. Mo Billings (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valeince: I linked it above, but I will quote here: Siskind has literally admitted 14 words in one million was his strategy for SSC. David Gerard called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi, here, on Wikipedia. How is that not sanctionable? Mo Billings (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mo Billings:The phrase “Neo-Nazi” does not appear in that diff so I think you need to retract that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: I believe uninvolved editors will have no difficulty understanding what David Gerard was saying with his "14 words" reference. He was calling Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Feel free to ask David Gerard what he meant if you have trouble seeing that. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an uninvolved editor, I had no edits anywhere related to this subject before stumbling across this discussion. He may certainly have been implying that but he does not actually appear to have said the exact words you said he said... Implying may still be an issue, but you not sticking to reality when describing the actions of another editor is also an issue. Again I suggest you re-write the claims you’re making to more accuracy reflect reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should also note that I agree on your larger point, it might swim in a pond, have feathers, quack like a duck look like a duck smell like a duck have 100% duck DNA, shit duck shit, lay duck eggs, but unless multiple WP:RS call it a duck we need to avoid doing so in any wikispace (all assuming that BLP applies to this duck of course). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, no criteria or cautions laid out at WP:BLPCOI have been met. Neither the "avowed rival bit or what a "reasonable person" would consider a conflict-of-interest, per footnote "E". Editors are allowed to have opinions, even strong ones about a subject. Unless an actual edit on-Wiki can be presented as problematic, this filing is devoid of merit. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich harass/hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am curious, can you use a source that's looped to a wikipedia editor from a wikipedia article? Sounds like some kind of loop back. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes and no, and it depends on the subject. A subject matter expert who happens to be a wikipedia editor being quoted/interviewed/published in a reliable source is useable. Albeit its frowned upon if they do it themselves. It comes up a lot with academics who want to use themselves as sources, and then get annoyed when we come back "Come and talk to us when you get published." On the wider issue, I am also of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI regarding Siskind here. If you are acting as a source for off-wiki newspapers on a topic, tweeting negatively (and frankly, I would also apply it even if it was positively) about that subject, you shouldnt necessarily be prevented from editing the article but you should certainly not be throwing around accusations of a living person being a neo-nazi. If they are a neo-nazi and reliable sources back that up, plenty of other editors are available to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This implies I have stated that in the article, which I absolutely have not. However, this is about me expressing an opinion in a tweet, rather than in article space - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really dont care if you express it by fucking carrier pigeon. That you use off-wiki methods of denigrating people because you are prohibited from doing so on-wiki is not a plus point in your favour. If you want to off-wiki indulge in your freedom to express your opinions, you dont also get to on-wiki pretend that they dont matter. Freedom of expression is not freedom of consequences when on-wiki policies clearly state off-wiki actions will be considered. Why dont you tell everyone how you lost your CU rights after posts on your blog? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with those who've said that David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. I find the requests for diffs or the claims it must be on-wiki to demonstrate a COI bizarre. Most COIs are off-wiki. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Ivanka Trump has a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. No I don't need diffs to demonstrate Barack Obama and George Conway have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. The only issue is whether we are able to discuss it, or it needs to go to arbcom lest we run foul of WP:Outing which is separate from whether it's a COI. Since no suggested redacting parts of the opening comment, and indeed David Gerard has effectively confirmed they made those comments, I'm assuming that they've previously confirmed a connection to said Twitter account. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      One more comment. I'm not suggesting any action against David Gerard at this time. I'm strongly opposed to blocking people just because they continue to edit articles directly when they have a COI if their edits aren't actually harmful in and of themselves. And to be clear, this includes any edits even ones which aren't simple corrections. If no one can find a reason to revert the edit which isn't some variant of 'COI editor' or find some problem with the edit, then don't revert and don't block. I don't believe doing so is justified by our policy. Paid editors are a little different. However, as with all editors with a COI, I'd strongly urge David Gerard to stop editing the article directly, and they should consider they may be subject to a harsher sanction than they normally would if they continue to do so and their editing is found to be problematic. Demonstrating a problem with David Gerard's edits would require diffs, maybe that part of the source of confusion, I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Gerard, will you agree not to edit about this topic going forward? Levivich harass/hound 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it just me or do others find that this particular situation have similarities to this particular case? spryde | talk 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

    Countervailing strong opinions on an article topic are standard on Wikipedia. It has never been the case at Wikipedia that strong opinions on an article subject preclude editing on the subject. As NorthBySouthBaranof notes, this would presumably preclude fans from editing also.

    Such a precedent would launch off-wiki stalking of editors, giving their opponents incentive to comb through their social media in an attempt to impeach them by any means possible.

    The claim is that a tweeted off-wiki opinion on the author of the blog that's the article subject is overwhelming evidence of a WP:BLPCOI.

    The tweeted opinion is not backed to Wikipedia RS standards of independent third-party coverage, but it's entirely unclear why an off-wiki opinion needs to be - because it is indeed backed by primary sources by the subject, including his own direct admissions as to his views (which I pointed out, though I did not link them), and I'd think that's enough for someone to tweet an opinion that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

    This is being leveraged into a claim that I should not be allowed to edit an article on the subject - even though all my edits on the matter have been in accordance with WP:RS, including defending the article from inclusion of unreliable sources.

    (In fact, it is being claimed that explaining my tweet on the talk page when directly asked to explain it is a violation of BLP.)

    I don't believe my opinions and knowledge of the article subject constitute a WP:BLPCOI, and I don't believe that the evidence has been offered to claim one.

    I think my editing record on the article shows that I can separate opinions from what constitutes good Wikipedia sourcing. Despite repeated requests, no-one has offered evidence that I have not edited in such a way. No drastic actions, considerable talk page discussion.

    I'm open to a substantiated case otherwise, but it's repeatedly not being substantiated - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich harass/hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich harass/hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." (spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences&Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting scientific racism) were violations of WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Gerard: Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are "prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned in my comment below, under topic ban, I do not believe that David's pledge not to edit the article or any article is sufficeint even if expanded as suggested. He is active on the talk page discussion and should not weigh in there to influence selection of sources or other substantive issues. Editors involved in off-wiki controversies should steer clear of articles on that controversy, full stop, and that should apply doubly for administrators, who are supposed to be role models for other editors and held to a higher standard. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Gerard edited the talk page on 21 February and ceased editing shortly after, although he did make a single edit on 22 February. I assume he is dealing with real life concerns. This discussion should stay open until David Gerard has the chance to reply here. Mo Billings (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban

    It appears that the consensus of the community is that David Gerard should not write anything anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind. It also appears that David Gerard does not agree and will not stop voluntarily. I propose a community-imposed topic ban on the topic of Scott Siskind, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe you missed it but he agreed to stop voluntarily in his comment above at 16:49, 21 February 2021? Levivich harass/hound 18:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Diff:[104] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?" asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC), Diff:[105] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems overly hasty to go down the "topic ban, broadly construed" path. First, in ractice, what articles would not actually be covered by the voluntary stop he already agreed to? Second, I'd suggest that assuming good faith in this case means not leaping to the conclusion that he won't immediately try to worm through a loophole. Third, WP:BLP cuts both ways: if David Gerard is forbidden from editing a topic because he is an external participant, then by the same token, he might well be discussed at Talk:Slate Star Codex as a figure in that kerfuffle, in which case he ought to be able to make non-self-serving statements there, just as we allow anyone to do on the Talk page of the article about them. For example, if the article Slate Star Codex mentioned him and made some biographical statement that became outdated, he ought to be able to suggest an update and provide an appropriate source. I'm concerned that "broadly construed" would impede that. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I can see significant value to a tban in the sense of actual enforcement; in terms of people actually staying away from aspects of the project they've sworn they'll quit, if wishes were horses we'd all own stables. The talk page considerations are reasonable, and I think 'broadly constructed' here can be interpreted or explicitly stated to permit the self-referential talk page editing traditionally offered to COI subjects unless he becomes tendentious on it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose even article subjects can generally edit the talk page. Now that DG has agreed not to edit Slate Star Codex directly, I can't support this without some diff of inappropriate behavior. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as an enforcement method, not a punishment -- to use the traditional line, "preventative not punitive", or the actual reason we impose these at all. David Gerard's choice to step away is laudable, but as a heavy contributor to the topic it's completely understandable that detachment might be neither immediate nor easy; the project has a long, long history of people having difficulty staying away from topics that trouble them. David Gerard is a valuable contributor to other areas of the project, and I think a tban is the soft option here -- it ensures he can continue editing in those areas without being dogged by the desire to return to an issue where he has COI problems, possibly raising more serious sanctions against him. I reiterate my point earlier about trial-permitting talk page access if he desires it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, for now. Given the editor's agreement to step away, this seems premature, and maybe a bit punitive (or at least overly harsh, even if meant to preempt further disruption). Since they've agreed not to repeat their behaviour, and have agreed to what essentially amounts to a voluntary and self-imposed topic ban (of sorts), the issue seems to be dealt with. I'd support a formal (and logged) final warning with the agreement that any further disruption will be met with this particular sanction, which can be imposed by any administrator as a normal admin action, without community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If we can not trust the word of one that's been given the admin bit then we have already lost. Also, any formal warning is just punitive at this point as I think David realizes this thread and his promise will be diff'ed should he stray from his self-imposed topic ban. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, the amount of trust and confidence wrapped up in adminship has varied significantly throughout the project's history. When DG got the bit, Jimbo had only recently stopped hand-appointing admins. That's not a statement that either DG or other 2004-cohort admins are untrustworthy, but seventeen years is a long time and the project is unrecognizable to how it was, including in terms of admin expectations. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I didn't comment above but I'm doubtful that David Gerard even has a COI in the first place. Obviously he strongly dislikes Scott Siskind, but that's not the same as a COI, otherwise there are very few people who could edit Osama bin Laden, Richard Spencer, or David Icke. The only thing that even seems a little like he has a COI is that he was a source for an article on Siskind. But that still doesn't quite sound to me like a controversy or dispute with Siskind, nor does it make him Siskind's rival, which are the actual standards at WP:BLPCOI. I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival"), or else we would have to have some third-party source cover Gerard's grudge against Scott ("controversy"). It's near the line and so I think Gerard voluntarily declining to edit articles about Siskind is a good idea, but I don't think he's required to do so. Loki (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support this sanction, except DG has seemed to accept Levivich's BLPCOI argument. I'll say a bit more in the hopes of encouraging DG not to make any more Scott Alexander related edits at all. (He might already intend that, but strictly he only seems to have committed not to edit the Star Codex mainspace page.) I know DG means well and thinks he's helping the anti racist cause. But it was rather disconcerting to see someone try to associate a progressive Jew who lost relatives in the holocaust with neo nazi propaganda like 14 words. Various studies have consistently found that on average the Star Codex audience leans well to the left. Scott Alexander is well respected by the tech elite across the planet. Many of the founders and senior execs from the large platforms read his blog. Even UK Christians, while rejecting his atheist worldview, see SA as a person of exceptional compassion, courage and honesty. If DG thinks he can square up to someone like Scott Alexander that's up to him. But the place to push his heterodox views would be his own social media or via his mates in legacy newspapers like NYT & FT. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No call for this as user has voluntarily agreed to step away. Revisit iff (not a typo) an issue arises in the future. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose, for now My main worry is that the editor will keep making veiled or explicit personal attacks on the talk pages, like accusing Scott Alexander of racism and insinuating that he's a Nazi. Or insinuating that I'm canvassing people on one side of the issue on Twitter, without providing any evidence. An actual topic ban also prevents the editor from editing the talk pages, unlike the choice of the editor to not edit the article itself. However, perhaps abstaining from editing the page will stop this kind of behavior. If so, a topic ban is unnecessary. Aapjes (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as overkill. Loki makes a reasonable point above that a voluntary recusal wouldn't have been obligatory, even if it is preferred. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To elaborate: disliking the subject of an article isn't a conflict of interest, and if a newspaper interviewing someone about a topic is enough to create a COI, then we'd be painting with a very broad brush, catching a lot of benign examples in addition to genuinely problematic ones. For instance, I'm a physicist, and as such I'm occasionally approached for comment by science magazines who want an outside expert's opinion about a story. Does that give me a Conflict of Interest about the subject of that story? It's not my research, I don't have a financial or reputational stake in it — I just have the background knowledge to be able to talk about it. That's the same background knowledge which I would bring to a Wikipedia article. Would my doing so be illegitimate? XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think, when an editor tries to remove reliably sourced content from an article criticizing and article they themselves contributed to (e.g. removing reference that the Reason article says The New York Times wrote a "hit piece"), that clearly violates the WP:COI guidelines. SkylabField (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's as yet no consensus over at RSN whether the Reason piece is suitable, with both WP:RSOPINION and WP:UNDUE concerns having been raised. And David Gerard didn't write the New York Times story that the Reason piece took issue with; he was interviewed for it, and the end result is whatever made it through the NYT editorial process. If he had, for example, removed a negative review of a book that he himself wrote, that would be qualitatively different. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as not necessary to prevent disruption in light of the voluntary commitment. Voluntary solutions > involuntary solutions. When an editor makes a voluntary commitment, we shouldn't assume that it'll be violated (in letter or spirit); that would be the opposite of WP:AGF. And, we don't TBAN people just for having a COI. Levivich harass/hound 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support David Gerard has stated I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward. He has not addressed his "14 words" comment, made on the page page of Slate Star Codex, which clearly implied that Scott Siskind is a Neo-Nazi. He has not agreed to stop commenting on Siskind. SlimVirgin has stated David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex per WP:BLPCOI. I asked David Gerard to comment on his understanding of that statement, but he has not. I am concerned that without some formal topic ban, we will be here again discussing the same issue in a few weeks or months. Mo Billings (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For those claiming that "David Gerard agreed to stop:, in this diff:[106] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind? asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[107] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Guy. - Scarpy (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose He recused himself, and this ends the matter. Pursuing this further serves no purpose other than sating the blood thirst of adamant fans, which I think on principle we shouldn't do. Mvolz (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban applicable to mainspace and talk pages in the subject area, and a review of the article by uninvolved editors for POV one way or the other. The user is an administrator and should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard, and subject to more stringent steps, than otherwise might occur. It's amazing that this ANI thread is necessary in the first place. This kind of COI editing brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I just wanted to add that I made this comment on the basis of the comments above, and was not aware that page logs indicate that, by number of edits, David Gerard is far and away the top editor of both the article itself and the talk page. He made 26% of article edits[108] and 39% of talk page edits [109], far and away the most active of any editor. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Merely having a COI has never been grounds for preventing someone from engaging in talk page discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: David Gerard has not edited at all since the 22nd of February. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative support I'm afraid that once an editor has connected their off-wiki views publicly in such a prominent fashion in this conversation no less, it becomes very difficult to control the trust and confidence of the community that they will be acting fully within the provisions of the COI policy, a la wp:NONAZIS (though I do acknowledge that it's an essay without consensus support). I do note however that the editor in question has recused themselves, and hence I've moderated my support to being tentative only, and would not oppose no tban at all, as tbans are meant to be protective of the project, as opposed to sanctions against an editor. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    XIIIfromTokyo

    INDEFINITELY BLOCKED
    There is clear consensus from multiple editors that XIIIfromTokyo takes more from Wikipedia than he gives to it. This is based on a combination of previous sanctions, reported disruption that led to this thread, and disruption and persistent arguments within it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    From archives

    This timeline is not exhaustive and, before 2021, comes from the list in the ANI notice of November 2020. --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    September 2017 (TBAN and warning)

    TBAN "due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia"

    Warning "against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive_accusations_of_antisemitism_and_homophobia.2C_and_threats_and_personal_attacks_by_XIIIfromTokyo

    Additional comment by admin: Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block. --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    September 2020

    ANI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Infringement_of_caution_against_attacks_and_of_topic-ban_by_XIIIfromTokyo (according to me, unfounded accusations of "xenophobic behaviour" by Wikipedia admins and agressivity towards me)

    --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    November 2020

    ANI notice by Guy Macon listing previous ANIs about XIIIfromTokyo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#XIIIfromTOKYO_%28need_an_admin_who_speaks_French%29 --Delfield (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    9-18 January 2021

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

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

    Thank you.

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

    It's worth noting that this is a pretty serious BLP issue, dealing with the ongoing sex crime accusations against Olivier Duhamel. I know that's somewhat afield from what OP is concerned with—that XIIIfromTOKYO's references to "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University" is directed towards Delfield. Interestingly, the content at issue does not seem to discuss Paris Assas University, and in fact seems to be a throwback to accusations made in a SPI case opened against Delfield that closed without action. I think there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [110]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[111]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757[112][113].
    And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

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

    Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.
    The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [114]. I quote "written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article[115]" :
    "pretending facts that are not in the sources" is not different to "fraudulent use of references". I'm strictly following the openning statement.
    Gala is nothing more than a tabloid. See the SPI for more input on the use of that kind of material. Asterix757 has provided more element on that newspaper[116], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.
    In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.
    "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.
    So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a WP:POINT. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.
    You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional[117]. You do it 8 times on the edit summary, it's acceptable, I do it once with a 25'000 SPI bytes, it's not ?
    You have just removed a full paragraph because, according to you "whether Eduniversal is a good enough source for this remains to be seen"[118], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[119], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.
    I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.
    Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.
    I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.
    --Delfield (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "pursuing this obsession you say "[120] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2[121] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[122]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've completely misrepresented that diff as if it applied to the "obsessed" statement. It has nothing to do with that, and it seems you're determined to distort this matter until it suits your agenda. 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Psychological health is therefore the reason I am not answering to XIII or going deeper in the ANI dispute. Thank you.
    --Delfield (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already made comments about my mental health, and I have clearly told you that it was not acceptable. Yet, you made the choice to keep the discussion on that track, conspicuously using website like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-healt.
    You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[123] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[124]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[125][126][127]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.
    It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, either file a WP:SPI or withdraw this accusation. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August[128] . Already mentionned repeadly on that ANI, you can't have missed it. I have added some inputs to that SPI, and went as far as asking if he thought a third account should be added[129] before actually adding it. I haven't voiced an opinion that is not shared by at least one other contributor.
    It took us 6 monhs to solve the issue at FR.Wiki, but it has been draging on for 4 years at EN.Wiki. It might be time to consider that you might be wrong on that. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A stale SPI from August is not a reason to repeat those accusations months later. Either file a new SPI with new evidence, or withdraw the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. --Delfield (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify further: I am fine, these guidelines I follow are just to keep it this way. No risk of self-harm of course. --Delfield (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1-2 February 2021

    Because I asked an admin to "clean up" a talk page of personal attacks, he answered: "My comments are not dirty things that need to be, as you said, "cleaned", thank you. As you might know, stereotypes about French people include having a poor hygiene, so that choice of words is a bit unfortunate."
    --Delfield (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, make it quick this time :
    A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. It's was not the first time that you have tried to rewrite one of my message in order to alter its original meaning, and I have already clearly said that it was not acceptable[131]. So you knowingly behave in a way that I have asked you to refrain from.
    It's the third ANI that Delfield has started against me during the pasts months[132][133]. Mostly off-topic accusations, always starting with that once a bad guy always a bad guy mantra over and over again. And everytime I waste more time on ANI than on the article. That's how Brandolini's law works, and Wikipedia:POV railroad also apply there.
    I see that Delfield only has 200 edits so far (3 ANI started with only 200 edits, that's actually amazing), so it might be time to draw a line between harassment strategies, and genuine grievances. And I understand that, as a still young contributor with edits on controversial articles as a sole experience, it might be hard for Delfield to make that difference. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. Incorrect. Please see WP:TPO for specific instances in which the comments of others can be edited or deleted. I'm not saying that any of those apply, just correcting your blanket generalization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New ANI notice

    XIIIfromTOKYO is once again again making a whole section in talk page on my edits (implying bad intent), even though what he is talking about had already been sorted out by Asterix757 (there was a confusion about where the claims took place: the institution or a group of institutions).

    His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1007909303&oldid=1007908098

    Former edits by Asterix757: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1008065409&oldid=1008062642

    Warning of XIIIfromTokyo about this (and above the 9-18 January section) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XIIIfromTOKYO#Topic_ban

    At every ANI post, he is trying to have the admins not reading by writing long texts in which the line of thoughts seem difficult to follow (or trying to make obviously bad faith claims, like on 12:20, 11 January 2021 above about the word "obsession" I used), so that they let down the whole subject.

    Even if Asterix757 had not already made these judicious improvements, I feel it is not normal that every edit I make is observed by XIIIfromTokyo and a whole section is made each time a sentence in my edits can be improved. Even if XIIIfromTokyo did not create a new section, I do not think he should ever write "Delfield has done this and this" but "This is written in the article, I think that should be written for this reason" without mentioning me in talk pages. It has been polluting discussions between Asterix757 and me for months and it is becoming difficult for me to write anything even in talk page because for everything XIIIfromTokyo has a bizarre comment (see above 1-2 February where I asked the talk page to be "cleaned up" of his personal attacks, and he answered referring to the stereotypes about French people like him having a bad hygiene).

    --Delfield (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Delfield's harrassement

    Hi,

    I think it's pretty obvious that Delfiel has been filling a swarm of ANI in the last past months in order to harrass me. Per Brandolini's law, I won't waste my time to debunk any of this, unless expressly asked my an admin.

    There is a strong case against Delfield for a long time abuse of sockpuppet; It was opened by an other contributor, but I totally support it. We just need 1 admin to have a look at it.

    There is also a strong case against Delfield for enduring misrepretention of sources and/or use of poor material[134]. As you can see, when caught, Delfield doesn't answer, and opens an ANI as an answer. Delfield has also tried to remove failed verification tags[135]... So the real question is, is Delfield able to contribute to Wikipedia. Afer 200+ edits, and already a long history of ANI and editwaring, I strongly doubt it.

    The Sciences Po article is now filled with that kind of QAnon Pizzagate elite pedophile conspiracy mumbo-jumbo : "Duhamel was indeed organizing many events with the French intelligentsia involving a lot of sex and alcool and mixing adults and children. Small children were told about loss of virginity at 12 and were asked to mime in front of parents sexual acts, 12-year old girls were dressed with provocative clothes and make-up and sent to dance with 40-year-old men, older children are asked to tell the audience about their first sexual experience and young boys are "offered" to older women. [...] ". And it's not even connected to that college. The controversy section is now longer that the History section. 200+ edits of pedophile conspiracies. An other contributor has already tried to make it understand that it was turning the article into a gossip magazine, BUt Delfield sees nothing bad about it [136].

    XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)The section in question, while it needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, seems to be well sourced enough. I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well. 4D4850 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As seen in the below section, he may have falsified the entire start of the conversation. 4D4850 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    @XIIIfromTOKYO: the SPI you linked to was closed back in October with this comment "Open for a month and obviously not going anywhere, so closing with no action taken. If anybody has some new evidence and can present it in a clear and concise way so it's easy to evaluate, file a new report." So it's fairly unlikely "just need 1 admin to have a look at it". What you need to do is follow the advice given. If you have new evidence, present it in a clear and concise and manner in a new report. Edit: I see you were already told by User:HandThatFeeds to stop treating that old report as convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. You really need to follow that advice as well. Just stop mentioning that SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Yes, it was closed because no one took a look at it. Two contributors spent hours to collect evidences, so far, for nothing. I have more elements to provide, but for that I need to have someone who is willing to have a look at other peronn's work. That's a shame, because that's the fastest way to deal with that ANI.
    I have 110'000+ edits and 13+ years as a contributor. Delfield has 200+ edits, and only controversial edits. So maybe, maybe, the old grumpy contributor has seen something. And maybe MePhisto, who openned the SPI, has also seen something. And maybe, Asterix757, who found that a lot of references discrepancies[137] (failed verifications and poorly sourced claims), has also seen something. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @XIIIfromTOKYO: it's not possible to parse that closing statement (in particular, the request for new evidence) as there being no review of the evidence. It's clear that it was reviewed, perhaps only cursorily given the length, and was found insufficient compelling to demonstrate sock-puppetry. You and MePhisto should take this advice on board, and if you have new evidence open a new case in a clearer and more concise manner. Until you do so, you need to drop the sockpuppetry allegations. Even if you are right, the evidence presented to the community thus far is not sufficient for finding of sockpuppetry. There are plenty of times when sockpuppetry happens but the evidence isn't sufficient. You can continue to personally believe whatever you want provided you don't let it unreasonably affect your editing here and especially stop making unfounded accusations. As for the other stuff, I'll put it this way. I had a quick look at the talk page of Sciences Po and what you said there did lead to concerns on my part about Delfield inaccurately summarising sources. But I didn't investigate further in part because I didn't feel I could trust you either. I don't care that much how long you've been here and how many contributions you have. I do care in my one recent experience with you, I found you continued to make an unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry even after you'd been told to stop. If you keep at that, why should I believe anything else you have to say? In other words, maybe you are right, but you haven't given me a reason to think you're right. The opposite in fact. So rather than spending hours reviewing if it's a persistent problem with Delfield editing, I'll just drop it. If you're lucky, maybe someone else won't be so daunted. If not, well maybe reconsider you approach. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: If I have to drop the sockpuppetry part, why is Delfield allowed to use past ANIs, especially when nothing came out of them ?
    I don't ask you to "trust" me, I ask you to understand that other contributors have also voiced their concerns about this contributor (that lead to an SPI and the finding of multiple references discrepancies). I want you to undertand that Delfiel's narrative and habilities don't match at all with a 200+ edits contributor. It was already true last septembre, when it toped only 140 edits. Let me explain that again :
    • 4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris[138]
    • 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Citation needed}}[139]
    • 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork[140]
    • 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection[141]. The aim was to have the artile locked on the version the Delfield wrote.
    • 43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles[142]
    • 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination[143] : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield[144][145] in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
    • 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page[146], in order to promote Assas.
    • 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins[147]
    5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts red herring tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.
    • 121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard [148], targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
    • 125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield opens a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto[149]
    • 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me[150]
    In barrely more than 100 edits, that contributor has been able to use correctly a very specific template (8th edit), create and article (23rd), make a request for page protection (33rd), start a merging process (43rd), start a deletion process (55th), start an SPI (113rd). It doesn't really fit the narrative of new contributor discovering Wikipedia throught a trial and error process, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible falsification of conversation (verified: no)

    Looking at the edit history and Delfields user contribs, it seems he might have falsified an entire conversation, because I can't find a blanking of the section before that, and he added multiple comments in that edit, so it seems he may have falsified the conversation. 4D4850 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

    If I did everything correct, this should be the diff that added 26000 bytes. 4D4850 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    Also, is there a policy that can be applied? Possibly the policy against impersonating could be applied, but it still seems unique. 4D4850 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They copied that section from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#XIIIfromTokyo. That's why it says "9-18 January (from archives)". Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thank you for clarifying. I thought those headers discussed what the reported user was doing at the time, not previous discussions. Thank you for the clarification. 4D4850 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Bluelinks would have been more compact than C/P, but I see nothing untoward. I remember those ANI reports; I participated in a Talk Page discussion during one of them, in relation to French-language sources (though not to XIII's satisfaction). Narky Blert (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    4D4850 you may wish to deal with this edit where you're trying to make something out of a theory that Defields falsified a conversation. I suggest some apologies and self reversion may be in order. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I shouldn't have assumed bad faith. I struck through all my other comments in this section and I'm about to apologize. 4D4850 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also going to take a self enforced wikibreak starting later today for assuming bad faith. 4D4850 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @4D4850: I am not sure you really "assumed" bad faith, since you wrote "possible", and you stroke everything when Canterbury Tail told you it was a mistake. Now that you have read this conversation, if you could stay at least to give your input if needed in this issue, it would be of some help. But mistakes do happen, it is exactly what I am saying when on my many edits with sources there is one thing that can be a mistake, and XIIIfromTokyo makes a whole section about me in talk page on how a bad faith editor I am, each time and for some time now. --Delfield (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I'm not an admin, and I'm going to need to start disclosing that again. 4D4850 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible falsification of conversation (verification needed)

    As a matter of fact, I have already mentionned in a previous ANI that Delfield has already altered one of my message to alter its meaning[151].

    • Delfield said "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him""
    • The full message was "attack [him] on [his] number of edits, then on [his] grammar"

    The first message is a blend accusation, the second message clearly shows that I have explained why the comment was problematic. It's pretty relevant, because that actually the first time that Delfield talk to me. I think a look at the original discussion shows that all these incidents are created by Delfield. It all started when an other contributor started a SPI against Delfield[152]. I wrote to support that contributor, explaining that I came to the same conclusion. Delfield didn't even answer me, but immediatly opened an ANI against me, using years old edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=977943897)

    First messages

    It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016[153]. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time. Good luck. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I notice that this edit from this user, about some unspecified "behaviour pattern" from an another user, is their second edit in 2020. It is written in their talk page: "you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block." Would this user be MePhisto? --Delfield (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits[154]. Happy ? I don't think starting a discussion like you do by trying to know who has the largest editcount is very mature.
    Yes, back in 2016 I tried to warn EN.Wiki about Droas82/Launebee crosswiki massive use of sockpuppets. Launebee managed to get me topic-ban to silence me, and came back with a brand new army of sockpuppets. And then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee was openned, and it was proven that I was right all along. So, yea, maybe I should ask for the topic-ban to be lifted, but I don't feel like dealing with admins thinking that my "lack of facility with the English language" can cover their xenophobic behaviours.
    The "behaviour pattern" has already been introduced by MePhisto. So, no, it's not "unspecified". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    What do your problems with the administrators have to do with me? I mentioned your text on the noticeboard because I do not see what I can answer to that. --Delfield (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Answered at AN. Now back to the real topic.
    After only 131 edits as of today, you have shown that you already have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia ([message at the AN), and of a 5 years dispute (enough to provide very fast some years old diffs). But of course you know nothing about and are not connected to Launebee/Droas82 . XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    You message is not clear. I found where one can ask Wikipedia if there is a problem and I provided the "diffs" available on your talk page for more clarity. Besides, could you be a bit more gentle please? I am not responsible for your problems with Wikipedia. --Delfield (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. Being "a bit more gentle". Sure, why not ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it shows very well that since DAY 1, Delfield has wage an all out campaign, and more often that not relying on dirty tactics. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Further conversation

    XIIIfromTokyo saying the Duhamel story, sourced with so many reputable newspapers (New York Times, The Times, Le Monde...), is a QAnon conspiracy theory (above 12:04, 22 February 2021), and writing so long texts so that the original discussion gets drowned under, is just one new example of what he is constantly doing in talk pages. On top of using this to constantly attacking me and making whole sections about how a bad faith user I am, each time my edit has been improved by another user). Discussion between me and other users become impossible, since it is polluted with these long personal attacks.

    Right after this ANI, he did it again. I wrote to Asterix747 "you are right" but I am discussing how with him to improve the sentence in the article, but XIIIfromTokyo makes a long comment trying to prove that I am a bad-faith user ("only what fits in the narrative is mentioned, contradictory statements are ignored. That's Cherrypicking"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sciences_Po&diff=prev&oldid=1008356814 (precedent similar edit already mentioned: [155] . Previous edit already correcting what he is talking about in these two new "analysis" of my bad faith: [156] )

    Two users have already been in favor of a block (Drmies 23:04, 10 January 2021 and 4D4850 14:34, 22 February 2021). I do not know if it the right answer but what I know is that it has been going for a long time, without any instance of apology (Asterix757 was in favour of an apology 00:53, 11 January 2021) or retraction of obviously wrong statements about me (like I was accusing him to have a medical condition, and The Hand That Feeds You asked him 18:55, 12 January 2021 to retract that statement above, which he did not do, or like my comment about cleaning up a page had anything to do with his personal hygiene). Besides, it seems it has been going on for much longer, since he was already cautioned against discussing character of other conversants in talk pages under penalty of possible immediate block on 11 October 2017 (for false accusations of antisemitism according to the ANI).

    --Delfield (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me give the full quote that 4D4850 gave "I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well". You have altered that contributor's quote to fit in your narrative. It says a lot about how much you can be trusted, and about how much your contributions have to be checked. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I didn't find any policy violations in the logs., and even if there were, you would still be blocked if I was an admin, which I really need to start disclosing I'm not again. 4D4850 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's argumentum ad ignorantiam. A proposition is not true because it has not yet been proven false. You claimed that you were taking a wikibreak, maybe that's why you didn't find anything relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things. A: I only started the wikibreak later that day, I didn't manage to follow through and not edit today because I had 5 messages. B: I checked before I started the wikibreak and didn't find anything suspicious, aside from one edit which I mistook for a policy violation and me mistaking it for a policy violation was the whole reason I chose to do the wikibreak. Overall though, everything in this ANI is too confusing for anybody to make sense of while editing, so later today I'll read it through and try to finally make a tl;dr for anybody who can't understand the ridiculously over complicated discussion. 4D4850 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In favor of a block if there is no retraction about the conspiracy nature of the pedophilia scandal in France I read better the comment of XIIIfromTokyo (12:04, 22 February 2021), and I saw that he is directly calling the Duhamel story "pedophile conspiracies". I cannot withstand that such comment is so hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France, thanks to the testimony about the REAL victim of Duhamel, and who could read such comments online. Such a statement should not be taken lightly and, I am now in favor in a (permanent) block. It is an extremely serious matter and this only should be subject to a permanent block if there is no retraction (and if he strikes his whole comment too of course). If there is a retraction and a strike, I let the community decide of the right path on the basis of the personal attacks against me and pollution of the discussions in which I am involved, since I would not be neutral enough to be the judge of this. --Delfield (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone is aware that you want to ban me. You opened the first ANI against me last September because I wrote to support an other contributor who openned an SPI against you[157]. The first time that you talk to me was to attack me on my grammar and on my edit count[158]. You have since then started half a dozen of ANI against me in the last 2 months. Mostly because I was trying to show and explain your mistakes. Needless to say, there are a lot of them.
    You are now accusing me to make an apologia for pedophilia, and of being "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France". So I'm more or less some kind of devil. And of course, no need to provide a link "Source : trust me bro". So I don't really understand what you expect. Your claim is delusional.
    Putting references from The Times or the BBC is not the same as correctly using references from these media. And that's the whole point of your edits here. An other contributor has already mentionned that your edits were problematic, and always needed to be checked. I explained that I agreed with him, and I have even provided quotes from these articles in order to underline the most problematic parts[159]. You don't listen, you don't correct the mistakes, and you start an ANI. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest that accusing other editors of saying that you have a mental disorder when they say that you are pursuing an obsession and then writing "Your claim is delusional" might not be a wise idea? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your only answer to a non-native speaker is a lexical/grammatical comment ? Great. But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of my message.
    Delfield@ has accused me of making an apologia for pedophilia, and of being "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France". I'm not OK with that. So I need clear references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    XIIIfromTOKYO: Focusing in on two interactions

    The above contains a huge amount of material -- free clue: you get better results at ANI if you are concise: fewer words, more diffs -- so I am going to focus on two interactions:

    "Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
    "Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[160]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

    So, let's look at this comment that supposedly supports XIIIfromTOKYO's assertion that Delfield is guilty of "harrassment[sic] and playing the mental health game":

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

    XIIIfromTOKYO is clearly editing from a position of bad faith, telling lies about Delfield and hoping that nobody will check and see that in the diff provided Delfield pretty much said the exact opposite of what XIIIfromTOKYO claims they said.

    So is this an isolated incident? To avoid any possibility of cherry picking, let me address the claim that was directly above this one when I edited it (please stop adding new sections!):

    "As a matter of fact, I have already mentionned[sic] in a previous ANI that Delfield has already altered one of my message[sic] to alter its meaning[161]. [...] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

    Wow. If true, that would be a good example of Delfield misbehaving. Editing another person's comments that they posted with their signature would be completely out of line.

    But the diff[162] doesn't contain an edit from Delfield at all, much less an edit where Delfield altered one of XIIIfromTOKYO's posts. Instead it is a post from XIIIfromTOKYO where they say "I have edited Delfield's previous message" -- once again the exact opposite of what is claimed.

    I have seen enough. I call for an indefinite block of XIIIfromTOKYO until they demonstrate that they understand that the above pattern of behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia.

    Please note that I am not making any claim one way or the other regarding Delfield or anyone else. If anyone other than XIIIfromTOKYO wants me to look into that, please provide diffs demonstrating the behavior you are talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, let's execute XIIIfromTOKYO, and explain that nothing that he can say will be heard off. @Guy Macon: what a nice way to introduce yourself and your way of thinking .
    Thank you for your comment, let me explain that again to you.
    1. My original message was "You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. (...)"[163] (12 September 2020, 13:42)
    2. Delfield then added that to the ANI "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him"". As you can see the half of the sentence has been removed, including all of the objects of the sentence. The meaning of my sentence was altered, and nothing was left to indicate that a cut has been done. Most of the time in academia "(...)" is used for that purpose. And the quote was presented as an honest representation of my comment. As you might know personal attacks are not allowed on Wiki. Delfield cut my quote to let other people think that I was attacking. In the original quote, anyone can see that Delfield is ressorting to personnal attacks ; I'm explaining why comment on grammar or edit count are not acceptable.
    3. When I saw the alteration of my quote in the ANI, I put the full version. I clearly explained why Delfield's cut was misleading, and warn him "Delfield, you are not allowed to change my messages, or to cut them in a way that could alter their meanings. "[164].
    4. Delfield ignore my warning, and altered again my quote [165].
    So yes, the (my) orignal quote was altered (by Delfield) to remove the relevant parts. When I put back the relevant parts of the quote, warning Delfield about doing that again... well that's exactly what happened. So Delfield knew that it was altering my message, and yet, choose to do so. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between changing another editors comments (forbidden; see WP: TPOC) and quoting them (allowed). If you feel that someone misquoted you, you are free to respond saying so. You are not allowed to edit other people's comments. If you reply to this comment by indicating that you have read WP:TPOC, understand that what you did was wrong, and commit to following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, you might escape an indefinite block. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong to edit someone else's comments, you will be demonstrating the Law of Holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In point 3/diff [252], above, XIIIfromTOKYO edited another editor's comment to change its meaning. That is totally unacceptable; see WP:TPO - "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" (emphasis in the original). Narky Blert (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already claimed that you wanted to ban me, and that nothing that I would say would make any impact. My comment was in no way an answer. It was an detailled explanation of how my own words have been misquoted by Delfield, and who I had to rectify them. That's was not for you, that was for anyone who would put any trust to your claim.
    If you want an answer, strike your comment about my message not being important, and your accusation of me "telling lies about Delfield and hoping that nobody will check". My detailled explanation shows that your comment was, at best, without solid ground;
    Respect goes both ways. You have since your first message here displayed a very high level of violence (can it be higher than claiming that you wish to exterminate an other long time contributor ?). So it's up to you to make the first step and apologize.
    The name of the page is Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe you should let admins work. You have already disclosed your agenda, and clearly stated that your goal was to ban me. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: Delfield altered my message by removing large chunks ot it. Delfield has clearly altered the meaning of my message by misquoting me. Yet, despite that change of meaning, Delfield claimed that the quote was mine. In lot of places (academia, Wikipedia...) that kind of practice is considered as a forgery (yes, I can use bold caracters also).
    The only part of the text that was modified, were words that were falsifely attributed to me. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @XIIIfromTOKYO: - What part of "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" is difficult to understand? Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: Let me ask you the same question : What part of "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" is difficult to understand ? The core comment is mine. Delfield provided a quote, that was presented of being mine. You understand ? A quote that was presented as being mine. The text was so altered that it had nothing to do with my core message. That is called a forgery, and that falls also under copyright infringement. So, as I'm the author of the quoted text, I put back my original message (FYI, that's commonly put between "."). I didn't change the meaning of my text, I re-established my text.
    And yet, despite all these warning, Delfield made the choice to make a new forgery, and commit a copyright infringement. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbor-treeish break / Requests of admin close

    • One wonders when XIII will stop alleging that Delfield is a sock. And here we are, with XIII still arguing that Delfield commits forgeries and copyright infringements (what?). It's time to block for personal attacks, and that is exactly what I'm going to do, pending further discussion here. I propose we let non-involved admins and editors discuss the matter here: Delfield and others, kindly let this run its course. We'll have no more from XIII for 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This XIII character needs an indefinite block. Between the insane fixation on the word obsession, and the changing of someone else's post, this is someone who just doesn't get it and, it seems, never will. Oh yeah, there's also the talk of being the target of "violence" and "extermination". EEng 08:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also very close to simply deleting the entire Sciences_Po#Attitude_toward_sexual_violence_and_Duhamel_scandal section, which reads like a bad translation of a trash tabloid. Something like this need extremely high-quality, comprehensive sources, not a cobbling together of scandalous rumors given in WP's voice as if flat fact. EEng 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.[166] EEng, why do I have the feeling that there is going to be edit warring over this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I'll defer to someone whose Froggish is better than mine, but it's at least some of the sources cited in support of X turn our to simply be paper P reporting that paper Q says that someone's book asserted X. EEng 01:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with EEng: XIII needs an indefinite block. I see zero attempts to understand Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Even when presented with a diff where they violated a policy and a direct quote of the policy they violated, all they do is claim "what I did was allowed because Delfield is Evil". I could not get a simple "OK, I will stop editing other people's signed comments" out of XIII. Instead they keep saying that editing other people's comments is allowed and that they will do it again the next time someone writes something they don't like.
    Could an uninvolved admin please evaluate this report, write up a summary, and close it? This has gone on far too long. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I've said elsewhere that I wouldn't post again in this thread unless there was a proposal to !vote on; but I'm breaking my vow. Yes, I do have opinions about the editorial behaviour of some parties both inside and outside the content dispute, but I'm not going to air them unless and until there is something to focus on. Why provide an opportunity for the flinging of apeshit? Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, I asked on AN for someone to look at this... Drmies (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like anyone is interested.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thread caught in the Twilight Zone. Do-duh doo-doo, do-duh doo-doo! EEng 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A group of administrators line up to be tested for the new Brazilian variant of ANI flu
    Our traditional workflow in these cases is:
    1. ANI report filed. Clear community consensus for an indefinite block,
    2. Failure to get the attention of an uninvolved admin who can actually impose the block,
    3. Disruptive editor gets the ANI Flu, (stops editing until the ANI case is archived)
    4. ...Time passes...,
    5. Finally an admin show up and say "no recent disruption, nothing to do here.",
    6. Thread gets archived,
    7. Disruptive editor resumes being disruptive.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL SOME ADMIN DISPOSE OF THIS? EEng 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can close it (without reading any of the thread) as "You, stand in the corner. You, stand in the other. You, stand in the corner next door. And I do not want to hear who started it, or there'll be no dinner, okay?" but I doubt that would please anyone. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    After the indefinite block

    XIIIfromTokyo immediately proved this unanimous consensus was the right one by obviously unfairly accusing E, Guy Macon and Narky Blert of "racial and/or ethnic slurs" and accusing me of disclosing his identity because he talked to the media: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XIIIfromTOKYO&diff=1009640684&oldid=1009633217 . This is not the first time he invokes racism to explain Wikipedia English decisions towards him ("xenophobic behaviour") This is the kind of behaviour I constantely have had to deal with in talk pages. It is a pity it took so long and many users have had to face that, but this abuse is thankfully over, at least on Wikipedia English and at least outside his talk page. Thanks everyone who took the time to look at it.

    Ritchie333, I don't understand your last comment, but no worries.

    --Delfield (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if something should me made about his talk page comment, he could continue to make such accusations on his talk page, targeting me or other editors, shouldn't at least a warning me made? Anyway. --Delfield (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Being blocked can be upsetting, so we usually allow the blocked editor to vent about how unfair it all is for at least a week or so. Several veteran editors and administrators are monitoring that talk page and will take action (typically by asking the blocking admin to revoke talk page access) if the behavior gets too bad or persists too long. I advise you to unwatch the page and move on with your life. You aren't helping. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of XIII's total failure to understand my use of British idiom (complete with helpful Wiktionary link) in this thread, I am even more puzzled as to why they were insistent that I translate into English part of a French citation we were discussing at Talk:University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas#Translation help needed. I am leaning towards the conclusion that they were stirring (Australian and British idiom, not in Wiktionary or even Urban Dictionary (perhaps because it isn't vulgar)).
    As far as WP:TPA goes, I understand that removal of editing privileges is supposed to be preventative not punitive, and assume that TP comments are taken into account when judging a WP:UNBLOCK request. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Eloquent Peasant

    • User The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs · logs)
    • Reasons for reporting: Continuously ignoring guidelines agreed by Wikiproject:Puerto Rico to reach consensus when using and replacing files relating to Puerto Rico. User has constantly contradicted themselves in statements relating to consensus yet have failed to do so. An example of a file replaced without reasoning other then personal preference is this file which was replaced on wikipedia and wikidata without consensus by this file. With the attitude of the user this can be considred as disruptive editing, especially after threatening myself that "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles" which you can ctrl-f and find on this specific noticeboard here. It seems the user is appealing to ones self interest then others as a group. Here is the page for consensus discussion which was agreed upon we would all have to agree to use files here. The user clearly has done this with almost all files added and replaced after the agreement. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. Block per WP:NOTHERE or TBAN for Puerto Rico and all articles of interest to wiki project Puerto Rico. 4D4850 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, i added the tag --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it into it's own section, just so they would notice it is not to do with the strawberries. 4D4850 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @4D4850: Cheers, i didn't realize i slapped it with out a header. You've been good help, thank you! Do you think It would be a good idea that I take down the files that the project didn't agree upon and we continue its discussion there on consensus and what files to use? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go with what's used now at the moment, but have a discussion or RfC for what files to use. That way consensus could be obtained easily. The ones with no consensus should be kept if and only if they are used currently and there are no better agreed upon files. 4D4850 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted, i'll start working on that in the upcoming weeks. I'll come to you if I need anything relating to this specifically since you are the one dealing with this atm. Thank you and have a nice rest of your day m8! Take care :D --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an FYI that pings don't work unless you add the ping and your signature in the same edit. Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be available for a little while starting later today, because I got overzealous in another ANI thread and accidentally assumed bad faith, so I'm taking a short self-enforced wikibreak. You can see when I'm back to editing when I post I'm editing again on my talk page. 4D4850 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @4D4850: User is still able to edit pr topics, i thought they where tban? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why I used to disclose that I'm not an admin, before I was convinced people would know that I wasn't if they needed to check. We need to get an admin to TBAN Eloquent, but I'm unfortunately not an admin. Sorry for the misunderstanding. (Also I know I'm breaking my own wikibreak, but I felt I needed to clear this up.) 4D4850 (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Background for this issue is here:

    Cookieman1.1.1_is_making_funny_statements report on Commons Administrators' noticeboard --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    None of that is background, you are uploading files without consensus and are getting too personal about everything. Like here a few months ago with your "have a nice life comment. You are being disruptive, and your actions could drive away others in the future or you calling something "farts and logic" or whatever as a way to just mock myself like a child. Etiquette is extremely important here, but it becomes absolutely hypocritical and contradictory to say that you want concensus when you have over a dozen files uploaded without concensus from the wikiproject then act like i have forgotten the consensus? What a joke. "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles", you are literally threatening to replace a perfectly fine file because you don't like it then go "I think you should remove the Trujillo Alto stuff on the mountain. It looks really awful. I am a lady - a lady who's been around awhile so please be a gentleman..." Then asking me if any of it is in the blazon? Give me a break, sounds like you are attempting to troll me with questions that are obvious even after i explain with real examples. And now you are trying to get commons admins to delete a file of mine for absolutely no reason then spite now and is literally looking into my other actives as she as looked into my other hobbys like Micronationalism. "Also note that the user, in his previous posts, mentioned micronations and a user at Micronations with same user name has founded a micronation and he has made himself the president of such micronation which unfortunately includes Puerto Rico. The problem is Puerto Rico is not a micronation. Perhaps the user has taken his imagination too far and transfered his micronation hobby to Wikipedia so I am baffled." What? (No I don't claim Puerto Rico as apart of a micronation) and the user claims i've transferred my interest in Micronationalism to Puerto Rico when that has never happened nor have I ever claimed Puerto Rico. Do you know what Micronationalism even is? I've never made any edit relating to micronationalism and Puerto Rico. You are baffled? I am baffled by the concerning the lengths this user is getting into to attempt get me into more issues. How much time do you have on your hands to search for myself on other wikis and websites? Its a little bit creepy and unsettling. You have had to have looked on the internet for me and that makes me greatly uncomfortable. You are cyber stalking me now, I never even hinted here that I run a micronation. Admins, please handle this, this user has gone too far and i am very concerned now. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @TonyBallioni: Sorry for the ping, you just happened to be on the top of the list of active admins. This is urgent and please look into this users actions towards me as i am genuinely concerned. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cyphoidbomb: Sorry for the ping, you just happened to be on the top of the list of active admins. This is urgent and please look into this users actions towards me as i am genuinely concerned and ive been waiting days for this to be handled, can you give a hand?. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain El Classico

    This is a new editor, 2 weeks old with 56 edits, every single one of which has been reverted by a number of different editors. [167] Some of the edits were copyright violations, [168],[169] some were poorly sourced, [170] some were undiscussed major changes, over which they edit warred [171] and were blocked, [172] and attempted to reinsert after their block was over. (On Commons, they uploaded a historical photograph, putatively of Maria Schicklgruber as their "own work", without providing a source. [173])

    They do not respond to warnings left on their talk page,[174] nor do they alter their editing behavior as a result.

    Their focus is on Nazis and Nazism, which are all articles which receive a lot of vandalism and PoV editing. They require close watching by numerous editors in order to preserve their value. The last thing that's needed on these articles is a good-faith but incompetent editor making poor alterations and edit-warring over them.

    It's quite early in this editor's Wikipedia career, but so far they have not shown themselves to be a competent and productive contributor. They may well turn into one as they mature (I have the impression, which of course could be wrong, that the editor is young), but for the protection of the encyclopedia in the meantime, I believe a temporary topic ban from Nazis and Nazism is justified, perhaps for 6 months. This will give Captain El Classico a chance to show their worth to the community by editing in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Not all of Captain El Classico's edits to Martin Adolf Bormann have been reverted. I have also left a detailed comment on CEC's talk page explaining the problems with their editing and urging them to post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support taking some kind of action, I but I'm not sure a topic ban goes far enough. Their additions/changes have been very low quality, and for the most part don't comply with our minimum requirements for sourcing or for neutral wording or for compliance with copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Just to be fair, I've left a message on CEC's talk page letting them know that an indef block is under discussion and, again, urging them to come here and make their thoughts known. I'm not at all sure that doing so will do any good, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2 cents: I don't think that a new editor who has never found their way to an article talk page or their own user talk page will ever abide by a topic ban, they most likely won't even see the notice that a topic ban has been imposed. I think this is just another editor who wants to do their editing without interacting with anyone else here. Those folks can edit successfully for years as long as they have mastered the policies and guidelines and don't edit war or get into conflicts with other editors. That isn't the case here. I'm not sure I'd block indefinitely but a longer block is in order. And I'd like to commend BMK for taking the time to explain to the editor on their talk page what the problems are. I just wish they'd take a few minutes and read all of the warnings on their talk page so we could know whether they understand that there are serious problems here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to have stopped editing, from about the time I filed this report. My feeling is that we won't see any more edits from this account, but, unfortunately, I don't think that necessarily means that the editor is finished editing here. It seems quite possible to me that they have, or will, simply move to another account and continue editing. If they do so, and their edits are in the same subject area (Nazis and Nazism), they'll undoubtedly be recognized fairly quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they remerge and follow the same disruptive pattern of editing under this account, definitely, action will need to be taken with an indef block, being the only option. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion

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

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

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

    This whole course of conduct – the AFDs and Mergers,that is – is out of process and disruptive. It needs to be stopped. It needs to be reversed. And sanctions are in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed a few of the AfDs recently so I looked at this. Could you point to some examples that are problematic? I looked through the first eight on the bundled AfD list and saw that the title of this section appears to be misleading as I found
    • Two that Mztourist hasn't touched (probably because they've got a number of sources) - so they haven't been merged
    • Three that were merged after their own individual AfDs were closed as such ("so they're not "without discussion")
    • Three redirected by Mztourist that were almost completely unsourced except to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (i.e they'd almost certainly be redirected or merged at AfD - but I presume these are the ones you're talking about)
    Are there any that don't fall into these categories, i.e. where the merger could be described as disruptive? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Examples (search on "Bold Move"). There were about 150 merged in the past few days. Articles often show up at AfD in bad shape and exit in better condition, you can't prejudge the outcome of an AfD (see the John C. England example above). -- GreenC 23:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenC - OK, I looked at the first six.
    • Samuel Stockton Miles - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and a weblink which is a 404.
    • Riley Franklin McConnell - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
    • Richard S. Bull - no inline sources, a book given as a reference but no page numbers etc.
    • Harold John Mack - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
    • Lance Edward Massey - three inline sources 1) A description of a battle at Midway in which he is mentioned (and a photo of him) 2) A listing for the Veteran's Hal of Fame 3) A listing for his Navy Cross. This one is more debatable, though I would have suggested to Mztourist that if they believe it was not notable to send it to AfD rather than BOLDly merging it. It wuld not be a problem to restore this one with an edit summary saying such.
    • Alfred Wolf (sailor) - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
    I would say that unless I've chosen an unrepresentative sample, there's probably not a major issue here. The ones that have reasonable inline citations and thus may be notable can be reverted (we have bold/revert/discuss for a reason). I appreciate what you say about AfD, but it is logical that the others almost certainly should be improved before they're restored as they'd certainly fail an AfD in their current state purely for sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Well, let's look at it. WP:BIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Now, if we've got a biography where the only source is a dictionary which has an entry about the ship that is named after then, that bar clearly isn't being reached. So, yes, I certainly don't see merging the ones which are not sufficiently sourced as disruptive, because in their current state they don't pass GNG so that is technically the correct thing to do, and if they were to go through their own AfD at the moment they would almost certainly end up merged or redirected anyway. So when you say that "They are doing by indirection that which they could not do through AFD" Well, they could do it by AfD, simply by nominating the individual articles for AfD. Logically, the correct approach here is to look at fixing the articles that aren't sufficiently sourced, and if that is possible then restoring them to stand-alone articles when they're done. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That presumes the fact that they cannot be fixed. AFD shows that this half-assed AFDs do not stand up. WP:Before should apply. Process should apply. WP:Consensus should apply. The end does not justify the means. This is disenfranchising the editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't presume that at all - it's merely saying they aren't compliant with WP:BIO at the moment. So merging the ones with insufficient sources to support a biography in their current state is correct process. Also, surely on the ones that have been through their own individual AfDs and been kept, merged or deleted then consensus has applied, has it not? As I said to GreenC above, there would be absolutely no problem in reverting Mztourist's merges where the sourcing is debatable (i.e. Lance Edward Massey), but the ones that are simply copied from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (or have been through an AfD that ended in Merge) should clearly not be until they are made compliant. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the rush? And why hundreds of articles all in a mass? This is to stifle content improvement and studied comment and debate. In fact, a lot of these went through the massed rushed AFD and were kept. This is a change of name and tactics deliberately intended to get to a particular result. Sleight of hand. If you don't believe me, take a look at User:Mztourist's talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know some of them were kept. But a lot were merged as well, notably the ones that were only sourced to the Dictionary. I don't see how it stifles content improvement, though; the history of the article is still there for anyone that wants to improve the article to a compliant state. Whilst I appreciate that the volume of articles being merged here is large, one could argue - as Mztourist clearly does - that there are lot of articles in a similar state and it would be illogical to only deal with some of them. Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have demonstrated repeatedly many of these articles are fit for inclusion if you do the research. They should be going through AfD and given a fair hearing. Your saying if additional sources can be found they might be restored. Fair enough but Indy Beetle raises the bar (below) saying they also need to be notable for something besides having a ship named for them. That is crazy. There is no consensus to make certain articles immune from the AfD process if other editors believe the articles are sourced sufficiently. -- GreenC 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said, neither you nor Mztourist have advocated the article be deleted as opposed to merged. Why would AFD be in order? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: In case you were not aware, a recent RfC established that AfD is an appropriate venue to propose blank-and-redirects, and a 2015 discussion established that it is acceptable to propose mergers redirects at AfD (without advocating deletion). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (corrected KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

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

    Black Kite, Power~enwiki and Indy beetle thank you for your reasoned input. I believe that I have been following the correct procedure here, specifically the consensus that has been established across a number of recent AFDs of U.S. Navy ship namesakes. Rather than clogging up AFD with 150+ near identical thinly-sourced articles I BOLDLY merged the namesake content (often only 3 to 10 sentences) to the ship and created a Redirect, which is easily reversible if a User finds that the person does have SIGCOV in multiple RS. There were a few cases like Lance Edward Massey where there was a lot more detail, but because it was so thinly sourced I proceeded with the Merge, but I see that User:Kges1901 reversed this with the edit summary: "Rv redirect, midway squadron commander played an important role in a major battle and covered in all histories of it", a very WP:SOLDIER justification, but they are free to do so if they add SIGCOV in multiple RS of him, otherwise I will AFD it. There were also a few where the person met a presumption of SOLDIER and I didn't touch those despite SOLDIER's imminent deprecation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc​. This complaint is just a continuation in another forum of this original AFD: [[176]] and the stance taken by User:7&6=thirteen and GreenC, including personal attacks and abuse against me and Lettler, a couple of examples here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#John C. England and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rees (airman). It seems that they are still unwilling to accept that many of the ship namesakes were being deleted or redirected at AFD despite claims of an abuse of procedure: [177] and want to prevent any progress being made in line with consensus. In fact I would argue that 7&6=thirteen and GreenC are abusing process by using this complaint to overturn consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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

    @Thewolfchild: The first link I clicked (at random) was Harry F. Bauer, which was merged per consensus at AFD. Improving the encyclopedia doesn't become a bad thing when it is done at scale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's better for the reader if these titles are redirected to the articles about the ships and the reader reads about the namesake there, rather than on a stand-alone page. (In the cases where the sourcing isn't there, as per BK's explanations above.) That's why I'd redirect them, I don't want to speak for Mz. The notion that redirecting a page is somehow taking something away from the encyclopedia, removing information, disenfranchising editors, etc., ... all of that is just silly. It's nothing of the sort. It's just curation of a collection. It's a normal process. Merging is a normal editorial process, including bold merging. Levivich harass/hound 05:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thewolfchild I have explained my reasoning above. As I assume with many other Users once I find something that catches my attention I pursue it until it is finished and it wouldn't make sense to merge just some and not others. Milhist is my main area of interest so the "Thousands of pages of literal garbage" on other areas on WP aren't my concern. The "mass-AfD train wreck" as you refer to it, was the starting point and after a consensus was established at a number of AFDs on which pages would be retained and which merged and redirected, I went through all those pages and applied Merge and Redirect to all similar pages. As usual there's a lot of complaining that articles can be improved, but that's highly unlikely for most of them and Page History exists for each of them so nothing has been lost or erased if someone finds sources. Nothing has been removed, just moved. Meanwhile far from being the destructive vandal/troll that several Users wish to paint me as, I have improved every ship page with namesake details and often provided additional links. Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (break)

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

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

    • These stubs are being merged/redirected, not deleted. The content is still there in the history (and on the merge page) and it can easily be improved by any editor at any time.  // Timothy :: talk  05:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that the examples Black Kite has checked are representative, and I see no particular reason why they are not, the action here is in line with the consensus of discussions at WT:MILHIST, especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they are representative, I looked thrugh a few more last night as well. One thing I'd say, regardless of the fact that we should shoudn't have poorly sourced biographies, is what serves our readers the best? I would say that presenting them with a good article about the ship, which includes some information about the person who it was named after, is better than having the information split across two articles, one of which is just some text copied from a dictionary. Of course if there are good sources about the person enabling us to write a good biography, then that's great. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiousity, why does the ARS and its members feel the need to to use such emotive language? The only effect it will have is heighten, rather than lessen, the Dramaz. (Evidence: on WT:ARS it's referred to as a massive attack, and here a member describes it as a purge). This is pretty poor. ——Serial 11:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been my experience with ARS since its founding. The entire point of ARS is extreme inclusionism, and a rather vitriolic response towards any deletion proposal. Its members seem to have a mindset that all articles deserve to remain on Wikipedia, regardless of status, because they "could" be improved at some nebulous time in the future. Therefore, any deletion is akin to heresy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the merger seems to fit well with the Reasons at WP:Merge - 2: Overlap: the naming of the ship is explained by reference to the article on the sailor but by the time a suitable summary of the sailor is in the ship article, the only further (notable? discuss) content to read on the sailor page is bare biographical detail (3 :"Short text"). The general consensus among a set of editors following the original large scale AfD discussion was that many of the names lacked suitable sourcing to meet GNG and were unlikely to do so. For some it seems the only reason there is anything written on them is because a ship was named after them; the USN had many ships it was presumaby going to name after other heroes but never built eg the cancelled 206 further John C. Butler-class destroyer escorts. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GreenC: Please see WP:PAGEDECIDE. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mztourist you said; "As usual there's a lot of complaining..." and; "Meanwhile far from being the destructive vandal/troll that several Users wish to paint me as...". That, along with this ANI, would seem to indicate that some at least find these "merges" to be controversial, that you knew that beforehand and carried on anyway. WP:MERGE states that such merges should first be proposed and discussed and discussed. Some might characterize your actions as an 'end run' around the process, and that might explain some of the backlash and vitriol you're experiencing. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 15:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thewolfchild I was simply pointing to the overdramatic and often uncivil language being used by User:7&6=thirteen and User:GreenC in starting this ANI, in the previous AFDs and at ARS, something that other Users have also commented on. I really don't appreciate your characterisation of my behaviour here as an "end run" nor that I am somehow to blame for their incivility. As I have said above, it is very clear that this ANI is just the latest attempt by them to undo a result they don't like. I certainly don't regard you as impartial either. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then. So, that's zero answers and lotsa rudeness... I think we're done here. - wolf 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we are done here, as is evident by the comments above the complaint has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging seems perfectly reasonable in most of these cases. Looking at the Bauer AFD in particular, I am thoroughly underwhelmed by both the keep !votes in the AFD - a WP:VAGUEWAVE to GNG without identifying additional sources, questionable interpretations of WP:SIGCOV (of the sources present in the article at the end of the AFD, only the citation and the single paragraph in DANFS are really about the subject, with only sparse mentions in the others), and claims that having a ship named after you meets WP:ANYBIO which appears to run against the consensus of that point. The ARS notice also includes the statement As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. which is flat-out misleading, as the previous one was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK nomination, with very little discussion of the other ones. Given that the close of the previous group nomination was with no prejudice against individual renomination, the insinuations that renominating one that was not discussed at the TRAINWRECK nomination is wrong because of the group nomination being closed as a keep on procedural grounds are ridiculous. I also find the repeated accusations of trolling being thrown around at WP:ARS to be problematic, and all those using that term should remember that calling a good faith editor a troll can be construed as a personal attack. I don't think this content should be deleted, but merging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when most of these are of rather dubious notability. Let's focus on the content, and stop the accusations of trolling. It's not a sin to merge content when the content is of dubious stand-alone notability. I see no reason why this ANI thread should be kept open. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with K.e.coffman that the merging was reasonable. I don't see the issue with being bold and merging, especially after the vast majority of the previous AfDs in this area supported merging ship's namesakes to the ship article when the referencing is poor and shows no signs of improved sourcing over the course of 10+ years (and frankly WP:BEFORE would rarely turn up any new references or WP:SIGCOV). I also agree with Hog Farm that this ANI should be closed and, quite frankly, the bad faith and trolling accusations (including going as far to equate the nominations to the Attack on Pearl Harbor) have probably been the largest breach of any sort of policy and that's not even that big of a transgression. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fair of filers to want to save some of the articles. If they can scrounge up the sources to establish their independent notability, they can simply undo the redirect and fill out the article. Nothing is preventing them from doing that. From a behavioral standpoint, Mztourist's actions were in keeping with consensus, and were not made in an effort to subvert the community. Mztourist was not doing this to "troll" anyone. I don't think a boomerang is warranted (though the troll accusations should stop), but I do think this should be closed without action taken against Mztourist. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with many others that this is a good example of why deleting and redirecting an article are very different outcomes at least for editors. If members of the ARS or whatever feel some of these articles can be saved, they're welcome to do so by finding the sources and improving the articles. It's very easy from a technical standpoint and they don't anyone else's permission or involvement. Either way the net result is an improvement for readers. For articles where this doesn't happen they get redirected to an article with info which helps them see these people in context. For articles where it does, they actually see useful articles. Further a persistent claim is that the ARS often only does source dumps where plenty of sources are posted on an AFD but then no one ever improves the article. This would be a great case where they can prove the opposite, by improving these articles with the sources they find. The fact these are happening so fast also seems to be largely a positive. Rather than ARS having to hunt through months of an editors contribs to find these, or the editor needing to make a list of each one, the ARS can just look through that small portion of contrib history to find the articles they feel they can save. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure

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

    I deny the accusation. Nothing to see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not since the last time anyway (August last year, for the interested). So, there's plenty to see where you were roundly criticised by your peers, including admins, for personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavoir ([179], [180]). Here we are again: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. ——Serial 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, certainly looks like an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I wondered if someone would raise that previous ANI. During it, there was a call for sanctions against 7&6=thirteen for persistent BATTLEGROUND issues - I opposed it at the time and what I said then is still relevant I think
    "If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions which they generally lost"") If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't. Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation."
    And this is the point - we are all trying to improve Wikipedia here, but we have different ways of going about it. Where there are disagreements, they need to discussed calmly, not by throwing insults about. I note this issue is happening at the ARS page as well. As I say, I opposed sanctions last time, but I would probably not do so in the future if this casting of aspersions continues; indeed, I would expect that any admin could deal with it through the normal warning and blocking procedure. You do not get to call people who are editing within our policies "disruptive" or "trolls", and call for sanctions against them for no reason, so that needs to stop - now. And yes, this should be closed now with a note that consensus is that the merges were the correct thing to do; having commented a few times I will not do it myself. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: close of complaint against Mztourist as unfounded with a note that consensus is that the merges were properly done.
    Support a warning about civility at AfD for 7&6=thirteen with a mention of the previous ANI. We all have bad moments we wish we could take back, but this is a pattern.
    Strongly Support starting a discussion about reforming AfD discussions, and addressing problems and concerns, as well as how to improve all aspects of article curation. (this is not the proper place for that conversation; Ritchie333 sorry I haven't followed up on the previous discussion about this with you).
     // Timothy :: talk  21:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As I was pinged, I'll lob my 2c into the discussion. A couple of weeks ago, I was feeling somewhat badgered by Mztourist over an AfD I closed, without being aware of the wider context that's displayed in this thread, and in retrospect the lack of communication and talking past each other led to a deterioration. Ultimately things sorted themselves out at the subsequent DRV and AFIAK the matter is resolved.
    The wider problem I have with the ARS, and have done for some time, is they don't seem to do as much "article rescue" as I would like. I'm all for people improving articles and picking out hard to find sources in order to prove to the community at large we shouldn't delete something (prime example). However, if I think an article is unsuitable and unsalvagable, I will nominate it for deletion or otherwise argue that we shouldn't have it. From my observations, the ARS seems to be more geared towards voting "keep" without actually doing the legwork to improve the article (which I feel is a pyrrhic victory if the article is kept) and badgering those with different views. This needs to stop. It's why I don't associate myself with the ARS, despite sharing many of the views that the group was originally based on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Indeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Seen a few now that were rescued and abandoned. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: I've not noticed this comment before: Troll. Go do likewise, and sin no more., with edit summary "troll". It may be time for a Tban from ARS and AfD, as the editor in question does not seem to be able to participate in related discussions w/o resorting to personal attacks. And that was after the 2020 ANI thread that discussed similar behavioural concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    power~enwiki User:K.e.coffman Nobody has "refuse[d] to abide by consensus". And apparently the consensus is that they can redirect (and hopefully merge) all the Navy Cross/Ship named sailors to the ships, depending on the level of referencing. But the merger is without prejudice to recreating the deleted articles. If that's the rule, we all will live by it.
    Disclosure of prior AFDs ought to be done, not suppressed. In the prior context of the deletions, this was an understandable concern.
    I did not initiate this discussion at ANI.
    And the deliberate 'participation' of some editors at WP:ARS discussions, when they do not ever actually propose rescue of articles, is trolling behavior. My references were to the behavior, and it is what it is.
    Defending the many articles at AFD's (see Tom Rees (RFC officer) for example) is not a "personal attack". Indeed, that article was taken through DYK, and MZTourist considers that to be an insult to him. It was a consequence of the article's improvement. Period. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I misspoke. It pertained to other articles, I thought. But I can't find the diff. So I retract what I said. I apologize for my confusion. 13:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, I get annoyed on the (very rare) occasions an article I wrote is put up for AfD (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall), but crucially I will always look back and think and think "yes, I shouldn't have said that". However, no good can come of insulting people who file the AfD; either they did in good faith, in which case responding in kind is never acceptable, or they did it in bad faith, in which case you shouldn't feed the troll. Either way, it's not on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken "the OP" part, but I'm still supportive of a TBan for User:7&6=thirteen. Alternatively, a reviewing admin could perhaps issue a short block, for the continued defense of the "troll" insult in re: Mztourist, as in: And the deliberate 'participation' of some editors at WP:ARS discussions (...) is trolling behavior. Editors do not get to decide who participates in discussions and ARS is not (or at least should not be) a walled garden, for like-minded contributors only. Editors outside of this in-group are not "trolls". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've been on the other side of the fence, though. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Arden (actress), which I filed in good faith and quickly closed when sources were pointed out. There was no name calling, and nobody got dragged off to the WP:Dramaboard. I don't know why the Tom Rees AfD was proposed, but I have to assume whoever did it was doing so for a legitimate reason. The ideal opportunity is to try and explain how various notability criteria work politely and get them round to your way of thinking. If you whack them over the head as being trolls (whether directly or implied) they'll probably just want to defend themselves. Which is kind of how we've ended up here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While its true that User:7&6=thirteen didn't start this ANI, presumably the previous case against them made them reluctant, they jumped right in when someone else started it, demanding sanctions against me. They apparently withdrew from the discussion (as did the nom) when it became clear the consensus was overwhelmingly against them and now have reentered the discussion once their own behaviour was called into question. Despite grudgingly accepting the consensus, its clear from the comments above that 7&6=thirteen continues with his/her battleground mentality, particularly this: Tom Rees was DYK in 2014, it came to AFD on 16 February 2021. Its 2014 DYK obviously wasn't a result of improvements after the 2021 AFD. How could I be insulted by a 7 year old DYK? Mztourist (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "No compliance with BEFORE" is not a fair response. It's literally assuming bad faith, and it's not on. Just because one editor found a source doesn't mean other editors didn't look. Levivich harass/hound 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They did not look well. If the sources were there, a poorly executed search is no search at all. There are levels of searches; and we all have different competence and perhaps places to look. Some have access through the Wikipedia library. And indeed, when the article already had the sources and they were ignored, this says a lot. Every article potentially can be justified by WP:GNG. Sorry that you are offended, but not sorry that I raise the question. That you take it personally is regrettable; and when one nominates more than a hundred articles for deletion at a stroke, there is a reason to raise it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are not ignored. What happens is AFD noms don't think those sources qualify as GNG sources. But if there is a source, any source, you accuse the nom of failing to perform a before search. You don't even account for the possibility that they just disagree with you about quality of sources. Obviously this warning is not going to change anything because you are outright saying sorry-not-sorry. So I support tban since you're refusing to change how you communicate. Levivich harass/hound 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can disagree. I do not impugn their motives. And neither should you presume on mine. When the AFD is decided, it is decided. There is room for disagreement, and you certainly are entitled to state your position at the AFD. And yes, there can be questions about quality of sources – and disagreement. So what? But stifling the speech of those who disagree is wrong. And that is true whichever way it cuts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're running around calling people "troll" for disagreeing with you. "Stifling the speech of those who disagree" is what you're doing, by attacking them. Calling them a troll. Accusing them of not doing a before search. Saying another editor's hard work is a "massive attack" or a "purge", etc. etc. The problem is that you are uncivil towards those you disagree with, and you appear to think it's OK. I don't see you striking any past comments anywhere. Including in this thread. Levivich harass/hound 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not impugn their motives. Yes, you do. You did right in this thread: "They are doing by indirection (literally) that which they could not do through AFD. This is a purge, Disguised as a merge." and "This is to stifle content improvement and studied comment and debate. In fact, a lot of these went through the massed rushed AFD and were kept. This is a change of name and tactics deliberately intended to get to a particular result. Sleight of hand. If you don't believe me, take a look at User:Mztourist's talk page." Levivich harass/hound 20:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the above responses show 7&6=thirteen refusal to WP:LISTEN; maybe a simple warning is not going to help. The statement "Every article potentially can be justified by WP:GNG" is telling about a lot of the comments from ARS members, they will come up with any mention at all of a subject and spam refs to attempt to justify keeping an article and completely ignore whether it meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and pretend like WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not exist. This is illustrated well in the AfD discussions about the merged articles. Any excuse will due to attempt to derail an AfD, such as claiming a proceedural close of a group nom is a keep is a reason to oppose a follow up individual nom ([184], [185], [186] + many others).
    A few indivduals have also made PROD almost useless with baseless dePRODing, which is negatively impacting AfD.
    Taken as a whole, it is disruptive.  // Timothy :: talk  20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not saying that every article should result in a Keep. Only that WP:GNG is implicated. And WP:Before is too; it is not just a statement that you should see if there are sources, but also look at alternatives to deletion. I am not here to cast aspersions or engage in "combat". I have no vested interest in outcomes. I here what you are saying, and will try to avoid conflicts. I improve the articles (see for example Tadeusz Arentowicz] which was not deleted and went on to be on the main page as a DYK), and the additions stand or fall on their merit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above User:7&6=thirteen continues with their battleground mentality. They have made incorrect statements and cast aspersions on my motivations in relation to Tom Rees. As demonstrated above they will not change their behaviour without sanctions. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Further comment: 7&6=thirteen reiterates his non-apology 'apology' with: Give it a rest; disengage. I have. [187]. Likewise, not the best comment from GreenC, the OP: Suggest you both go your separate ways and not escalate further. [188], given that GreenC "escalated" the matter by starting an ANI against the editor whom this comment is directed at. Something is really rotten with ARS where such comments, while this ANI is in progress, fly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:K.e.coffman. 7&6=thirteen has not apologized for the numerous personal attacks on me, only for the mistaken accusations regarding Tom Rees above and mistakenly editing my comments at ARS: [189] and even that apology was tempered by 7&6=thirteen later revising it to add: [190] "So much for WP:AGF" as if I was somehow to blame. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Sanction

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

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

    Thoughts? Spartaz Humbug! 14:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Addendum

    Sexually explicit non-english edit summary

    Hopefully this is the right place to ask for this. Can someone remove or hide this edit summary? Diff. Thanks. Squeakachu (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. I'm sending it to the folks at oversight, just in case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like someone got to it. Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been revdel'd, but I too think it should be oversighted. (It's my curse that I can read those languages.) I've asked a friend who has the permissions — not sure if BMK sent it along or not? IP blocked for a week. Bishonen | tålk 21:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, I e-mailed Oversight with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    סבא מלקה את התינוק EEng 17:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have {{fbdb}} for the humo(u)r-impaired. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ That's French for friction.
    2. ^ That's Python for "Ah fart in your general direction!"

    My second trip here to report this account in the last week. KillerWhaleGuy (talk · contribs) is the most recent WP:COI account at Michael Harris (producer), with the attendant killer whale articles, as at Luna (killer whale). Now restoring promotional and unsourced content, so I'm requesting an indefinite block, and article protection as needed. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This again? I guess nobody really followed up on this except for you, IP. Anyway, I've started the WP:COI ball rolling. Several partial blocks imposed, for now. El_C 05:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, El_C. I'd imagined that the issue was done, but that was a dim hope. When I look at the history going back a decade, it's evident that this is a very long term campaign. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, can you link to those older contributions, because that account's first edit was less than 10 days ago... El_C 06:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, this seems interesting. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    El_C, here are some WP:SPAs, all of which are now dormant. I doubt they're all the same person, but they share a common purpose. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar interests. Babywildfilms also worked on this [192]. 'This is Indian Country' was the title of a program produced by Mr. Harris.

    Hmm. Per the above, there does seem to be some kind of a long-term advocacy effort, possibly even a campaign of sorts (coordinated or otherwise) when it comes to several pages relating to this topic area. So, perhaps, it would be best if we were to forgo a more relaxed approach in favour of some sort of an escalation... El_C 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In a thread at WP:AN with the title "Unban request: topic ban issued, without warning, based on WP:BLUDGEON", I believe that I have been subjected to a legal threat, since I have been accused of a crime there. Since I openly disclose my real world identity, I take this seriously. I humbly request that an uninvolved administrator evaluate this situation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    lblocked. But to be pedantic, technically, defamation is not a crime where you live ("less than half of U.S. states have criminal defamation laws," with CA not being among them). Also, further pedantic ramblings, they called it "slander," but it would actually be libel. El_C 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the swift block, El_C. Thanks also, I guess, for educating me about California law. Nice to know that, according to you, I would be vindicated if legal action was taken. I agree that would be the likely outcome, but I would incur legal fees and it would be very disruptive to my family and personal life, and that would inevitably impact my editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, silver lining: at least I won't get yet another call to bail you out of jail again, Cullen328! Kinda getting sick of those. El_C 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll sue you for tort.
    With all respects to El C, speaking as the admin who first triggered that discussion by imposing the initial sanction on User:Bavio the Benighted, I'd like to say I'm not a big friend of "NLT" blocks like that. Not every mention of a word like "slander" is a legal threat. There are many things people routinely accuse each other of on Wikipedia that could, in principle, also be the object of legal action, but never are. Saying "you did something bad to me" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for doing something bad to me"; it simply means "stop doing something bad to me". Saying "you violated my copyright" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for violating my copyright". Saying "you insulted me" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for tort". Saying "you defamed me" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for defaming me" either. I myself have certainly been the victim of defamatory statements from multiple sides on Wikipedia over the years, and I've never shied away from saying so when I felt that was the case. I'd never have dreamed of taking legal action over that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Future Perfect at Sunrise, that's a fair point. Not sure if their behaviour in that thread (from the little I've seen) merits an unblock at this time, irrespective of NLT, but if you wish to unblock on those grounds, I have no objection. Anyway, you're right, probably there should have been a follow up at least, like, do you actually intend to sue for libel over this? That would have been better, I now recognize. El_C 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Future Perfect at Sunrise's point; really, the No Legal Threats policy should be something issued by WMF Office (or possibly Arbcom on the advice of Legal) rather than just dished out on a whim by a single admin. However, No personal attacks is a relevant policy and I have declined the unblock request for this reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, I actually don't think that's the worst idea, though I've lblocked so many users whose legal threats were as unambiguous as they come. More pointedly, I think it may simply fall down to sufficient staffing. I'm sure there's money for this, though who knows how the Foundation would view such a proposal, regardless. But, if we are able to get a response time from WMF Office/Legal which rivals that of WP:EMERGENCY —well, obviously, not expecting it to be as lightning fast, but, say, half or a quarter of EMERGENCY's response time, I'm pretty sure it would still be quite prompt and doable— then, indeed, why not? El_C 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, Looking back at the history, "No legal threats" stems from a time when the WMF as we now know it was in its infancy, and the structures we now have in place for actual legal problems weren't established. The original revision of the policy suggests to me that a block should be applied when the actual court action is started and kept in place until a conclusion is reached. Frankly, I suspect half the people who say "you'll be hearing from my solicitor about this" are just toy chucking and making idle threats - we can still block them, but we might as well call a spade and spade and cite WP:NPA. When you're actually considering legal action, you weigh up the costs, who's going to pay them, and how likely you are to win. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, thanks for the history background. Personally, as an admin, I've always felt quite uncomfortable representing WMF/Legal in any capacity, whatsoever. Not that it ever stopped me from taking necessary action, but still. I realize that while as a general tendency, we at en do not like giving up any existing autonomy to the WMF, that is something I would gladly support. I'd much rather rather have us admins attend to any and all legal threats from the vantagepoint of NPA rather than that of LEGAL — i.e. the sooner we redirect WP:CHILLING to the former instead of the latter (etc.), the better. El_C 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, NLT was originally written to deal with people actually filing suits against Wikipedia or editors, but got expanded to deal with the chilling effect that such threats have, which is where we're at now. It might be worth proposing a change to policy, and treat empty legal threats under NPA instead, and let WMF handle actual lawsuits. The vast majority of these threats are just an attempt to intimidate, with no real intention of going to court. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph of WP:NLT already says: Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action. That should probably be expanded. "Insta-block" enforcement of NLT policy doesn't make sense.
    We can't expect people to shed the language used in "the real world" simply because they're on our website. In the real world, people often accuse other people of "stealing", "fraud", "bullying", etc., and all of these are crimes. But just because a word is a crime doesn't mean that every use of the word is an accusation of criminal behavior.
    When you say, "hey, you stole my pen!", you don't mean you're going to report the person to the police for it, and you don't really mean to be accusing the person of a crime. Similarly, people often say, in the real world, "That's slanderous! That's libel! That's defamatory!" And they're not accusing people of crimes, or even of illegal (civil, non-criminal) conduct. They're certainly not threatening to report it to the police or to file a lawsuit.
    "I am going to talk to my lawyer" is also not a legal threat. That doesn't mean "I am going to talk to my lawyer about filing a lawsuit," and shouldn't be interpreted as such. Even talking to a lawyer about a lawsuit isn't a threat to bring a lawsuit. (As an aside: in the US, there are probably legal ramifications to shutting down someone's access to a website in response to their announcing that they will consult with counsel about something, because consulting with counsel is a US constitutional right. But that's for WMF Legal to figure out.)
    There are good legal reasons to not allow people who are actually engaged in Wikipedia-related legal disputes (lawsuits, criminal investigations or prosecutions), or are about to engage in such disputes, to edit Wikipedia. It creates all sorts of legal problems to allow people to keep using the website under those circumstances. But I agree with C, it should be the WMF, not volunteer editors, who take action to protect the WMF during litigation involving the WMF. WMF Legal, not volunteer editors, should be deciding what is a legal threat and what is not, and what to do about it.
    But in any case, accusations like "you are stealing" and "that was slanderous" are not legal threats. Legal threats look like this: "I will report you to the police unless...", "If you don't do this, I will sue."
    WP:NLT should be revised to make this distinction clear. Block people for threatening legal action; don't block people for using words like "slander" or "libel" to describe other people's actions. Levivich harass/hound 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I agree with Hand and others. In a litigious society such as ours, and given the number of enemies that we've gained in both marketing and political circles who'd love to fund suits against us, I fear that a harsh attitude towards these matters may be necessary in self-defense. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual physical threats are handled by NPA without it causing any problems, right? Whatever we do with physical threats should be done with legal threats. As an aside, I plan on beating the crap out of User:Example soon. Just look at how many warnings the admins have ignored! I looked it up, and it appears that he lives on Null Island.[Citation Needed] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    False accusations of copivio

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

    Let me know if there are any questions. This is a boomerang IMHO. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At Talk: Gyeogam Yurok, User: Elinruby is trying to muddy the waters. But by saying I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate cannot be taken as a statement about how to split infinitives. It is a clear assertion of intellectual dishonesty. Since User: Elinruby is unable to substantiate such an assertion, this assertion must be rescinded.Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by possibly hacked user

    Tauntobr (talk · contribs), retired since 2008, is suddenly back, vandalising Milton, Ontario (here and here, for example; the recent vandalism by IPs and one new account seems directly related). This suggests to me that the account may have been hacked, but I'm not sure what to do with this, so I hope this is an appropriate venue to bring this up. Lennart97 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by this edit by a brand new editor on their account. It's likely something is going on yes. And Ritchie333 just beat me to blocking Tauntobr's account. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lennart97, Indeffed, obvious sock Circumventinator (talk · contribs) likewise. I await their unblock request with interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for the swift action. Lennart97 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I understand the urge to vandalise Milton :) Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem to be a generally popular target for vandalism. Not being familiar with the town myself, is it really that bad? Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They're back at it again with Circumventinated (talk · contribs). I do like the original socknames. Lennart97 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi for a bit? Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. New sock has already been blocked I see, but who knows what other clever usernames are still available. Lennart97 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi'd for 24 hours. I notice it's been protected recently for vandalism. Hmm, is it the start of the school day in Milton (sorry, can't remember if it's Eastern or Central). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastern, so it's past the start but close enough yeah. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get a block for Circumnavigated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well? I hear quacking... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We can and we have. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RickinBaltimore - thank ye kindly! ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for all your help and cooperation in learning how to circumvent your systems. I will be back later with more fun for you :). Enjoy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumtranslated (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting us know to keep a lookout :-) Pahunkat (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How did they find their way to ANI? Pahunkat (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've emailed checkuser@en-wiki to get a range block. If you're on a system with multiple IPs, blocking with "account creation blocked" will only block that IP, which I can't identify, because I'm not a checkuser. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. If any more edits like this come back, please let me know so that I can take a look. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why the account would be hacked, the last two edits made by the user prior to 2021 in 2007 and 2008 are also vandalism, the latter literally being a total blanking of the article and being replaced with "YOU SUCK" and the former also relates to Ontario which reverts previous vandalism but also adds the line "It is considered to be the greatest high school in the world". It seems much more likely simply a reactivation of the account from the same person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A trolling-only account

    Indeffed. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user is very clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Their contributions consist solely of gibberish, nonsense, vandalism, trolling and personal attacks. Nothing constructive at all. An obvious candidate for an indefinite block.—J. M. (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    the dued's rebuttal

    So I added the Etymology of the Word "Video" to Video! Now you J.M Think I'm trolling! Over the years I've really not paid any attention to the finer details of which articles receive Etomolgy sections! So I'm Overly Curious as to why Video may not receive an etymology section! as an A/v nerd myself, it seems Logical! However, Since it has become a sustained issue with J.M I will leave well enough alone!

    As For Trolling, The answer is No I am not!

    Raising issues for Simple submissions is unwarranted! Sorry if my text is not always clear! 

    I just have no idea when we Limited Etymology!

    Thedued (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Thedued (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User contributions speak for themselves. A very obvious trolling-only account with no constructive contributions, just nonsense, vandalism and personal attacks. Their interpretation of their edits in Video are of course completely wrong, too (this was not about an Etymology section at all), and Thedued knows it very well, as this has been repeatedly explained to them. For anyone wanting to know how serious Thedued is about the Etymology section, see their message on my talk page. This is just clear, unambiguous trolling.—J. M. (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, My bad I will never add etymology again!Thedued (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I don't know where Etymology can be added. So again Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedued (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, this is not about adding Etymology at all. This report is about persistent trolling and disruptive edits. This account is used exclusively for disruptive editing, adding nonsense, trolling on user talk pages and elsewhere, personal attacks and vandalism, and the user is either not getting it, or (much more likely) trying to weasel out of it. Nothing to do with etymology at all.—J. M. (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:J._M.|J.M] Clearly has yet to answer my hypothetical question and has yet proceeded with bothering the trolling board! An attack no! I clearly was asking why! a statement of Emotion clearly seems to have upset [[User:J._M.|J.M]! so I'll just leave all alone!Thedued (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, what Thedued says is not true at all. Thedued has never asked any (meaningful) question. In fact, Thedued even repeatedly acknowledged my explanations (for example here and also on this page), only to start trolling (and pretending that they never acknowledged anything) again and again and again. The user is clearly gaming the system (this alone is a reason for an indefinite block) by lying and trying to fool people who are not familiar with their edit history.—J. M. (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    According to this thread here on this board and according to J.M I'M NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT MY OWN PAGE! and anything I say on my page is trolling!?! I'm confused! \ Look at the edits on the Articles User contributions clearly not trolling!16:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Thedued (talk)[reply]

    No idea whether it's a WP:CIR, language barrier or trolling but either way, their edits do NOT appear to improve the encyclopedia. For bonus points, their user page appears to misrepresent their contributions to wikipedia (unless they have amassed a vast record of equally troubling edits as an IP) Slywriter (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough's enough on this. blocked for NOTHERE, trolling etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User persists making a political point

    This user Gomes000 (talk · contribs) has an array of problems: he keeps inserting old Portuguese provinces that were abolished in 1976 (such as the Estremadura Province (1936–1976) or intermunicipal communities on every article he can find [193], even if the article itself is about a geological feature (e.g. Nazaré Canyon), he inserts articles in the wrong categories in Category:Municipalities of Portugal (this [194] after this [195]), he deletes templates [196] and reverts edits for no reason [197], he is constantly edit-waring despite being warned multiple times, I gave him 2 warnings (one of them he deleted) and an administrator gave him another, he does not talk, does not want consensus and most of his edits are reverts of other user's edits, adding to that he barely knows any English and his edits constantly present grammatical errors [198] (even in Portuguese). None of his edits are constructive and he cannot be reverted.

    I believe he is making a political statement of some sort (does not agree with the changes made in 1976), he specifically focuses on central west Portugal and I also believe he has a sockpuppet Morenaang (talk · contribs), who does the exact same thing. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Average Portuguese Joe, seeing as it's been over 5 days since their last edit, this complaint does seem to be a bit on the Stale(ish) end of Incidents, at least in so far that an attention-seeking block for a few hours would be unlikely to produce the desired outcome (i.e. even just having them acknowledge these concerns, per se.) . But I do note that these additions count as fabrications, so this probably will need to be handled sooner rather than later. Feel free to re-list, if and/or when the problematic editing resumes. El_C 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Well if that wasn't recent then this should clarify his point [199] only took him 6 min to revert what I just put. This just makes it more obvious that he just doesn't care. What's your opinion on this? He only edits to revert someone's edit. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ​​For what it's worth, the subject of this thread is also actively edit-warring the same articles on Wikivoyage and causing cross-project issues. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. Upon further thought (per the latest), since this user still isn't communicating, may as well set the block duration not to expire. El_C 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and disruptive editing by Ddum5347

    Since their account creation in August last year, Ddum5347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has extensively edited animal (mostly bird and mammal) related articles. While some of their edits are constructive, a large proportion of them are controversial, and are not considered improvements by other editors. Examples of this include mass renaming animal articles from species names to supposed common names, as well as mass additions/removals of taxa from "list of [animals] of [country]" articles without any kind of discussion. Most edits lack edit summaries. When their edits are opposed by other editors they do not attempt to engage in dialogue to try to reach concensus, but instead engage in edit warring to impose their preferred view, for which they have been blocked several times. Ddum has made no attempt to engage with the issues other editors have had with their behaviour and warnings on their talkpage are ignored and periodically blanked (see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). Ignoring the blankings, Ddum has received over two dozen notices for problematic edits and edit warring over the less than the year the account has existed. I and many other editors of animal related articles find their editing disruptive and their behavior not compatible with the collaborative nature of encyclopedic editing. Ddum was blocked for 1 week for edit warring, which was then extended to two weeks for block evasion for editing while logged out. Since they have come back they have resumed their disruptive behaviour, including reverting edits they were previously edit warring over before they were blocked, ([200] [201]). See these threads at WikiProject Animals (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#Ddum5347's_disruptive_edits) and Wikiproject Birds (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_72#Questions_about_"list_of_birds"_articles) for previous discussions surrounding Ddum's conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging relevant users @Pvmoutside: @Craigthebirder: @William Harris: @FunkMonk: @JurassicClassic767: @SilverTiger12: @MeegsC: @Faendalimas:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can confirm, DDum has caused several recurring issues. I only really pay attention to felid taxa and breed articles, so I am not as involved as the other editors, but I have had to deal with them added OR or removed cited information. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the WP:ORs in Lynx: on 1 Feb and on 21 Feb; then they added 2 refs, neither of which supports the argument. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORs in Asiatic lion: on 4 Dec, on 5 Dec with a noteworthy edit summary, on 6 Dec; see also Talk:Asiatic_lion#No_lion_in_Afghanistan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from Ddum's edit warring, another thing that bugs me is his lack of edit summaries, for example, in a recent edit of his at Guadeloupe Amazon, he removed a category without explaining why, so then I assumed it was one of his "bad edits", so to speak, and reverted it, but then afterwards he had to revert my edit just to explain why he removed the category, so yeah, that's annoying. And we could continue with other of his edits and mostly see disruptive ones, as mentioned above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has ascribed to a scientific reliable source something it did not state in order to have their own way here. The edit summary was correct but the edit's impact was not. Such behaviour is unacceptable. William Harris (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While edit warring is unacceptable, I do recall a discussion or two about using common names for articles - it's what WP prescribes, after all, and I would actually support doing so because I have searched for common names of plants, trees, birds, etc. and cannot find them. I'm of the mind that not finding articles is a significant problem. Most readers are simply not going to search using the scientific name. Beyond that, I have nothing more to add. Atsme 💬 📧 21:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, it would need discussion to change it wholesale. But yeah, I've also ended up in problematic situations with the editor, and they don't seem to change their behaviour at all, so I'm not sure what else, if anything, can be done... FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mostly making observations with this as I mostly edit on another wiki, hoewever, once he was blocked and it appears from a local CU that he attempted to avoid the block by socking I determined the line had been crossed and supported the ANI. That is essentialy the limit of my involvement, however I am grateful for the ping. Considering a willingness to sock has been demonstrated to avoid a one week bock, among his other issues as pointed out by others from my perspective this is not a simple case. Short of an indefinite ban a very clear message is going to be needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps some form of WP:TBAN on all animal-related articles may be appropriate. William Harris (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    May as well just siteban him, then, since his only interest seems to be animal related articles. I'd much rather get him talking; he's clearly editing in good faith. That being said, a block for disruption (in the form of being unresponsive to talk page requests) might be the only way to get him talking at this point. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please repeat all of the things you wish for me to change behaviour-wise. I need to know what to do if I am to continue editing. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just go to the edit history of your talk page and look at all of the notices you have blanked rather than responding to. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the next step, then? I'm ready to discuss this. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ddum5347: The easiest one is WP:BRD. If an edit you have made is reverted, don't simply revert the reversion, but either move on or discuss the edit on the talk page of the article to attempt to gain concensus for the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will cooperate from now on. I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Perhaps the subject editor might like to explain (a) the lack of an edit summary, and (b) the lack of a supporting reference, for this edit here after making the comments above. William Harris (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, “I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored.” Question for @Ddum5347: what will you do if you open a talk page discussion and someone posts an objection to what you want to do and you don’t agree with that objection? (Back in October/November they were edit-warring a change into United Kingdom - this is happening not just on animal articles - despite being reverted by multiple editors. Eventually they did open a talk page thread but carried on with the edit warring after doing so. In fact, they didn’t even wait for a reply.) DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the edit on African golden wolf, I added felid competitors it shares its range with. I will add sources soon. And for the UK edits, that was when I edit warred without thinking. I'm not going to be doing that anymore. Consensus is needed. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks Ddum. I hope you follow through. I see that an editor disputes the references you added to African golden wolf and reverted you. I’ll be interested to see how your follow through plays out there. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great to read Ddum will be cooperating....proof is in the pudding now...i left a note on his/her talk page. I mentioned there he/she will also be on a short leash from many of us.... Pvmoutside (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    As I have states numerous times, this term is often used in biological articles, and is synonymous with local extinction. I don't know why you are so against using it, but it does not imply human causation of a population's extinction. The ref I provided is merely one instance of it being used [202], [203]. Also, you mindlessly reverted my edits, even though I added species that were not even on the list beforehand, and improved the article overall. My intent is to not edit-war, but to improve articles, and your aversion to the term has made you revert the article to its previous state several times. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "My intent is not to edit war" -- you must prove that by not edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, but this user's insistence has made it very difficult. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And at least one of the species that Ddum added to the list - feral water buffalo - doesn't even exist in South Australia! (If he'd bothered to read the ref he supplied, he would have seen that they exist only in the Top End of the Northern Territory.) I'll need to check the others he added. Bahudhara (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The bat species I added are native to the state. You didn't even address the rest of the things I said but alright then. Ddum5347 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ddum, I think it would be a good idea if you slowed your editing down. Your edits over the last few hours are giving the appearance of only partially getting it on edit warring. Our exchange at the talk page of African golden wolf tells me you don’t really get WP:SYNTH. It would be to your advantage to read over and really get familiar with policies like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW before going any further. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, “partially” getting it may be overstating it in your favour, looking at your 170+ edits (and what’s being posted to your talk page) over the 36 hours since you said this. You’re going too fast to take on board what’s being said to you. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur that you need to slow down. Also, stop changing phrasing just because you prefer a different version, especially in the lede of an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My current concerns: they are still editing at about 100 mph and continue to make needless changes to grammar and phrasing. When I asked them to stop doing this on their talk page, they accused me of berating them. Seriously, DDum, please slow down and stop the grammar and phrasing changes- if it isn't broken, don't fix it, because oftimes, your changes aren't an improvement on what was already there. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of Wikipedia's grammar and phrasing could do with adjustments, but I am not looking at any particular editors or edits. There exists the hazard that in re-jigging grammar it then becomes exactly how the original source wrote it, and then the section is blanked by one of our diligent copyright-patrollers, never to be restored. One needs to proceed with caution. William Harris (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunni zealot

    Can you take a look at Talk:Destruction_of_Kashmiri_Shias#Missionary_WikiWarrior_Alert where an editor claims me and another editor to be Sunni zealots (indirectly). Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Some guidance offered, so hopefully, that will do it. El_C 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Also, he is misrepresenting sources claiming that since a newsreport claims it is not yet certain whether an incident was motivated for personal or sectarian reasons, we can anyways take the latter. And, he is reverting me as a vandal (check edit history). His talk-page is also full of warnings by Kautilya3. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Kautilya3 warned him months back for similar personal attacks. He thinks anybody who oppose him is religiously motivated. This is a pattern. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not mobile diffs! (The bane of my existence.) Anyway: //Investigating. El_C 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, El_C. I do not know how but he has also created a blank userpage for me. The history only shows him but no content. This is creepy stuff. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: - would you like that blank user page deleted? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that can be done, I wish for it. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: - I've warned Dr. Hamza Ebrahim not to recreate your user page on pain of being indeffed. Suggest you let El C investigate the complaint for now. No need for futher engagement with Dr. Hamza Ebrahim. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is important about creating a user page for TrangaBellam is to notice his vandalism and wikilawyering on other pages. He is doing a similar job at Hindu related pages as he did at the page about persecution of Kashmiri Shias. He also seems to have friends who tag each other and vote. This is what they did before when I provided a scholarly source about a fact they didn't like to appear in an article. Same people were called on again and I recognized them. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revoke TPA

    TPA has been revoked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Asa ca mars de gunoi imputit addressed to me at [204]. Mars is how Romanians cry at dogs to get away. gunoi imputit means filthy garbage. Please revoke WP:TPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I removed the diatribe/personal attack directed at Tgeorgescu. Can't revoke TPA or revdel it since I'm not an admin. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TPA revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AfD nominator closing own discussions

    The user Störm has recently closed a number of AfD's that he started himself. He has stated on his talk page that his motivation for doing this was as there were alternatives for deletion. After telling him that it is a conflict of interests he has continued to close his own Afd as redirects. Many of those that he has closed I have no qualms with the outcome, however I feel that it is still and improper process and on many of them the consensus was not clear. Some examples of those that he has closed recently include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (1970s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imran Ali (WAPDA cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Taylor (cricketer, born 1999), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kidd (cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaman Akhter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1925). If he is allowed to do this then please remove my complaint, but for me it seems a clear conflict of interests and deletion of what may be some acceptable articles for something that is his view. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Störm should not close their own AfD nominations. See WP:CLOSEAFD. The exception would be a speedy keep for a withdrawn nomination with no deletion arguments. Störm, you need to revert your closes and redirects, restoring the AfD templates. Fences&Windows 22:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not allowed but there is still an underlying problem that some AFD nominations are on the off-chance that the consensus will be to delete and some people vote delete regardless of anything. Thincat (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The closures should be overturned; if no one takes this on in the next few hours, I will do so. Only uninvolved editors may make a closure in an AfD, except under the narrow circumstances of SK1. Although a BOLD blank-and-redirect may not require an AfD, once an article is before AfD, it should not be blanked until closed by an uninvolved editor (see also Template:AfD). I understand and appreciate that Störm was trying to find ATDs, but they should advance that argument in the AfDs themselves, and not close them (six days early, no less). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note: I've reverted all of the closes linked in the OP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also raised this issue and proposed a solution below at WP:ANI#User Störm. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Osomite violations of WP:NPA

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

    At first I waved this off, but it then began to bother me, so I requested that he retract both defamatory statements. [205]

    Osomite's response was to first tag me with an unwarranted edit-warring warning related to the dispute, and then to post a non-apology apology, in which he apologized for my feelings, and not for his statements. [206] In any case, I did not ask for, and do not want an apology, I asked for him to retract his statements. When I told him that [207], he blew me off and told me to report him, which I am doing.

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

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

    Hi Beyond My Ken! To be fair, I took Osomite's statement, "I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize." as a sufficient apology, but I understand if you wish for the user to strike those personal attacks. Osomite, can you please do that so that the discussion can move on and be constructive and on-topic regarding the article? :-) Also, please don't make personal attacks at other users like that. A founding principle of Wikipedia is that we treat others with respect, and making personal attacks directly conflicts with that. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize is NOT an apology at all, since it's all about what the target is alleged to feel and not what the supposed apologizer has done. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also involved and the entire incident was a bizarre attempt to claim Poland was not defeated, which is odd, to say the least. The attack on Ken are unacceptable and (at the very least) Osomite should strike them and apologize. I tried to accommodate them. I get the feeling this may not be over. Their (belated, they replied after I had assumed it was over as Ken had added sources to the claim they were contesting) talk page comments smack of wp:nothere and wp:Ididnothearthat. I now feel like I did Ken a disservice by trying to get a civil discourse and trying to address Osomite's concerns. It seems to me this was all just A POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found several of User:Osomite's comments as attempting to personalise the dispute and / or downright insulting, such as:
    1. I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland.
    2. better late than not to put my thoughts about your activity on record.
    3. You are disingenuous.
    4. Your argument is largely that of an apologist. Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that.
    5. In re: sources that BMK added: Conveniently they are in books that will be difficult to view and verify that you have been honest in these assertions., implying that BMK is a potential lier to boot.
    Permalink: [208]. The implication of 1 & 4 combined is clearly pointing towards Nazi apologist, so BMK was right to take offense. A non-apology 'apology' generally does not resolve anything. Here's what was offered by User:Osomite: I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize.. It's odd that this comment was given an edit summary of "apology to Beyond My Ken".
    I would recommend a strong word of caution, if not a warning against personalising disputes and attacking other editors on article Talk pages. Given that no actual apology has been offered so far, a short block may be in order as an alternate outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, they are not apologizing for saying ken is an apologist, just that he is sorry for saying he is a Nazi one. Moreover I note "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial", so he still thinks he is in the right and Ken is on the wrong over the "controversy" (he is yet to show there is one, outside of his opinions) over whether or not Germans was successful. With an added "It seemed to me that Germany's successful invasion of Poland was a Nazi victory." I agree this is not a genuine apology by an ANI complaint one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Its pretty clear from the context that Osomite isn't remotely sorry about his blatant personal attacks. Despite Osomites denial, its very difficult to consider than he called BMK anything but a Nazi apologist. Its pretty clear by any reasonable standard that the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland was a victory in the early stages of the war, and describing people as "apologists" for supporting that is massively uncalled for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thanks to those who have posted here to support my position: I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
      I want to point out that in the 12 hours since Oshwah made the comment above, urging Osomite to retract their statements, Osomite has yet to do so. They have, however, made six trivial edits to one of their user pages, deleting old sections, which I take as being a rather ostentatious display of ignoring this complaint and the advice from an admin. I would like to suggest that such studied disregard of the call for a simple retraction of what are -- the consensus here agrees -- personal attacks is not the sign of someone who is prepared to behave in a civil manner -- in fact, quite the opposite. I ask that further administrative action be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Light show violating topic ban

    I just came across three different edits from Light show (talk · contribs) on Talk:Albert Einstein which clearly violate his topic ban on biographies listed at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community that was implemented per consensus here. This report might feel a bit late when those were from a couple weeks ago, but I'm surprised he hasn't already been blocked for these when the ban hasn't been lifted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure." There doesn't seem to be any grey area in that August 2017 editing restriction. I would say that their three edits to J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur in December were violations as well, [209],[210],[211], as were these two edits to Jonas Salk in March 2019, [212], [213]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Light show was blocked in early April for a topic ban violation, which probably involved the edits to Jonas Salk, but the December edits were not caught, like the current Einstein ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! I agree that each diff you linked also violates the ban, and the restriction was very straightforward. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are definitely edits made in violation of Light show's community-enacted topic ban, and two of them, as linked here, were made less than two weeks ago (1, 2). I don't believe that this user has successfully appealed their ban, either. Because of these violations, and the fact that this user has been blocked multiple times for violating their topic ban in the past, I am blocking Light show for two weeks. They may appeal their block by following the appeals process on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Historyday01 personal attacks

    According to them, Crossroads, you ruined it. Screw you. [214] This is after the user pinged me (and others) asking for our opinions. I gave mine, civilly, based on policy. I don't understand the reaction.

    They shortly thereafter removed another comment of theirs, stating, withdrawn because of a jerk who edits LGBT pages. [215]

    These matters from today are pretty egregious, but on December 31 the user also stated, removing section to deal with annoying editor. [216] This was also a reference to me, as made clear by this discussion.

    This is all odd since I don't interact with them much. I have civilly disagreed with them on occasion, but no more so than for other editors. Crossroads -talk- 06:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossroads, I apologize for saying what I did on the Pansexuality, Media portrayal of pansexuality, and Wikipedia:Proposed article splits pages. I just got caught up in the moment, a clear WP:EUI and WP:NAM situation. As for the WikiProject Television discussion, I really regret that whole episode and wish it hadn't happened. If I could go back, I would have handled it on there and on other pages (like the comment on The Simpsons page you cited) differently, working with you more rather than acting the way I did. I definitely should not have said those things and if I had thought about them, I wouldn't have said them at all. So, again, sorry for saying those two comments, and others I've said in the past. I'll work to improve my conduct in the future, so nothing like this happens again. Sometimes, I just get too passionate about pages I edit and it bleeds over into my comments. It's as simple as that and I have to do better to be more civil. I've also returned the discussions to their previous form before my comments, so the discussion can continue with other editors apart from me and yourself. I suppose my response to you earlier today is colored by other incidents in the past, some of which I've discussed on this noticeboard, as noted here and here. But, I'll read some more rules on here and familiarize myself with them so I can become an even better editor going forward. Notices like this always leave room for improvement and I am committed to becoming a better editor in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate this. I think you need to keep in mind that we have the same goals, namely to have high quality encyclopedic coverage of LGBT+ in pop culture. Quality is better than quantity; sometimes 'less is more'. Coverage based on reliable sources about characters that really are LGBT+ is educational to readers of any identity; I assure you that badly sourced or speculative material reflects very poorly on the topic, as does redundant or overly-long coverage or undue weight in articles about the show in general. It seems that you tend to reflexively defend material that other editors challenge, and you need to really consider carefully what they're saying instead of just reacting. We have WP:OWN and WP:ONUS for a reason. Again, remember that we want the same thing - quality. It is a learning process. Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for saying that. I will keep that in mind going forward and I definitely want to have "high quality encyclopedic coverage of LGBT+ in pop culture" too. I agree with "coverage based on reliable sources about characters" and that it can be "educational to readers of any identity." I can also agree that "badly sourced or speculative material reflects very poorly on the topic," along with redundant or overly-long coverage, or even undue weight. That's why I've been trying to reduce the size of some of the sections reviewing shows on some of the pages I've created, like Netflix and LGBT representation in animation, bit by bit, and carefully. You are correct that I do "tend to reflexively defend material that other editors challenge" and I'll do better to consider what others are saying, while keeping in mind this is a learning process. Historyday01 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Störm

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

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

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

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

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

    Mjroots, this was quick considering our agreement that we will wait and see. Your WP:ANI shows your shallow view of the issue at hand (Waheed Iqbal, the prime example you quoted above of my incompetence is sourced entirely with cricket statistic and database websites Cricinfo and CricketArchive which we can use for WP:V but they are not WP:RS and you should take note here. Also, go and read RfC on NCRIC and other related discussions). For your information (Mjroots), I am an active member of WP:CRIC since I joined in 2015 and have created and improved hundreds of articles for the project. I am also nominating cricket-related articles for deletion since long (because I believe in quality rather than quantity and in my view sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines) and most of them result in delete or redirect (an admin here may check my last six months AfD record). Störm (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Störm: - Had you not started improperly closing AfDs you created, we probably wouldn't have been here. It is extremely rare for me to start a discussion here, as regulars will confirm. I'm not here to get you blocked or anything like that, but I do feel that this issue does need to be looked at properly. If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you did this in good faith, but I feel you should have waited and looked at the issue of WP:NCRIC. I accept that some of my nominations were bad and I have made a spate of nominations that I feel I should have avoided. Feedback and outcome here will help me decide my future (if most of admins feel I should be banned then I will leave this place voluntarily). Störm (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the articles give the impression of sourcing, they are generally nothing more than statistics and scorecards in a wide-ranging database, so they certainly don't meet the level of SIGCOV or SPORTCRIT. It is also clear that the wider community regards the low bar criteria of many NSPORT guidelines, and specifically NCRIC, as overly permissive, and GNG should be the bar. As such, I have no technical issues with the nominations, however the volume is a huge problem. A 2017 RFC specifically stated it was not an invitation to flood AFD, and that sentiment shouldn't be any different now. There is consensus for alternatives to deletion (e.g. merge/redirect), but it seems (especially from the early closes) that Störm hasn't looked into these before nominating despite have been asked directly. On the odd occasion, it also seems questionable that a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE has been done. Cricket project members have tried hard to participate in these discussions but this is something like the fourth or fifth wave of nominations now and as Bobo said, it simply becomes too much for some. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      To add to my earlier comment: While the volume of nominations presents an issue and a would support limiting the number of concurrent nominations listed at Delsort/Cricket, the outright disregard for significant or substantial coverage in factory producing these stubs is probably a bigger problem, with any reasonable level of AFD nominations unable to keep pace with creations – it should be noted that the vast majority of Störm's nominations have resulted in delete/merge/redirect. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I have no problems with the rationale for the majority of the AfD's that Störm has done. A large majority of them don't have coverage that qualifies them for WP:GNG although common sense on some of them when players have played multiple games should be used. Like Wjemather though I am concerned about the large number of articles that are AfD. I similarly put through a number of rugby union articles at once and was told that it wasn't the correct process and haven't done it again, yet it's almost a daily splurge of AfD's that are difficult to keep up with, especially for members of WP:CRIC, who I am sure have grown tired of not having to comment on every one that comes through, especially with the effort that users like Bobo and Lugnuts have gone to in creating articles in the past. With no consensus on updating WP:NCRIC in a recent discussion also, the timing of all these AfD's is concerning also. If there had been consensus and NCRIC updated so that FC/List-A/T20 matches in top competitions aren't enough to qualify, then AfDing 'some' articles may have been appropriate. Me bring Störm to the noticeboard was only about him closing his own AfD's though, especially with some of them having time to run on their discussions or consensus that was still to be divided. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Mjroots for the ping. This issue is not new and has not popped up overnight. But then it went without popping up for 14 years and everyone seemed fine with that. Whatever the issue of conduct relating to AfD discussions, I believe there are two separate arguments being made here and they are at cross-purposes to each other. While trying not to change the subject, the fact that "sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines" [sic] shows simply how efficient we have been at creating them over the last 16 years or more. The continued claim that the project is biased towards cricket coverage bears no weight. It might surprise some WP:CRIC project members to know that other sports are covered on Wikipedia too - and, ironically, in much greater and more thorough detail.
    For the sake of statistics, Storm's article creation history of 2550 articles, contains 1356 pages with the auto-summary "moved page... to", 672 with "Redirected page to", and six with the words "may refer to". I cannot say anything else regarding the issue. (That is not to say I could not). To be blunt, I would be de-sysopped. Bobo. 09:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "low bar" of notability criteria for cricket articles, it is identical to that of football, ice hockey, American football, basketball, and baseball. Bobo. 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On that specific last point, they're not equivalent and I don't think anyone seriously claims they are; because of the nature of how global cricket is structured with multiple different variants of the game, a calendar based around international touring, and a culture of top-level clubs giving chances to newcomers, it's far easier for a cricketer to make an appearance "at the highest international or domestic level" than it is in (for example) baseball. That's not to say the notability guidelines are wrong—particularly for international level it's usually reasonable to assume that at minimum "local boy makes good" stories will have appeared in the newspapers—but the structure of cricket isn't equivalent to that of the NFL or the Bundesliga. ‑ Iridescent 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerically speaking, they are. My query has never been whether they were equivalent to each other. Bobo. 10:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- firstly, this should have been combined with the other thread. Secondly, oppose a ban on cricketer AfDs because this user does good work in clearing out permastubs about non-notable people. Thirdly, oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop doing that- so that a ban at this point would only be a punitive black mark that actually accomplishes nothing behaviour-wise. Reyk YO! 10:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If only to make this point in a wider setting, away from the cricket Wikiproject talk page, to consider certain individuals as "non-notable people", whether right or wrong, is a considerable value judgement. and stands square against both subject-specific (CRIN) and overarching (N) guidelines. Reyk, I have no issue with you making this claim, in fact, I'm being surprisingly considerate in the fact that WP: and WT:CRIC may be considered (by some) to be a "walled garden". Bobo. 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD ban of some kind for any type of articles. Flooding AfD with dozens of noms can be seen as vexatious, and has driven away at least two very active editors from the project sicne the start of the year. As I've said on Storm's talkpage, I have no issue with them taking any article to AfD, and some of them might well be deleted, but excessive nominating is not the way to do it. A previous RfC closed with the text "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". I see that Storm has been willing to listen to comments, so we're not in WP:IDHT terrority, so if editors think a six-month ban from AfD is too harsh, then prehaps a limit of one AfD per day instead, which I know has been enforced with other editors in the past. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those of us who have been busy creating articles for all this time have been driven away from doing so and/or completely driven away from the project. Article creation is no longer happening and there is no longer any incentive to do so. Bobo. 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support limit to One AfD per day as per Lugnuts, while I have no problem with there being cricket AfD articles, they have become excessive in number. It's difficult to get a good consensus on these articles when there are upwards of 20 put up a day. Limiting to one a day would allow Storm to continue AfDing but would also allow WP:CRIC members the time to vote on them, whereas trying to find time to vote on 20 AfD's can be difficult for some members. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A limit of one AfD/day is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a reasonable solution to me and will hopefully help improve the level of discussion on cricket articles at AFD, which has dropped of significantly recently. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to accept the limit, if User:Lugnuts also limit their article creation (especially related to cricket) to some reasonable number because they create lookalike permastubs (WP:KITTENS) and are the source of the mess we are in. One article limit is a good deal to User:Lugnuts as it will take much longer to clear their mess. I am willing to limit myself to five articles per day (I did spate of nominations in past only because I usually find limited time as I do all WP:BEFORE work at once and then nominate them at once. I willing to avoid that in future). Störm (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. If you think there's an issue with my article creations, then feel free to start an ANI thread about it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issues with the cricket articles Lugnuts creates, they are for current players who are likely to go onto multiple games and gain significant coverage from that. There is no problem with creating stubs, it just needs others with the time/expertise to expand them (users from certain areas will be able to find sources from players from their area or language for example). Over time these stubs can be evaluated if they no longer play and can then be put up for deletion of they've only played one or a few matches and have no coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I have closed a number of AfDs filed by Störm that start something like "fails GNG not notable"; however in almost all cases other editors give more substantial arguments for keeping or deleting the article (or in the rare case nobody does, I will typically close as soft delete). I think I'll put him in the same category as John Pack Lambert - "mildly annoying, but that's it". Unless there is a mass exodus of editors upset at seeing all these cricketer bios at AfD - and I don't think there is - any sanctions are more a solution looking for a problem, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD close sanction only Came here after a DRV request. I have more of a problem with the "passes WP:CRIN so GNG is irrelevant" votes at the AfDs than the actual AfDs themselves, especially considering the "when are cricketers notable"/WP:CRIN reform discussion was so all over the place it led me to take a wikibreak. The problem here in my opinion is the AfD closes (I consider the bulk creation of cricket stubs an issue as well, but this is not the right forum for that.) I'd support a light sanction that Störm not be closing any AfD, much less self-closing, which should be obvious. They do not appear to be an administrator, so this should not be a controversial restriction. I don't think there should be a formal sanction about cricket AfDs, but so many of them are open at the moment and they're all Störm-initiated that it is a minor problem, but not necessarily a long-term sanctionable one. I'd strongly recommend letting all of the ones at AfD play out before continuing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD close sanction only as outlined above by SportingFlyer. Admins should only be doing uncontroversial closures of AFD, and quite a number of Störm's seem to be controversial. In particular, closing AFDs that you've started or participated in seems to break WP:NACINV. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A sub-point to this is that of the AFDs that Störm has started, a large proportion have been closed with a delete outcome (either delete or redirect). So on that basis, I'm hesitant to support a ban on them creating AFDs, although maybe speed should be slower (as 50 in one day is a lot). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions against Storm; support thanking them instead, per data. There's no need for a don't-close-own-AFDs sanction where Storm has already voluntarily agreed not to do that (as I understand it). W/r/t bulk nominations, I think if we allow bulk creation of stubs based solely on statistics websites, then we should allow bulk AFD nomination as well.
      W/r/t Storm's nominations overall: of the last 116 of Storm's noms that closed (excluding no consensus and open noms), which go back a month or so to Jan 24, 2021, per AFD stats the match was 91.4% [217]. And that's counting merges as non-matching; if we count merges as matching, it goes up to 113/116 or 97.4%! Of the previous 200 noms, which range from March 25, 2020 to Jan 24, 2021, the match percent is 72.1% [218], and counting merges as matching, that goes up to 160/190 or 84.2%. The previous set of 200 runs from Nov 30, 2019 to March 25, 2020, and is 88.5% match [219]. So the data shows Storm's noms are overwhelmingly good, and that Storm's noms over the last month, though more voluminous, are still matching at >90%, which means Storm is actually getting better at choosing which articles to nominate.
      So, I oppose sanctioning Storm for correctly nominating articles; instead, I thank Storm for doing so. Though I will add that it would be better to reduce the number of concurrently-open AFDs in any one topic area: just because you have time to nominate 100 at a time doesn't mean anyone else has time to review that many. I would suggest limiting the number of concurrent open noms by any one editor to some reasonable number per WP:DELSORT list. Levivich harass/hound 20:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not checked, but I'd wager a small fortune that a lot of those AfDs had Lambert as the only participant, with his usual deletion !vote. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Like a few has said, I understand what Storm is trying to do but the fact of the matter is, he has been flooding the Afd with all of these which isn't what should you do. For me I also support the limit to One afd per day so the people at WP:CRIC will be able to do these reviews. HawkAussie (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD close sanction - clearly, people shouldn't be closing their own AfDs unless it is to withdraw them as 'speedy keep' so I have no objection to that. I would also support some sort of limit to the number of AfDs that Störm can start in one day. There is no rush whatsoever to get these articles deleted and the risk of flooding AfD with multiple cricketers in a given day is that people will simply not have the time to actually look at the cricketers in question. Recent AfDs show this in that a lot of the responses are simply 'keep because he meets CRICN' or 'delete - fails GNG' but with little useful analysis, which was seen on the earlier ones a lot more. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one AfD per day sanction - the issue with the AfDs is their sheer volume, which creates essentially no scope for an actual debate on the article, or indeed time to improve the quality of the article, which in many cases is possible and indeed simple with a little bit of sensible online and offline reviewing of sources; this is what leads to one line responses rather than detailed debate on the merits. Essentially the problem stems from a disagreement about what constitutes notability in the case of sportspeople, as none of the AfDs are for players who have not played a List A or first class match. However, this isn't a discussion which should really be played out through individual AfDs, but across Wikipedia as a whole, as the criteria for cricket are actually more restrictive than for many other sports (see WP:NGRIDIRON, where a single Arena Football (not NFL) match is sufficient; or WP:NFOOTY, where a single match in the Moldovan National Division or the Myanmar National League would be sufficient. One AfD per day would allow this debate to happen. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more absurdly, in football, you can pass the SNG with just a few seconds of professional football. There have been many deleted recently that had less than a minute of football and almost zero apparent coverage. At least in cricket you usually need to at least see out the one match to claim that status of notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD. If it is acceptable to community then I will continue with WP else I will leave as it will be shame if I get any type of block as I never mean it. Will appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Moncton Canada music vandal

    Looking for a rangeblock here. It's a long-term abuse case from New Brunswick, Canada; no communication at all; massive amounts of music article genre warring from the following ranges:

    Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A block of Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F201::/40 might be considered even though it is large. These appear to nearly all be edits to music articles, usually genre changes, and most of them since 1 October 2020 have been reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. The collateral damage to good-faith users would be small. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked two months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mansigh

    As per the massive notice at the top of this page, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", not a general chatroom or help desk. This is Wikipedia, not a religious cult, and we don't have a formal Requests for Atonement process; if you think you've done something to someone for which you ought to apologise, then apologise to that person. ‑ Iridescent 09:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting also that I've gently nudged Ema to slow down on the FORUMing (here). El_C 15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1008959037 did not satisfy. Where's the correct place? Here, or DR? Thanks for help!...?? Regards PS Wiki's huge, and easy to get lost... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ema--or (talk • contribs)

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

    User:Llywelyn2000 personal attacks during CfD

    In Carlossuarez46's eyes this constitutes OR. That is claptrap. ... That's no rational; it's pseudo-rational, and goes against WP:BOLD and ethos. Removing this category is a bias against the Welsh language, and is WP:NPOV. The Welsh language is already being attacked by Northern Irish Unionist, elsewhere. Now it seems we also have a Spanish inquisition. God help minority languages on the English Wikipedia.

    Accuses Carlossuarez46 of anti-Welsh bias against minority languages, calls his well-reasoned discussion "claptrap". Yes, his user name is apparently of hispanic heritage, but that's no reason to call this "a Spanish inquisition."

    Moreover, I'm not a Northern Irish Unionist. Politically, I'm a supporter of Irish self-determination, and of Scottish self-determination.

    We have Categories for Discussion. WP:BOLD does not apply. This vitriol violates WP:AGF.

    Please strike this !vote, and take whatever sanctions are appropriate for this contentious user.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    William Allen Simpson, I've redacted the personal comments from the discussion, which I agree were beyond the pale. I'm not going to strike the !vote, or any of the rationales for it - whoever closes the discussion will give them whatever weight they feel they should be accorded.
    Llywelyn2000, do not make comments of that type ever again about your fellow editors. I can think of very few reasons it would be necessary to mention the (presumed) nationality or political persuasion of another editor - this is most certainly not one of them. WP:NPA is policy, you are expected to comment on content, not contributor, in that sort of discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 14:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of 'Northern Irish Unionists' was not directed at William Allen Simpson but generally in other discussion on enwiki: note my use of 'elsewhere'. The attacks against Welsh language editors are coming in high and low, and are mainly from editors from Spain and Northern Ireland. Fact. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywelyn2000, well here's the thing: you personalised it, and someone took offence, even though they weren't your intended target. If you refrain from personalising things in that manner, as required by policy, nobody will take offence.
    If you have evidence to support there being an orchestrated campaign by a group of editors to victimise Welsh language editors, by all means raise a separate thread here and present it - that would be terrible, and I would support taking action against them. Adding snark to deletion discussions isn't the answer, however. GirthSummit (blether) 16:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the OP of this thread seems only to be proposing Welsh language categories for deletion, and no other languages, it seems fair to ask a question. Albeit that it might not have been phrased in the best way. This doesn't require an admin or a block to resolve in my opinion, and ANI seems like a massive over reaction (unless there is previous, which hasn't been demonstrated here). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Girth Summit: personal attacks have continued after your minor sanction, this time in the guise of a hypothetical "sinister intent"

    Or is this a part of a wider, more sinister attempt to wipe out all references to Wales and the Welsh language from the English Wikipedia?

    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that a personal attack? They're referring to English Wikipedia, not to any editor in particular. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Girth Summit: - Frankly, I'm very concerned about the recent activities of William Allen Simpson in relation to the Welsh language, which could be construed as springing from racial bias. I am not accusing him of being racially prejudiced, but he seems to be coming from a position of ignorance in what appears to be a campaign to remove categories and other articles relating to matters of Welsh interest. Deb (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deb, if there's background here I don't know about, and I've waded into something imprudently, I apologise. I just think that we should be careful about how we speak about each others nationalities, and raise problems at an appropriate location rather than making snarky jibes in deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree with Deb's point, and it's a much better wording of my point above. I don't think I've interacted with William Allen Simpson much, but whenever I notice unusual patterns, I tend to ask questions. And nominating multiple categories about one particular thing (in this case Welsh language) means it's definitely worth asking a question about why just Welsh language categories. As with Deb's comment above, I'm not making accusations, I'm just wondering if there's a reason why it's just Welsh language categories being deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, I fully trust your judgement because I know you practise a high level of integrity, but it may be a good idea to take national sensibilities into consideration when dealing with issues like this. There are two sides to this particular argument. Deb (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb, OK, I'll step back just now, sorry if I've trodden on any toes. I'm enjoying a glass of wine and a fire at the moment, I'll take another look tomorrow and see if I can form an opinion on the bigger picture. Congrats on the rugby by the way :) GirthSummit (blether) 19:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Girth Summit, Diolch! That amazed me as much as it probably did you... Deb (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone explain to me why there is concern over some particular editor in relation to Wales and also can be be clear who we're talking about? AFAICT, User:William Allen Simpson nominated Category:Welsh-speaking academics for deletion [220]. Category:Welsh clergy was nominated by User:Rathfelder [221], and closed by William Allen Simpson as withdrawn [222]. William Allen Simpson did not otherwise participate in that CFD. Category:Welsh-speaking politicians was nominated by User:Carlossuarez46 [223]. (This is the editor Llywelyn2000 attacked.) William Allen Simpson !voted in support. Carlossuarez46 did not participate (as yet for academic I guess) in either of those 2 other CFDs. Rathfelder did not participate in either CFD they didn't nominate either.

    AFAICT, William Allen Simpson has not nominated any other categories that relate to Welsh or Wales since they started editing again last year. Unless you count Category:Wikipedia categories named after counties of Wales and Category:Subdivisions of Wales which would be silly considering they were part of a whole spade of nominations of similar UK categories [224] [225]. Actually, I didn't find any edits from their edit history since they started editing again last year where Welsh or Wales is present in the history (i.e. edit summary or article name). Note that proper CFX nominations should be detected because the editor needs to tag the category when nominating so if it has Welsh or Wales in the category, it shows up.

    BTW, I also found William Allen Simpson nominated Category:Jewish magicians [226], a whole bunch of murdered categories like Category:Murdered serial killers and Category:Murdered Serbian royalty (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17). William Allen Simpson seems to be heavily involved in the CFD area, so I'm fairly sure they also !vote delete in a bunch of similar categories. (I know due to a previous dispute they had some involvement in a HK ethnicity related cat dispute.) So where is this alleged anti-Welsh bias? Please don't tell me nominating one category and !voted in support of deletion of another is sufficient evidence. (I assume it's obvious that closing as withdrawn a nominating by someone else isn't evidence.)

    I understand why 3 Wales related categories coming up in ~3 days may be concerning for those involved in the area, but I see no evidence of a conspiracy or any particular editor acting with bias against any particular nationality or ethnicity. If there isn't better evidence, I suggest the comments above should be withdrawn with apologies for those impugned since the evidence I've seen suggest this JAQing is incredibly unfair to those involved.

    Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That's very wise, Nil Einne. Editors can (for perfectly good reasons) sometimes have a narrow focus, and coincidental actions, which infringe upon that focus, can seem to be forming a pattern never intended. This seems to have been a case of overlap of focus. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My comments were general, no user was named. However, when an user states on their User page that their first language is Spanish, and they have a Spanish User name - they're announcing to the whole world, openly, that they're Spanish. Whether this is correct or not is irrelevant: they've made a statement on their identity. Same with the editors from Northern Ireland who have made anti-Welsh edits, many of whom have a tag announcing that they are based in Northern Ireland etc. I only repeated what's on the editor's User pages. Or was it the word 'inquisition' which offended? This was my poetic way of stating that there exists on the English Wikipedia a group/s of people and individuals who are carrying out cultural cleansing of matters relating to minority languages and non-state nations, and I'm not only referring to categories. It has been going on for years and in the last few months has gathered momentum. I except that the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 25 discussion may not have been the best place to have said these remarks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nil Einne, you may have missed the fact that, just before the nomination of Category:Welsh-speaking academics, was a supporter of the move to delete Category:Welsh-speaking politicians, making this offensive comment about a category that has been in existence for six years. It may be that he wasn't aware of the checkered history of the "Welsh-speaking..." categories, but it's odd (in fact, perverse) that he moved to delete the category on academics two days later, when it was becoming apparent that there was not a consensus to delete the politicians category. Deb (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Deb: I explicitly noted that they had !voted delete for that category so I'm not sure how I 'missed' it. I did not read the vote very well, but I see nothing in that comment that is offensive. As it stands, it seems confirmed that you're accusing an editor of some bias against Welsh cats based on participation in a grand total of 2 CFDs. If you don't withdraw the offensive accusation, you're the one who needs to be forbidden from participating further. At least in CFDs, if not site wide. @Llywelyn2000: the editor may be Spanish, it does not excuse your personal attacks on them because they are Spanish. I'm guessing you're Welsh which is fine, but it would be likewise unacceptable for anyone to make personal attacks on you because you are Welsh. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 13:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To further clarify, there's nothing perverse about nominating a single category your recent research uncovered which you feel isn't justified under our policies and guidelines. Indeed, it surely happens all the time both with cats but without many other things. An editor researches something because of something else, they find something they feel is a problem under our policies and guidelines and they try to fix it. If there really consensus for both of these categories, then this will be shown in the CFD outcome. If they keep nominating such Welsh cats after that, then there may be concern, but that hasn't happened. And yes, the Spanish inquisition comment is offensive and a personal attack when the editor being targeted is openly Spanish by your own admission. Bringing up an editor's ethnic or national background in any discussion is often problematic in a discussion. It can be justified, but editors need to think carefully before doing so. I'd note even in a case like this, I'd find it very hard to see justification for an editor bringing up that supporters of these categories are Welsh or Welsh speaking and it's far easier to see why a Welsh editor may be biased in favour of a Welsh related category, then it is to see why a Spanish one may be against. Don't joke about an editors heritage unless you're friends and you know they won't find it offensive. And speaking generally to all. I don't know if you understand how badly these personal attacks harm your cause. Frankly, I'm very tempted to !vote delete both of those cats based solely on the behaviour I've seen from supporters. It strongly suggests to me there is no merit for them since why else would defenders need to resort to personal attacks? I won't since I need more research to truly confirm my hunch which I can't be bothered doing and I'm not sure I can evaluate them fairly anymore anyway. But if you want to defend these cats, you need to learn to do so without resorting to personal attacks. It doesn't help your case, it harms it. If there is evidence a group of editors is targeting Welsh cats, that should be presented somewhere appropriate an action can be taken. But please make sure it's good evidence. If the only evidence is one editor !voting in one cat and then nominating another 2 days later, please don't waste our time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Welsh cats? Poor little things. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "...please don't waste our time." Nil Einne, where exactly do you think you are? Drop the threats to vote for deletion out of spite, because any such vote would not be counted. Deb (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one should be voting at CFD. If you're voting, that's partly why there's a problem. Maybe there is a problem, since this is the second time in about 2 weeks where someone seems to think people should be voting at CFD. I hardly ever participate there yet I know I should never ever vote. I may sometimes !vote there, and I know why the distinction matters. Also, we're currently at ANI, where from all available evidence you made a personal attack (an accusation with basically zero evidence) which you won't withdrawn, in a thread about personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good. Then I guess you didn't mean it when you said "Frankly, I'm very tempted to !vote delete both of those cats based solely on the behaviour I've seen from supporters." That's all I need to hear. Deb (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to bludgeon the discussion so I'll leave one final comment. TL;DR version: You can't CFD something that doesn't exist or you don't know about. And there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why William Allen Simpson knows about the Welsh-speaking categories but not any other that may or may not exist that people seem to want them to CFD to prove they aren't singling out Welsh-speaking. Namely that those Welsh speaking cats do seem to be the odd ones out.

    In the CfDs, one claim made by William Allen Simpson and others is that those 2 cats are basically the only examples where language is non defining to the occuption. Some examples were given for the others. I had a look at all the categories in Category:People by language and occupation. AFAICT, it's correct that all other examples are stuff like revivalists, activitists, linguists, grammarians, lexicographers, translators, calligraphers, poets, playwrights, novelists, writers, composers, musicians, singers, comedians, theatre performers, actors, radio or television presenters, Youtubers, critics. Some are of specific types e.g. television vs film actors or film musical score composers, playback singers. There are some which are basically the same as those e.g. Category:Hebraists + 2 Regius Professor of Hebrew categories, Category:Kabarettists, Category:Urdu scholars. (I didn't check, but I'm sure the cat is intended for scholars of Urdu, not scholars who speak or write in Urdu but not professionally.)

    The odd ones out were Daigou] in Category:Chinese-speaking people by occupation and Category:Telugu politicians. In the case of Daigou, it's sort of a requirement that those involved in the sales do speak Chinese to some extent so I can understand its presence, in any case, it probably isn't an issue for CFD, it can be removed if people feel it shouldn't be there. Telugu is a better example, but not really the same since it's an ethno-linguistic group. (I assume we do have a Welsh politicians category.) Oh and there's also Category:Coptic-speaking people by occupation and Category:Coptic people by occupation which probably need some work on the subcats etc.

    It's not hard to see why those earlier examples are seen as cases where the language spoken is a defining part of their occupation but this is disputed for politicians and academics. Given that Welsh is the only example where this seems to have happened (excepting the complicated Telugu case), there's an obvious reason unrelated to any bias why Welsh was "singled out". It's because it was the only special case. William Allen Simpson can't nominate categories that don't exist to prove they are unbiased.

    To be clear, perhaps the best outcome would be to expand our cats so we have more cases like Welsh. Perhaps it's fine to have Welsh the odd one out. Perhaps the Welsh cats should be deleted. That should be dealt with via CFD etc not here and again doesn't excuse any unfair accusations. Also, it's possible there are categories outside people by language and occupation that I didn't see. But it's hardly surprising that William Allen Simpson also hasn't yet came across them since that seemed to be what they looked in to themselves.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify why the Telugu one seems different: My heritage is Malaysian Chinese and Pākehā. The specifics as I understand it are Taishanese for the Malaysian Chinese side and Irish for the Pākehā side. I'm not aware of any significant Welsh heritage. Despite that, if I were to move to Wales and learn the Welsh language and become either a notable politician or academic, I'd likely end up in one of those categories. I may very well end up in those categories if I skipped the "moving to Wales part" and stay in NZ. By comparison, it's a lot less clear how or whether I could even end up in the Telugu politician category. That's why ethnolinguistic groupings are complicated. I sort of glossed over the Coptic ones because I think they need some work. It seems to me that the Coptic one is probably intended to cover Copts rather than speakers of the Coptic language per se. (From what I understand from our article, it's more of a ethnoreligious grouping than a language one except that the language used in their religion is the Coptic language.) Which also means the Category:Coptic Orthodox bishops etc does I think mean they speak the Coptic language since from what I understand, it would be required to perform religious service, similar to how in the past Roman Catholic priests and bishops would need to speak Latin to at least some minor degree. (Perhaps mostly memorisation in some cases.) All of this adds up to there being no comparable examples I can see for those Welsh-speaking categories hence why an editor who disagrees with their premise which is perfectly reasonable, may nominate them and no other language categories without any bias against the Welsh language. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Genocides in history (before World War I)

    Various POV-driven IPs and accounts are causing large-scale disruption to the sensitive article Genocides in history (before World War I). Where they are either unilaterally removing Genocides from the list (such as the Armenian Genocide) against WP:CONSENSUS, or are trying to add non-genocides to the list (such as the Batak massacre) even though there is no academic consensus to call it as such. Attention is urgently needed. I already have filled request [227] for a temporary full page protection here at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but it is taking too long. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See my protection summary. But why are you asking for full protection? That generally involves legit content disputes, and is largely employed to curtail edit warring among established users, more often than not, ones who enjoy EC user right access (i.e. thereby often rendering WP:ECP meaningless). But these are all IPs, so semi is really the only option here. Just for future reference. El_C 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for good recordkeeping, refactoring my note at RfPP (diff) before it falls into the depths of the abyss: As mentioned at ANI, this page isn't a candidate for full protection at this time, but due to its sensitive nature, will need to be watched closely, indefinitely (I'm predicting an indef semi in its future). Its import is such that disruption (advocacy) needs to be curtailed especially swiftly and decisively. El_C 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) El_C 15:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: actually, the article saw disruption by both IPs and registered editors (of whom the one got blocked by Ymblanter for 72 hours). Had it been just IPs doing the disruption, a semi-protection would have made the most sense otherwise. However, I am still happy and won't ask for Full Protection anymore, because I am content that your strict warning [228] will be heeled and everyone will approach the sensitive article with more caution the next time. Thank you very much and my apologies in advance for having to come both here and to the Page Protection noticeboard, I did because of its very sensitive nature. Also I find myself absolutely endorsing your statement. Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize, indeed, this is a legit RfPP-to-ANI refactor. Noting of there having been two disruptive autoconfirmed accounts (both indeffed) and 5 disruptive IPs (page created 22 January 2021‎). Anyway, the point is that, per WP:ECP: [Only] [w]here semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption. The rare exception to that would be with the extra discretion afforded by DS/GS. For sure, glad I could help! El_C 15:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I just had to revert now [229] the editor from inserting fantasy claims into the article's infobox, according which the Turkish Land Forces were founded... 2.000 years ago. I have looked anywhere in Wikipedia but I wouldnt find any rules in Wikipedia permitting the use of Infoboxes for WP:PROPAGANDA purposes citing WP:PRIMARY sources. The common practice in Wikipedia is to cite only factual information into infoboxes (a good example of this are the: Greek Armed Forces article infobox, which is carefully avoiding fantasy claims). If a temporary topic ban is what can help editors understand that unhelpful edits aren't the way to go, then I support it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same claim for the date of founding is in the Turkish Armed Forces article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is irrelevant, not like the previous one I just reverted once and I get the warning.This is not fair, I wrote the reason next to it when i revert.I did not disrespect or exaggerate anybody. I stated the correct official source if you look at logo of Turkish Land Forces you will see founded 209 BC and also on their official site and even on every insignia about genocides i re added/ reverted Batak massacre You claim that it is not a holocaust/genocide, but in the article it is stated that it is an obvious genocide. And that's why I reverted... I don't want you to reverse the blocking, just the warnings are unnecessary 3-4 times I'll pay more attention from now on, but if discussion is prohibited then remove the talk page as well.. Kindly regards Cengizsogutlu (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cengizsogutlu, Batak massacre is not described as a genocide (and "holocaust," really?). Your comment inspires little confidence otherwise, as well. We're probably treating you in too lax a manner, is my strong impression. El_C 17:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C and Black Kite: - sorry for the ping here but I wanted to inform you that Cengizsogutlu isn't counted in the new consensus formed in the talk page of the Turkish Land Forces. The consensus is to alleviate the editorial concerns by following Wikipedia's rules and common practices, which is to avoid anachronistic, exaggerated date of founding claims (propaganda) from being given more WP:DUE promince by placing it on the article's Lead section or the Infobox. The contentious date is still mentioned (just for the sake of compromise with the other editorial side) on History section and I believe that's fair and as far as it can get considering it is unsupported by any serious academic scholars and the source cited is WP:PRIMARY. The Talk Page consensus diff can be read here: [230]. Let me know if I missed something. Good day everyone! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PailSimon

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

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

    Examples: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251]

    Misleading or False edit summaries: [252], [253], [254], [255].

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

    This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [256] (claiming NPR was a deprecated source as an excuse to remove content), followed up with [257].

    Since several editors requested this to be brought here [258], [259], [260], [261], [262] (which I support) I have done so. PailSimon has also had multiple editors leave warnings regarding this problem on their talk page User talk:PailSimon#February 2021. I have pinged the editors that seem most involved but there are others as well.  // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by PailSimon

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

    No.1 As you can see from the edit summary I thought it WP:UNDUE to emphasis the opinion of one single nation to the extent that it was being emphasized.
    No.2 The first part removed was collateral damage and I did not object to it's inclusion (Horse Eye's Back later readded the first part with no objection from myself). The issue was the second paragraph added which was later unilaterally agreed on the talk page to be removed due to sourcing issues etc.
    No.3 As I have said on the talk page I mistakenly believed the user to be citing The Sun. This was a mistake on my part and it is worth pointing out (as I have pointed out above) that I did not object to its re-addition when Horse Eye's Back re-added it.
    No.4 As pointed out in the edit summary the section in question was statements from countries and the organization in question is not a country.
    No.5 I don't see how this is an objectionable edit from an standpoint given my explanation in the edit summary. Is it bad to restore the consensus version?
    No.6 ibid
    No.7 ibid
    No.8 I do not really understand what could possibly be the issue with this edit.
    No.9 The content was unrelated to the subject of the article given that it was referring to the 2009 Urumqi riots and not the present Chinese attitude to the Uyghurs which is what the article is about.
    No.10 No clue what's so horrible about this edit either.
    No.11 ibid
    No.12 I don't see how avoiding WP:OVERCAT is a bad thing.
    No.13 I think the edit summary speaks for itself here.
    No.14 ibid
    No.15 WP:ATTRIBUTION was being followed here
    No.16 I was encouraging the user to stop edit warring and seek consensus on talk page per BRD.
    No.17 The Sun is a deprecated source.
    No.18 Edit summary speaks for itself. I am not sure how the addition of sourced content is objectionable in this case.
    No.19 See No.5
    No.20 I fixed a redundant statement as per the edit sumamry.
    No.21 See No.5

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

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

    Statement by TimothyBlue

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't see have me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:COATRACK, WP:CONSENSUS, removing deprecated sources etc justifies this whole overblown song and dance. It seems to me like you're just making a mountain over a molehill. Perhaps if you explained what was so awful about the above?PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The speedy reply shows you didn't even bother to take time to WP:LISTEN and consider my post; this is in the hands of the community at this point, they can consider your editing and responses.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider what exactly? You haven't said anything substantial beyond "take a step away for some vague reason". Step away because why exactly? Because I have removed deprecated sources and enforced WP:CONSENSUS? The fact that you're taking me to ANI over removing deprecated sources among other things means it's hard to assume good faith. I would also note that you didn't answer my question PailSimon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Mikehawk10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There isn't very much different in this statement to Timothy Blues statement so see my own statement above for a response. To respond to the "adding false information" charge, I misread the source admitantly and thought it said that the Liberal Party MPs abstained when in fact it was only the Liberal Party Cabinet that abstained. This was a legitimate mistake on my part and doesn't really deserve all the hoo-ha that Mike is churning up. PailSimon (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And also you have cited one of my edits as violating MOS:CLAIM when in reality it supports my edits - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." PailSimon (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by NoonIcarus

    Statement by Jancarcu

    Statement by Citobun

    I was not involved in any of the many disputes at Uyghur genocide. I commented on the talk page discussion that I had also observed a consistent pattern of POV editing by PailSimon on other China-related topics (e.g. Hong Kong and Taiwan), coupled with the use of misleading/disingenuous edit summaries, and provided diffs to support those claims. PailSimon responded in part with a baseless personal attack, accusing me of being a "a Hong Kong localist" with "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible". A serious accusation, absent any evidence, which is patently untrue. That pretty much sums up his POV-driven battleground mentality toward Wikipedia. He similarly cast aspersions against User:TimothyBlue ([263]) and does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to shift the narrative on content he views as "demonising China" via edit warring/page-policing (as at Uyghur genocide), and by casting aspersions against those who question such POV editing. So I agree with OP's concerns and also object strongly to PailSimon's baseless personal attacks against myself and others. Citobun (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Its ironic to me that your evidencless post above accuses me of casting aspersions when you've done exactly that. PailSimon (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is in my original comment, to which I provided a link. Citobun (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case see my own response to it.PailSimon (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To which I replied thusly. BTW, to get back on topic – I'd like to note that you've still not retracted your baseless personal attacks despite being alerted to Wikipedia policy on the matter. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SeePailSimon (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really just re-link to the personal attack rather than retract it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing there that's a personal attack.PailSimon (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by TucanHolmes

    Comments by other editors

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

    Brief note by El_C

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

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

    Creepercast888

    Creepercast888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    WP:NOTHERE, Whitewashing Falun Gong / Epoch Times / Shen Yun / New Tang Dynasty Television and their perceived allies while attacking their perceived enemies. Multiple warnings and ds-alerts. Examples:[264][265][266] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for two weeks. I will keep an eye on future edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass reverts

    Hippeus has a habit of mass reverting edits I have made on this article. He has done it here. [267] He has also done it in the past. [[268]]; [269]; [270]; [271]. As you can imagine, it is disheartening and impossible to make constructive improvements to an article when they are deleted without distinction, particularly when 1RR limits the amount of change one can make. Jontel (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    So according to Jontel, reputable media and scholars are "bitterly hostile". And "Jewish". In the recent bout he has been reintroducing content that was rejected by consensus last May-July.
    Jontel has been warned this month by User:Nomoskedasticity for vandalism on David Miller (sociologist) and by warned by User:Pigsonthewing for original research on Emma Barnett. Jontel running to ANI after a single challenge of his edits is quite an escalation. Jontel is unable to edit these topics neutrally. --Hippeus (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been edit warring against consensus; rather Hippeus took it upon himself last year to revert repeatedly all changes en masse without consultation with anyone. Recently, other editors and I (mainly me) on Gilad Atzmon have been working to make the article more balanced instead of it being a highly critical near attack page. Again, Hippeus, who has not been involved recently, came in and reversed all the changes without justification. He should bring up content issues on the Talk page, but has failed to do so. Obviously, one does not include all reliable sources just because they are there if there is repetition. My description of the commentators was non-judgemental, relevant and accurate: Hippeus is perfectly at liberty to edit it or raise it on the Talk page. As the subject was what Atzmon said, using material from his website illustrated the issues and is permitted under WP:SELFPUB. I don't know why Hippeus should think it surprising that commentators take a strong view; it is in the nature of the subject. I did not vandalize David Miller (sociologist) and have asked User:Nomoskedasticity what change caused concern and not yet received a reply. I do not think I used original research on Barnett; I was quoting from the sources. This is all a diversion from the main point. How can anyone and why should anyone work to improve articles on Wikipedia when editors like Hippeus can descend at any time and reverse large amounts of consensual changes with mass reverts lacking any justification? This breaks all the rules of editors working together. Jontel (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus for Jontel's rewrite of the article. In May 2020 there was a clear consensus that Jontel's edits were tendentious, with User:RolandR, User:Drsmoo, User:Tritomex, User:Bobfrombrockley, and myself all agreeing against these changes. My actions were with in consensus. Jontel is breaking 1RR. I think this recent comment by User:SlimVirgin on Jontel's editing:

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

    on a the page of Nicholas Kollerstrom and some other page is relevant. Using self-published material by Holocaust deniers is an unacceptable standard of source use, and Jontel has clear issues on the wider topic.--Hippeus (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Attack page" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not suprising views of Atzmon are polarised given that its essentially an extension of WP:ARBPIA. Jontel, what's your justification for removing mentions of holocaust denial? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the changes pending discussion on the talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What mentions of Holocaust denial are you referring to? Jontel (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=1009286750&oldid=1009281937.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Awful experience with an admin

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Filing IP has been temporarily blocked for block evasion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I posted here a while ago about a biased admin who was patrolling the cultural marxist conspiracy theory page despite being a marxist himself. After this, another admin who had a photo of Lenin on his page reverted months old edit that I did on the Jewish views on slavery (despite me having 3 sources) out of spite and then suspended me in a mocking way.

    Needless to say, this was an awful experience. I shouldn't have to experience a power hungry admin taunt me and verbally fight me. I don't think an admin should use power like that. What can I do about this? I believe that I was targeted due to ideological differences. My edit was fair. I will no longer use wikipedia if this continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.140 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • A couple of questions and concerns arise here:
    (1) No one's going to do anything about this complaint unless you name names and provides diffs for every claim you make. You can't expect people to spend their time searching all over Wikipedia to find evidence for your complaint.
    (2) Have you considered that the admin with the picture of Lenin on his page might have been displaying it ironically? Or not.
    (3) When you say that the second admin "suspended" you, I assume that means that they blocked you from editing. Did that block run out? If that's not the case, and you're here posting, and this is the first edit that this IP address has made, I guess that means that you are evading your block by using another IP to get around it, which -- in and of itself -- is grounds for this IP to be blocked.
    (4) If you're still blocked, did you file an unblock request on your talk page? Every block comes with the instructions on how to do so.
    (5) You might like to bone up on WP:Assume good faith, as in perhaps the admin blocked you because you were violating Wikipedia's policies or best practices, and not because they're a commie.
    (6) But, as I said, no one's gonna jump to your assistance if you don't provide diffs, and f=diffs will -- of course -- show what the behavior was you were blocked for, whether you are still blocked and evading it, and so on.
    Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The first way to having your account unblocked is not to continue to edit from IPs evading your block. And as such, this IP has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the original IP's contributions and user talk page. Anyway, I don't need telepathy to know what this is about. And no mocking on my part, as that would involve additional interaction with this individual, one with whom I have absolutely no interest to engage with any more than I have to (not one iota). Noticed them via usual patrolling of this noticeboard, btw, in a thread they, themselves, had started (diff), again, containing bluster of much the same orientation as all of their other disruptive edits. It all speaks for itself rather unambiguously, I'd say. //Out. El_C 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, I guess a got beat to it while grabbing a snack! El_C 01:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent WP:BLP violations at Wilton Sampaio

    Of the defamatory ilk. Please consider rev/deletion as well as page protection. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve given it a few days protection. Thanks for reporting this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Malcolmxl5. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, it's probably time to lock Feminazi. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, and I see there’s a request for protection for it at RfPP too. I’ve given it a few days protection. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Terrific. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently warned user resuming tendentious editing for which they were previously blocked and warned

    CLOSED
    Filed in violation of an ARBCOM imposed topic ban. Paradise Chronicle is free to edit in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area, subject to normal Wikipedia standards of behaviour. The filer has been blocked for the violation, and is banned from discussing Kurds and Kurdistan anywhere at all on Wikipedia until a successful appeal is made to ARBCOM, which won't be anytime soon. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Was recently warned by ArbCom regarding their behavior in Kurdish-related articles. They just resumed removing the same sourced content from the same article they were blocked for a back in July by El C. Regarding these very same quotes they have ignored suggestion by volunteer user Nightenbelle that they should be kept in aDRN case they opened but still decided to remove the SOURCED Washington Post material and Washington Institute material and continued to edit-war. They even removed the material during the DRN. That initial removal of the WaPo content was criticized by BDD here during the ArbCom case eight days ago, but here we go again, they just removed the same content for the nth time. I think a tban is now warranted. Thank you, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting that the filer is topic banned from Kurds and Kurdistan by the arbitration committee, though I am not sure that bringing this to ANI is a violation of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned by Hemiauchenia, the filing editor is currently topic banned from articles and events relating to Kurds and Kurdistan. Besides I have opened a discussion about the subject at the article talk page. The filing editor had since May 2020 mainly the argument sourced and ignored multiple questions at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that WP:BANEX allows a topic banned editor to file an AN/I report about the subject they are banned from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I have not edited in the area. I am just bringing the issue to the admin attention given that the editor in question (Paradise Chronicle) is obviously taking advantage of my absence since we had argued on this before. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just read the WP:Banning_policy#Topic_ban; tbanned users are not allowed to edit in: related articles and lists, related categories, related project pages, related parts of other pages, discussions or suggestions such as a deletion discussion. It is mentioned nowhere that interaction with admins or admin noticeboards about the topic is prohibited. Now let's focus on the issue at hand. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, that is the issue at hand — that though ANI isn't ordinarily a related project page, it does temporarily becomes such a page once this prohibited content is introduced to it by the banned user (or, saving that, surely this thread counts as discussions or suggestions, etc.). I'll spell it out: no mention of the topic area by Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is permitted, whatsoever. The only exception to that would be once the allotted 12 months had passed and the user submits their appeal to the Arbitration Committee. It isn't complicated. El_C 01:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, do I take it that this thread serves as the (first and only) warning to the OP, and that the next violation of their topic ban will result in a block? Paradise Chronicle, on the other hand, was not warned about the subject per se, but about their general behavior: "Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future." As far as the results of the Kurds and Kurdistan case is concerned, they are not restricted in their editing of that subject in any way, as I read it, so the OP's report was totally unnecessary in any case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note taken, but can we hear from ArbCom members? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, this isn't the forum to query the Committee. That is done at WP:ARCA. El_C 03:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a cut-and-dried situation, black-letter law, as the attorneys say. If BANEX doesn't say that you can do it, then you can't do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the filer for a week for the topic ban violation--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Claudia Webbe

    Some concerns of the editing of the Claudia Webbe changes to the way the results of previous elections are related to the last. None registered editor seems very competent with tools. Happy to bandy around accusations of sexism. The upcoming trial does it need protection.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kitchen Knife: I've semi-protected the article for a month. There are unreferenced statements in the article which need to be either referenced or removed. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the subject of the article is involved in legal proceedings, I've created an edit notice to remind editors that sub judice applies. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheLionHasSeen

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

    Pardon me, but are we not currently still discussing this on the discussion page? If one can reason with me, with citations and philosophy, I am willing to act on good faith. I did not seek to attack them, nor to silence them, but made the statement that it appeared to be an agenda being pushed, with behavioral evidence among other things. I have neither dug up anything upon you, and neither made reference to you. I was instructing you to further investigate the other contributor and their contributions to Wikipedia. This is all now appearing to be either a trolling of me, or very poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I further add, this began with starting dialogue on reaching consensus with the article, and I as a contributor to that article had every right to participate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right that it was a misunderstanding that you were trying to find something on me, I apologize for saying that now. But none of that changes you comments, which is the concern here, about the other user. Yes the discussion is still going on in the talk page, but attacking someone like that is not appropriate or helpful to that discussion. You can't just be going around saying someone is pushing an agenda of white supremacy when the evidence is not clear, like in this case. You have every right to participate like me or anyone else does in that discussion, and I want you to participate, but you attacked someone and I'm you worried may attack me or another user.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not wish to forgo the contents of what was previously written, so here is what was better off written before the edit conflict here: Pardon me, but in response, this character was alleged in good faith and the term appear to refers to the allegation, upon participating in behavioral contributions pertaining to the anti-thesis of white supremacy with several articles related to the Horn of Africa by other non-related contributors (and again, notice the anti-thesis of it, where they attempt to utilize similar behaviors of two polar opposites). Further responding, I have provided extended contribution history pertaining to them, and per WP:blue, I am quite sure in 2021 character traits may be obvious with anyone's contribution history. In my personal instance I am termed a "historical and citation geek with dabs of philosophical intent" by several peers after reviewing my contributions here on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, continuing, I did not seek to attack them, nor silence them. I have also neither "dug up" any information on you, nor made reference to doing such; I have no time to investigate the wiki contributions of someone that does not warrant such a need (I participate often in sockpuppet investigations as a reporter and watchdog for Horn of Africa related articles, which is why in detail, and that was apparently volunteered upon me through consistent vandalism on such articles). Reading the discussion, I made no intent of seeking out any information you whatsoever, so that is a great and dangerous accusation of highest intent personally, and makes it seem as if one is a stalker, and that is horrible in my personal opinion. You were merely instructed to further investigate the other contributor through their contributions to this online encyclopedia. I fear this is now an instance of trolling or poor communication, moreso poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, that such rewritten defense has been published, it is quite alright as life is full of misunderstanding. Please refer to my revised comment which was intended to be published before the edit conflict, as I utilized WP:blue as a further defense of the commentary, in addition to the very detailed basis pertaining to claiming their appearance of an agenda being pushed. Thank you, and why personally attack you or others, or even them when there is no basis to do so? I have dealt with an issue similar to this I believe. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify I have apologized for saying he was trying to find something on me, I apologized above. I'm not claiming that he's stalking me or anything of that nature. My concern is with his unwarranted attack on a different user as I have stated above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, understand again, I have not verbatim said the contributor was a white supremacist but had the appearance of one, which has been the argument this whole time. I believe you are reading with emotion into my text written here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You believing that user has an appearance of white supremacy was not at all relevant to the discussion in that talk page. Under, WP:No personal attacks your not supposed to use someones political beliefs, even if there not mainstream, to invalidate their argument. Technically, even though white supremacy is disliked by you and me and many others it doesn't invalidate someone from editing Wikipedia. But thats all beyond the point because that user hasn't added anything condoning white supremacy and your speculation is wrong. Also I'm not aware of that user committing any policy violation. If you weren't trying to belittle them and silence their opinion, then why did you feel it was appropriate to ever bring that up? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be upon discerning the apparent motives through contribution history, I would argue, respectfully. I am not intending to invalidate their argument, but their contribution history as espoused within detail on that article's talk page appears to do it for them, fellow Wikipedian. Please reread the context of what has been explained several times before as well, before asking such a question in that manner, and making accusations of silencing them. They appear to have gotten tired of Wikipedia before I ever involved myself - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have yet to respond, I am sleeping. It is past midnight here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming of permissions by User:Isaccc

    The user has already stopped this behaviour. There is no ongoing disruption that needs to be stopped. No action required. GirthSummit (blether) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I was viewing the page history of Kannada and came across suspicious edits by Isaccc (talk · contribs). They were adding a blank space, removing and adding it back in lots of edits like this. Seeing their contributions show the same pattern of editing across multiple articles. These are some articles where this pattern of editing is found -

    All of the above examples are from their oldest 500 edits and done over a period of 2 days. It is pretty obvious that these were done to artificially boost their edit count to gain Extended confirmed access. I request Adminsitrators to consider removing Isaccc from the Extended confirmed user group since it is was gained by gaming of permissions. AVSmalnad77 talk 09:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to observe a few things: 1) They have not edited for about a year... later edits do not display this behaviour 2) They stopped, apparently immediately, after first being asked to stop doing this. 3) With a total of 922 edits, they would probably be extended confirmed without these edits. I haven't done the exact maths, but it looks close enough. Other admins may act differently, but personally I have considered removing EC and a raft of other sanctions, but as a result of these observations, have decided to take no action. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Prteamsoc

    Speedily deleted and blocked. Fences&Windows 12:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This editor has been here for a while but their recent behaviour is a serious cause for concern. They have hijacked Nik Carter and Nikhil Arya to promote the non-notable 'MC Nikhil'. I have also reverted some promotional edits to Gully Boy. They have also created MC NIKHIL (Rapper) which seems to be the next attempt at promotion. They have then linked this article on the talk page as evidence for notability for MC Nikhil but, interestingly, you can see that this article is by 'Prteamsoc' which is the same as this user's username, so we have probable WP:COI here! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Walled garden around Mika Simmons

    A trio of promotional pieces. Alabama73 (talk · contribs) has been persistent in adding promotional and poorly sourced content, and claims to be Ms. Simmons [285]. The account has a long term WP:COI interest here, [286]. All the articles were created by different WP:SPAs, so it may be worth doing a sock check--my money is on all being connected to Alabama73, or at least to one another. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indeffed Alabama73 from editing the Mika Simmons article as this editor claims to be the subject of the article. Editing by Alabama 73 at the other two articles has not been investigated, but it may be that a similar sanction is needed there. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at Simmons' biography now. A major problem is that there is citable information, but a lot of it is in the Daily Mail. I need to go and dig through the editor history more thoroughly, but as far as I can tell, the basic story is Simmons thought she should have a WP biography and paid somebody to do it - of course we all know that's a silly thing to do, but if you've got no expertise in writing WP articles, it's the sort of mistake you can make. As for the article block, that's probably the right decision but I would just caution everyone to take things easy and not go on the "COI Editor! Spam! Spam! Spam! Get Rid!" rampage just yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: I've had a look at the article and was going to drop a note on her talk page to ask if she had a WP:RS for the elusive "chosen as one of 40 inspirational women to front L’Oréal Lancôme's powerful women campaign" which seems too precise to be a total fantasy but is untraceable except to connected sources or wiki mirrors. But I find she has already been indef blocked, while this ANI was open. PamD 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD, She hasn't been indeffed everywhere, just from editing Mika Simmons. So she should be able to still communicate; although I think she hasn't picked up on what talk pages are yet, and today went to the AFC help desk to get assistance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333 Ah, Thanks. I think I read that but didn't register it - first time I've seen an article-specific block like that. PamD 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's apparent that Ms. Simmons is still under the impression that Wikipedia is a venue for promotion of herself and her charity work [287] (By the way, I'd check that post to PamD's page to make sure there's no copyright violation therein; I'm seeing a lot of identical content at [288], though I don't know which came first). When that's the misapprehension, every removal of inappropriate content and each warning against its restoration are viewed as personal attacks. The decision to remove her from autobiographical involvement is justified, as is greater attention to the satellite articles. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    About a removed NPR (-patroller)

    Hi, good day! I would like to directly report to you an editor, whom admin User:JJMC89 has removed of patroller role, due to multiple inappropriate draftifications, cut/paste moves, and inappropriate CSD. Seems like User:Spiderone hasn't learned their lesson. They have explicitly draftified four of my recently-created articles:

    Hilarious thing is he even tagged a non-official essay on my talk page as basis for draftification. It is as if the sole source I have cited there is a non-independent and non-reliable one, which is untrue as those were not school websites and promotional ones — those were from the national basic education agency in the Philippines. I don't think draftification is necessary. The notability stub was enough. The article didn't even last for its first 24 hours before being taken on such action. I am supposed to expand the article and put another independent sources. That draftification was unnecessary and unfair as well. Chances were not given. The created articles are with neutral point of view, without copyrighted contents and WP:COI. I don't think the articles are "de-qualified" as an WP:AfC. Personally, I look this one as an "insult" as the article were made in good faith. Some of the articles he created did not even have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and has cited only two sources. I believe I could have cited more on the articles I created.

    I hope that the administrators look into this matter. Thank you! ~PogingJuan 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PogingJuan WP:NORG is absolutely not a 'non-official essay' and is, in fact, what all articles on schools should be required to meet. The source linked in all of these mass produced articles was just this which is woefully inadequate in meeting the relevant guideline for notability, which explicitly states that significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A search for each school does not yield any sources that show this level of coverage either, however, in good faith, they were sent to draft so that such sources could be found. I don't believe that any of the articles would pass WP:AfC in their current state and they are not suitable for main space. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the articles are made in good faith or not is not the issue. Nor is COI. I've noticed that Nagpayong High School, Santolan High School, Sagad High School and Kapitolyo High School have also been tagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines either (by a different user - User:John B123 - one of the most experienced patrollers here!). All of them are sourced only to an exhaustive database for schools so they do not demonstratively meet WP:NORG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I've noticed that you created all 9 articles within 45 minutes as well, please take more time. There is no rush. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Spiderone I am well informed of the WP:NORG and WP:Notability in general. I won't create articles of subject that lacks reliable and independent sources. What I'm saying, you should have given me ample time. The articles didn't even reached its 24th hour. One of it, I have already put another independent source. Again, the notability stub (which states the need of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic) put by User:John B123 was enough for the current time being. I don't think you must have draftified it explicitly and immediately. ~PogingJuan 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Spiderone The source from the educational agency in the Philippines is only an initial one. Eventually, I'm gonna put another reliable and independent sources. I just cannot work on Wikipedia for 24 hours, but tbh, the early publish would definitely "energize" me to "solidify" its notability and not forget the subjects. ~PogingJuan 13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PogingJuan - Per WP:DRAFTIFY, The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. Draftifying is not deletion, if the topic is notable, then it will clearly pass WP:AfC once demonstrated. In my opinion, 18 hours without the article being edited is long enough and I don't believe that this was an inappropriately quick draftification. All of the first 3 points at DRAFTIFY were met in these cases; the topic has potential merit, it doesn't meet our standards currently and there was no evidence of active improvement. Also, I don't believe the required steps were taken here before going to WP:ANI. I can't see any evidence of trying to resolve the issue with me on my talk page. ANI is a last resort only. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Spiderone 18 hours were DEFINITELY NOT LONG because I have a life outside Wikipedia and it is recognized. The notability stub, I believe was put less than 18 hours ago. After the consecutive creation of the articles of schools, I was still able to create another two articles. I don't think 18 hours were that long. The draftification was inappropriately quick and I think, without consideration. ~PogingJuan 13:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following statement is a whataboutist one but there are so many articles in the backlog with the notability stub a long time ago. Compared to the article created 18 hours ago, I think those should've been given attention first. ~PogingJuan 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PogingJuan - just out of interest, what would be an acceptable amount of time to wait before sending them to draft? I've seen articles sent to draft that have been on here for barely even an hour today. Please can you point me to an appropriate guideline which says that draftifying an article after 18 hours of inactivity is inappropriate? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Spiderone I don't think there's a rule but I also think the WP:COMMONSENSE should have been implied. I don't think that the explicit and immediate draftication was the best judgement, especially when the article creator have worked hard before on seriously contributing in Wikipedia, in compliance with policies and guidelines, for better. I have been here for years.
    I think that I have a point here, based on the rationale that you were removed as a new page reviewer for the same exact reason of "multiple inappropriate draftifications" and etc. ~PogingJuan 13:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that the administrators know better and are expectedly, more experienced. ~PogingJuan 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've taken that out of context. The 'inappropriate draftifications' were when I had attempted to draftify articles by cutting and pasting them rather than using the draftify option. That has no relevance to this discussion. Had an 'experienced' patroller draftified those 4 articles would you still be reporting them to ANI? I get that you have taken offence to what has happened but I still don't see what rule I've actually broken here nor do I see anything wrong with draftifying any of those articles. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Another way of looking at this is that if articles are created in draft or userspace and only moved to mainspace when they comply with the minimum standards, including notability, then the problems here don't occur. One of the requirements of WP:DRAFTIFY is there is no evidence of active improvement. Creating 9 articles in 45 minutes and then doing nothing with them since gives no indication of improvement imho.
    As per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not inherently notable. I tagged the articles yesterday with {{Notability}}, with the intent of sending to a bundled AfD if they were not improved with a couple of days and a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up anything significant. Whilst this is a different approach to that taken by Spiderone, it doesn't make either right or wrong, it's just different ways of dealing with the same situation. In my view Spiderone's draftification of the articles was compliant with WP:DRAFTIFY.
    As you have indicated that your intent to improve the articles, I don't see where the problem is in doing that in draft? --John B123 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PogingJuan, you should simply have gone to Spiderone's talk page and asked him to revert the draftification per WP:DRAFT#Requirements for page movers. If a discussion here then became necessary you should have informed Spiderone of it with a message per the prominent instructions. Spiderone, now that you are aware that the moves are contested you should follow WP:DRAFT#Requirements for page movers. To everyone in general, this is just one more problem caused by the use of draft space. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Concerns about the usage of draftspace if you have feelings either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just waiting for an admin to delete the redirect pages that were created during the draftifications, then the pages can be moved back. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: None of these pages meet notability guidelines; they should be moved back and then deleted at AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  14:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After taking a look at the above mentioned articles, I looked at PogingJuan page creation history [289]. I think they have been creating a significant number of non-notable articles, some of which have been deleted and some that need to go to AfD. The community may want to consider restricting PogingJuan to only creating article through AfC review process, after the coming AfDs for these articles.  // Timothy :: talk  15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I nom'd them at AfD, I didn't do a group so the results are clear, didn't PROD because I assumed the author would dePROD. These are all the same, based on one line in a government database that is not an IS, and definitely not SIGCOV. None of these are even remotely notable, just a collection of substubs from a database. Creator needs to study notability WP:N] + WP:NORG and sourcing guidelines WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, before creating any more articles. As I stated above, the community should consider restricting this author to submiting new articles through AfC for review.  // Timothy :: talk  17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — @PogingJuan, for starters, the title you chose to give this non existent incident would not automatically land credibility to your claim, I figured we should start with that, to get that out of the way. Loudly echoing Phil Bridger, If I may ask did you bother to try & engage Spiderone, before bringing this to the ANI? was any dialogue initiated prior this being brought here? if they waited for 18 hours to draftify the aforementioned articles then I’d say they were in fact, far too kind, as 15 mins — 1 hour is the threshold for draftifying. The long and short of DRAFTIFYING an article is because they simply are not suitable for mainspace at that point in time, be it because they are not sourced at all, they are under-sourced, do not meet our general notability criteria for inclusion, COI reasons & whatnot, so as far as policy is concerned, Spiderone hasn’t erred in any way. Furthermore Blue Linking to WP:COMMONSENSE is very rude of you and the hidden premise there would be insinuating that they lack common sense which like I said is rude. In fact I feel a WP:BOOMERANG should be initiated here, & like TimothyBlue suggested, have op create there articles via the AFC process as it appears they do not grasp policy on notability. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Their conduct has been discussed before ([290],[291]) They have been blocked twice for their failure to communicate, the second time indefinitely, but were unblocked on 22 January by User:Nyttend who stated that they have "done nothing wrong".

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

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

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

    Andesitic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor was subject to two community discussions and unblocked accordingly. The content changes they make on their account are not problematic -- throughout the AN/ANIs/user talk messages I've reviewed several and would be happy making those changes on my own account. Their editing is within policy. No, they often do not provide an inline citation with their changes. But they change/add entries in tables, which do not have any citations to begin with (which is completely normal for tables). Policy does not require citations for everything (as explained at WP:MINREF). Their changes are correct nevertheless. For example:
    Nevertheless, all the above edits (which improve the content of the encyclopaedia for our readers), some of which are supported by existing sources on the article and simply updated, have been reverted by User:Andesitic, who has went around hounding Wilkja's changes, indiscriminately reverting them for being marked as minor and not having an edit summary, and edit warring [292][293][294][295] over a notice an admin (Nyttend) placed when they unblocked Wilkja. Their reverts are not in line with WP:CHALLENGE.
    As for the communication issue, progress has been made on T275117, T274404 (currently high priority) & T275118, so hopefully that will be solved soon. In the meantime, this editor does not get any notifications of talk messages, pings, and does not see the message of block messages, due to the awfully designed app they're using. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their editing is not within policy. Adding information without a reliable source violates a core policy and does not improve the content of the encyclopaedia for readers. Refusing to communicate is incompatible with editing through WP:CONSENSUS.
    • I have not done anything indiscriminately.
    • The software the user is using does not prevent them from communicating or leaving edit summaries, nor compel them to mark edits as minor. Those behaviours are the user's choice.
    Andesitic (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they supposed to know that they should be doing those things, if they've never received any of our messages telling them to do so? It should be mentioned explicitly that this is the official WMF iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By doing what many of the rest of us do, look at their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they know a talk page even exists? The link to it is hidden within the settings. You wouldn't know to look for one unless you knew the concept of a "talk page" is a thing on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is? I do not recall having to change any settings when I created an account, just click on the talk page tab. But maybe you are right, as I see not one talk page post, either to theirs or on articles. So what is to be done if a user is not communicating?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed only a handful of user talk edits (and most of those spam or edits to other users' pages), and zero, count 'em, zero article talk page edits from any iOS app user in the past 30 days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. For user talk pages you need to go into the menu, settings, user, then "Your talk page", iirc. I only know that because I actively hunted through the app to find the link to my talk page, because I already knew what a talk page was and wanted to find the link. If I didn't know what one was there's no reason I'd think to try, never mind check it regularly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh I think I see, I use a PC, so I presume its different.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's truly a miracle the project has survived this long with the Foundation's paid developers working so hard to undermine it at every turn. EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't make that clear. The app they are using does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries. It does not force them to falsely mark their edits as minor. It does not prevent them from providing reliable sources as required by WP:V. And nothing is compelling them to even use the app. Andesitic (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does prevent them from knowing that we want them to do all those things, unless they stumble onto their difficult-to-find talk page by accident, or sometimes edit using a web browser. That's the point. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't prevent that. They are able to read policy, guideline and help pages just as anyone else is. It only impedes them from receiving messages. Do you consider them exempt from the rules? They are obviously not going to change their disruptive editing behaviour, so that seems to me the choice - declare them exempt from the rules, or block them until they agree to follow them. Andesitic (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that is simply not true. The IOS app makes it easy to do one thing: to access articles and edit them. Doing anything else is extremely laborious, and is actually only doable if one already has a substantial knowledge of the structure of Wikipedia and the necessary navigational concepts it requires. It does absolutely nothing to help a novice editor, or even an intermediate one, go "behind the scenes" and participate as a member of the Wikipedia community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the app genuinely prevents users from even seeing policy and guideline pages, then it is clearly totally inadequate and should not be used by anyone. The problem remains that this user is editing disruptively and is obviously not going to stop unless some action as taken. Andesitic (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ignorantia juris non excusat", then? -- 2001:16B8:148F:BC00:3DF5:6CFA:1ED5:3E4F (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So (I ask again) what are we to do, allow (what is in effect) bad editing practice because we can't tell them it is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am also concerned about Andesitic, as they seem to have taken it upon themselves to undo Wilkja19, over the issue of no edit summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have undone, in total, twelve of their edits, because they did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor. These issues make it impossible to trust those edits, and this editor. That is the whole basis of the issue here.
    As for what to do, I cannot see any argument against blocking this editor. The alternative is to specifically state that certain users are exempt from the rules, because of the software they use to access Wikipedia. That would seem crazy to me. Andesitic (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ON pages you do not seem to have edited before, so yes it does look like you are targeting them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider Andesitic's actions towards Wilkja (for example, reverting indiscriminately every single one of their contribs since 21 February for minor/edit summary, especially when all of them were correct) to be harassment (see WP:HOUNDING). Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's still going! Special:Diff/1009533705 & Special:Diff/1001759662 (verification). revert. To a list with no sources (as is usual for lists)! The hounding is obvious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not doing anything indiscriminately. I have undone twelve edits which did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor, because these edits were harmful. What is your motivation for so aggressively defending this harmful editor? All they need to do is provide reliable sources, write edit summaries, and not mark major edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wow, this has really opened a can of worms. I'm glad someone is on top of it. Perhaps I need to look again at some of my dealings with anons. Deb (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure HOUND applies here. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. If an editor has made a recent series of unsourced edits, and refused to comment on said edits, then it is reasonable to address the issue. Ideally by finding source but often by removal. If the editor is using an editing program that doesn't notify them when others revert their edits and try to ping them, well I don't see how that is on the editor trying to fix a problem. Springee (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It applies because the edits are correct and are all verifiable. The content does not require inline citations per policy. Most casual lists do not have verifications. WP:CHALLENGE requires consideration of the state of the article or portion of the content before tagging or considering removal, and even then advises finding a reference yourself. Ergo, the 'tracking to prevent disruption' does not apply, because their edits aren't disruptive. Andesitic simply has it out for Wilkja (repeated in their "harmful editor", "clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia", etc rhetoric above, and when they were edit warring over an admin-placed notice claiming it was false). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      To emphasise the point, if Andesitic really cared about 'verification' he would've removed the entire list at Randy Zisk, rather than just Wilkja's edits. Similar thing applies for every single other one of his reverts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Regardless of why the editor was not replying to questions about their edits, it looks like the Andesitic was concerned about a legitimate problem. Even if you feel they were misguided, the "no overridingly constructive reason" clause would come into play here. That said, it would be best if they stopped until the community figures out a better way to handle this. I can certainly see how an editor would be frustrated if they made the usual good faith efforts to contact and editor and talk about a problem and received radio silence in reply. Prior to this discussion I would certainly have taken this to be something other than good faith. I've also been concerned when I see editors marking so many edits as minor. Again, perhaps that is an failing of an edit program vs the editor themselves. Springee (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would point out these are not stand-alone lists (which is what our policies on lists apply to) but to lists within an article. But I would (as I have said) agree they only seem to have an issue with one editor adding unsourced content to these articles. Yes I think that they should leave the user alone until we figure out how to deal with the communications issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Islam16121997

    Indeffed, and edits revdeleted. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Islam16121997 (talk · contribs)

    Blatant WP:NOTHERE. While all the edits from this editor are poor, see especially [296][297], and the response to a final warning [298]. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely unacceptable behaviour from this editor. I would call them 'BLP violations' but that's probably being too kind. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by El C. Pahunkat (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Blocked indefinitely plus revdeletions. Also, there seems to be a pattern lately whereupon I get edit conflicted before I get to post a summary of my action — note that I will always follow up here, so there's no need to preempt me. El_C 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Pstevensfan105 indefinitely blocked by Diannaa for continuing to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Persistent copyright violations by User:Pstevensfan105 (contribs) on article Greek Orthodox Church of St. George (Piscataway, New Jersey), despite four warnings/messages on their talk page. They haven't replied to any of the messages, either. Not much more to say, other than that one of their edit summaries (attached to what seems like a blatant copyright violation) says Added info that was deleted by a miserable wikipedia moderator that has nothing better to do then to delete our pride of our religion. Should you continue to delete the page will come back and better than before, as you can see, more information has been added then previous updates., so... color me surprised that they keep adding the same content back to the same article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the user. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    POS78

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

    Some examples:

    [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305]

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

    I'm sorry, but I do not intend to sabotage, I just think there could be a better title in the articles, Well, I try not to repeat it And I use Wikipedia:Requested moves POS78 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you think is a better title is irrelevant, we have a rule called WP:COMMON NAME. You've already said this before [306]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally Wikipedia encourages being WP:BOLD including with non controversial page moves. I don't have an opinion re the specifics, but I do think after being notified about it, it would be good for POS78 to make an effort and post on talk page, before making a move in the future. If after a week there's no objection, or clear consensus, then make the move? Shushugah (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise you this will not happen again And I do not transmit an article without consensus Unless the title is completely wrong, Is that enough for you? POS78 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing by User:Klaysaurus

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

    This user is persistently updating golf related articles, predicting the winners well in advance of the conclusion of tournaments and confirmation of results, e.g. with two holes left to play today (diff, diff, diff; diff, diff, diff), and then edit-warring following reversion. User has been requested to stop and wait for confirmed results, and subsequently warned, on multiple occasions (e.g. diff, diff). In response, they claim it only 2 minutes early when it was 15-20 minutes (diff), not to be predictions because the result is "beyond doubt" (diff).

    It started with disruption at Matthew Fitzpatrick (history), apparently seeing at a race to update articles first and mock other contributors (diff), and has reoccurred at Paul Casey, Dubai Desert Classic, 2020–21 PGA Tour, Patrick Reed, and again today. Following advice from @Mattythewhite: (here) after the previous incident, I am bringing this here. I am aware that there have been attempts to prohibit live-scoring through WP:NOTNEWS which have failed to gain consensus, but predictions go beyond that and while the disruption may be short-lived due to the nature of sport, these contributions clearly violate policy (WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL). wjematherplease leave a message... 23:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is constantly engaging in edit-warring on results of confirmed golf events (as noted by the user). None of his reversions actually merit any need because the user is editing correctly input information. Seeing how no one but only this user is engaging in such disruptive behaviour, I would request you to question his motives and revise his editing priveleges. The user stubbornly argues that he is preventing predictions, when in reality all my inputs in every of the above instances were accurate and not disruptive in any way. To the contrary, it was the edits of this user that required revision in every of the above instances.

    I'll use an NBA Finals as reference. During the 2014-15 NBA Finals, I remember seeing Wikipedia read the Golden State Warriors as NBA champions even though there were more than a couple mins still left in Game-6. Of course no one in there right mind would call that particular edit a prediction (and thus revert the edit) seeing that the result is beyond all reasonable doubt. If anything, the person (similar to this particular user) who is reverting the edit 'simply because the game hasn't offically finished even though it is realistically impossible for any other outcome to occur' is the one engaging in disruptive edit-warring. Once again, I request a thorough look into the rationale of this user's reasoning which to me appears questionable at best and malicious at worst. Klaysaurus (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Uptick in vandalism on months pages

    A large number of seemingly unrelated IPs have shown up attacking January through December. Izno has protected a few pages, but more help might be needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be challenge made by a Twitch streamer that has sent all of the followers to these articles. Schazjmd (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Started filter 1126 (hist · log) looking for a few terms, in case they move away from month pages. I'll be back later to look at the log, but in meantime it might help find pages to protect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They hit Jeans (which was quickly protected). Schazjmd (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also hit Sham marriage briefly but moved on. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit filter caught a handful and now seems to have halted the attempts. Great job, Suffusion of Yellow! Schazjmd (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I can't take credit here. The filter hasn't been set to disallow yet, though I will do so (with a few tweaks) if it picks up again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked a few since they are obviously not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    InvestigativeNews

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

    It looks like they want to add information about a lawsuit, not make legal threats, at least from what I see. The trouble is that the lawsuit does not seem to be covered in RS. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I read their messages as entirely just raising awareness for the lawsuit to random people, not trying to get inclusion somewhere. Mea culpa. As for legal threats, I didn't think they were, but AIV admin said it's possible so just wanted to include it if possible. Possibly shared by many people based on "we" on their talk. Urve (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with 331dot. They're not making legal threats. However it does look like a single purpose account and has failed to heed recommendations on WP:NPOV/WP:RS. Not to mention a WP:BLP violation, to name people involved in a lawsuit with no news/secondary coverage. For that reason alone, worth blocking imho, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SUSPECT Shushugah (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, that username is dodgy to say the least. Deb (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for the username currently, however I do have concerns with their editing as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    12 O'Clock Boyz doesn't even seem like it should exist, the only sources are to the US Copyright Office. ValarianB (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive new user

    User:GadriBabey has been making clearly disruptive WP:POVPUSH and WP:HOAX edits ever since he started a week ago. Egregiously adding ethnicity and religion over nationality in bios/articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), repeatedly creating a WP:POVFORK article (WP:HOAX for the most part) about a non-existent state, another hoax article about a non-existent nationality, adding that hoax nationality to various articles. Disruptively removing references to India from multiple articles (1, 2, 3) in continuation of their POVPUSH.

    Clearly WP:NOTHERE as seen by his unresponsive/dismissive attitude towards multiple warnings on the User Talkpage. Seeing the clearly disruptive and hoax edits in a sanctioned space, an indef is required here. Gotitbro (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Prolific month-old account Fadewwiki is persistently violating copyrights on Commons and Wikipedia despite multiple warnings, including a final warning on Commons.

    At a minimum, a block of a week or two is called for to show that there are consequences if they do not control their habit of violating copyright. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the Ping. Wat concerns me the most is this post on commons, where they essentially demonstrate that they are either deliberately Flikrwashing (if it's there flickr acocunt) or don't care about mutally exclusive licenses on the flickr account and the other websites involved (if it's not their flickr acocunt). this article history also looks concerning to read. From my quick view, they seem to be largely copying texts from http://laksam.comilla.gov.bd/ and assume the websites are not under copyright (I haven't been able to locate their Terms of Use, so I have no idea if it is, but since we assume copyrighted anyway, it doesn't matter). When an admin closes this, he or she should probbably also check the linked article's revision history and carry out all nessesary revision deletions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Leechjoel9

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

    Leechjoel9 accepted to talk but does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. S/he has been aware since late January 2021 that Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War was the consensus point of view at the Tigray War article (anti-consensus POVs can still be included, of course).
    Again, Leechjoel9 accepted to talk, but firstly seemed to confuse my edits with edits by others, secondly seemed to wish to discuss a separate topic (the population issue), and finally returned to the issue, but without providing a serious argument for overriding WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED.
    Leechjoel9 accepted to talk: Talk:Asmara#Notable people; Talk:Asmara#Notable people again, but the most recent restoral of Tedros to the list was again reverted by Leechjoel9.

    Leechjoel9 has been aware of Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions since late January. There's obviously nothing wrong with an editor presenting the POV of the Eritrean government, but not to the degree of using fringe or weakly sourced points of view to exclude the generally higher quality sourced points of view. This is a tricky case, because the editor engages in discussion that is polite and makes statements that generally appear reasonable, but the reasonable statements are vague and evade the issues, ignore most of the specific points made by me and other editors, and the statements and reverts don't seem to acknowledge Wikipedia policy. The actions by this editor constitute a timesink, appearing to suggest that s/he owns several articles, with the right to exclude unapproved material; s/he does not appear willing to accept NPOV. My suggestion is a topic ban. Otherwise, Wikipedia Eritrea-related articles risk looking like an advertisement for the Eritrean government, in some cases (population) sourced from bare urls rather than dated, archived, up-to-date specific references. Boud (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1009652858"