Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

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

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [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)
  • Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.
I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):
On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»
In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»
In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»
The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»
Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop
Offtopic CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [[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)
  • Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion.Stix1776 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [21] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [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)
Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([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))
  • If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.
Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [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)
  • Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.
The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([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)
Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova T  C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been paying more attention to these disputes on the linked pages and they are indeed content disputes and not behaviour issues as the OP projects. Agree with TFD that this complaint is again a badly written piece. Perhaps they should try out Rosguill's ANI reform proposal for the next complaint. Vikram Vincent 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here is Bunnyyhop still engaged in their usual tendentious behavior about Mao Zedong, casting asperions on other editors saying their source evaluation was just their own POV while defending fringe sources and material. Crossroads -talk- 05:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [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)
BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads -talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Request for admin evaluation and close[edit]

  • I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.
Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.
Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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: [38], [39]. 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 [40]
  • 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 [41]
  • 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: [42]
  • Using extermely biased primary sources to push POV [43]
  • Misleading edit summaries to add maintenance tags for material that doesn't fit their POV [44]
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)
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.
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)
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". [45] 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

Personal attacks[edit]

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

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
  2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
  3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."
On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."
Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [46][47] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [48] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads -talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [49] 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: [50] 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 ([51], [52], & [53]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [54][55] and have been uncivil. [56]

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: [57] 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": [58]

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: [59]

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

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

  • 9 November 2020, American politics: [60]
  • 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [61]
  • 2 December 2018, American politics: [62]
  • 5 August 2018, BLP: [63]
  • 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [64]

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

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [65][66] This one was very nearly a violation: [67]

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

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads -talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [68] is not a personal attack? This [69] much like this [70] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads -talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [71] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [72][73]Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads -talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [74] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads -talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [75] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

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

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

    These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    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. [76][77][78][79][80]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [81][82][83][84] 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)
    This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even 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)
    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)
    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)
    In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    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)
    At ANI, it's a waste of time. How very convenient for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[85]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • These are not examples of personal attacks, and Sangdeboeuf is disputing the reliability of sources used in the article about Gina Carano. There should probably be more discussion on the sources used, and less fingerpointing. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to note this WP:UNCIVIL and accusatory comment from Crossroads towards Sangdeboeuf a while back: [86] WanderingWanda (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged AE action. WanderingWanda, notwithstanding that, I would strongly recommend you refrain from publishing any and all Crossroads-related sleuthing in matters where you are otherwise uninvolved (unless egregious). Thanks in advance. P.S. noting that I have not reviewed this thread closely, for whatever that's worth (basically, am just here to announce the aforementioned ECP action). El_C 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

HistoryofIran has a history of removing reliable sources. User could not provide rational for why sources were removed, despite repeated requests on Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [87] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:
  1. Removed seven WP:RS sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation.[88]
  2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[89] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[90]
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[91][92] on par with academic scholars in order to push a pro-Armenian irredentist narrative, and even bluntly removes material written by academics specialized in the history of the region, I truly wonder if he's actually here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gerard and Scott Siskind[edit]

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

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

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

NYT is rated Generally Reliable at WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Looking forward to the diffs - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Per your wider online activities. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Do you have diffs from Wikipedia? If you don't have those, then your findings are unlikely to be, for example, WP:COIN material. Being a critic of an article subject is not a COI - David Gerard (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
          You regularly make your personal dislike of Scott Siskind known throughout the internet. This is beyond having a run-of-the-mill personal opinion -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • After reading what DG has written about the subject over the last year or so on his blog and twitter, there is no doubt in my mind there's a WP:BLPCOI here. Levivich harass/hound 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich harass/hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich harass/hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich harass/hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough not to edit directly re: the NYT article, actually - so sure. Though discussion of it is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." (spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences&Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On due contemplation, and with my respect for Levivich, he's right. I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Can we discuss your on-wiki comments about Scott Siskind now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      What do you mean? David has agreed to not edit that page going forward. His problematic behaviour is hopefully over, move on now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting scientific racism) were violations of WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are "prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban[edit]

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

  • Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe you missed it but he agreed to stop voluntarily in his comment above at 16:49, 21 February 2021? Levivich harass/hound 18:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Diff:[93] 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:[94] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    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)
    I can see significant value to a tban in the sense of actual enforcement; in terms of people actually staying away from aspects of the project they've sworn they'll quit, if wishes were horses we'd all own stables. The talk page considerations are reasonable, and I think 'broadly constructed' here can be interpreted or explicitly stated to permit the self-referential talk page editing traditionally offered to COI subjects unless he becomes tendentious on it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose even article subjects can generally edit the talk page. Now that DG has agreed not to edit Slate Star Codex directly, I can't support this without some diff of inappropriate behavior. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as an enforcement method, not a punishment -- to use the traditional line, "preventative not punitive", or the actual reason we impose these at all. David Gerard's choice to step away is laudable, but as a heavy contributor to the topic it's completely understandable that detachment might be neither immediate nor easy; the project has a long, long history of people having difficulty staying away from topics that trouble them. David Gerard is a valuable contributor to other areas of the project, and I think a tban is the soft option here -- it ensures he can continue editing in those areas without being dogged by the desire to return to an issue where he has COI problems, possibly raising more serious sanctions against him. I reiterate my point earlier about trial-permitting talk page access if he desires it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. Given the editor's agreement to step away, this seems premature, and maybe a bit punitive (or at least overly harsh, even if meant to preempt further disruption). Since they've agreed not to repeat their behaviour, and have agreed to what essentially amounts to a voluntary and self-imposed topic ban (of sorts), the issue seems to be dealt with. I'd support a formal (and logged) final warning with the agreement that any further disruption will be met with this particular sanction, which can be imposed by any administrator as a normal admin action, without community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we can not trust the word of one that's been given the admin bit then we have already lost. Also, any formal warning is just punitive at this point as I think David realizes this thread and his promise will be diff'ed should he stray from his self-imposed topic ban. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • If you can remain neutral, disliking a BLP subject is not an issue. That is not that case here. David Gerard called a BLP subject a Neo-Nazi. Mo Billings (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Sometimes, the neutral description of a living person is "neo-Nazi" (one example has already been mentioned in this thread). Neutral does not mean kind. So, in principle, I can't honestly say that describing someone as a neo-Nazi, or implying they are fascist-sympathetic more generally, ought itself to be a disqualification. Looking at the edit where the implication was made, I'd say that it improperly cites a claim in a self-published source about a third party, which is a bad thing to do on a BLP talk page. Consequently, yes, stepping back was a good move, but I'm not seeing a case for a formal ban. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • @Levivich: actually, I've seen a few TBANs for BLP COIs (remember the Kamala Harris "whitewashing", for example?). Not necessarily saying current me likes or doesn't like the practice, but rather that it does happen. As for this particular case, I've only skimmed but, as usual, I agree voluntary solutions are better than involuntary sanctions, and so would oppose this myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Levivich, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles (2018), which examined an editor making negative edits to BLPs (and to biographical material in other articles) and being in a dispute on Twitter with one of the subjects. In particular, see Principles 4.1.10 and 4.1.11. SarahSV (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Comment: For those claiming that "David Gerard agreed to stop:, in this diff:[95] 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)[96] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonable application of WP:GOLDLOCK[edit]

Article has been unprotected. GirthSummit (blether) 16:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, can someone please remove the full protection that has been placed on this article Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Those of us who regularly edit that article do so respectfully and without significant conflict or disruption. Recently this user Jfraatz just turned up out of the blue and started edit warring and did not engage in any conversation at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I don't see full protection as necessary, it seems like a massive overkill, why cant we just block the disruptive editor: Jfraatz? They turned up, started edit warring and never discussed anything at talk, why are we all being punished for their poor behavior? Can someone please remove the full protection and apply sanctions to the disruptive party rather than locking out all the non-disruptive editors who regularly contribute to this article in a civil and constructive manner? Bacondrum 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like there has been quite a bit of reversion and edit warring on that article the last month and a half, not just by this new user. Anyway the first stop for this is to ask CambridgeBayWeather as they're the admin that placed the protection. You shouldn't bring it here until you've had a response from them. Canterbury Tail talk 02:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Canterbury Tail. So why not just WP:BLUELOCK the page? Regular contributors should not be locked out until March because of the poor behavior of others, locking the entire article is way over the top, IMO. Bacondrum 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

As an addendum to this, can anyone explain why the Ronan Farrow article is gold-locked until May? There appears to have been some edit warring in December 2020 that warranted the lock, but there as been no activity on the talk page then and one of the accounts responsible for the edit warring has since become dormant, so I think that continued full protection is unwarranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: the admin who protected the page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
On that page, there has been some edit warring over a fairly sensitive BLP issue (it's not offensive, per se, but it certainly is the sort of thing that Wikipedia has an obligation to get right). If another admin is willing to keep an eye on it and reinstate protection on an as-needed basis should the problems come back, I have no objections to that admin removing the protection if that admin thinks that the problem has passed. --Jayron32 12:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've asked for the protection be lowered at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ronan Farrow. Levivich harass/hound 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

אלכסנדר סעודה (Alexander Sauda) and Sundayclose[edit]

The user Sundayclose is constantly deleting my edits, generally as "poorly written".

I participate in the Wiki4climate project. I get an official certificate for making 10 good climate edits in the the "Wiki4Climate" online edit-a-thon in 2020. What can be confirmed by his organizers User:EMsmile, User:EBclimate, User:BethMackay, User:Mcnlisa, and User:TiffChalm100. Therfore, my edits are not "poorly written". I always pass my edits through a spelling and grammar checker until it said that there is no mistake. Sundayclose never explain what is the "mistake".

The user is constantly deleting my edits without reason, what is a Disruptive_editing. As the edits that he revert are always those who are related to climate change, I think that his activity is a classic example of Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Undisclosed paid editing for fossil fuel interests. This is a classical example of "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

Therfore, I ask to:

Permanently block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia.

Below I attach the edits that made sundayclose as proof.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC) @EBclimate:@Mcnlisa:@Jim1138:@TiffChalm100: @EMsmile:

  • He's not deleting your contributions for any reason other than things like "In January 2021 was published a study that shows a possible link between climate change and specifically the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the study due to climate change in some places of the world were concentrated more types of bats harboring corona viruses." are really poor English; yes, it's understandable, but it has at least five grammatical errors in it. (it should be "In January 2021, a study was published that showed a possible link between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the study, in some areas of the world climate change had led to a higher concentration of types of bats harbouring coronaviruses" or similar).
  • Similarly "Officially, China declared as a target to build 285 Eco cities. The implementation is not always successful.". Spelling and grammar checkers may produce understandable English, but they rarely produce good English. Also, you shouldn't be using Forbes contributor pages as sources - see WP:FORBESCON. So to sum up, reverting poorly written English isn't disruptive editing, nor gaming the system, nor uncivil, nor sockpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @אלכסנדר סעודה: what Black Kite said. You have edit-warred to reinstate your edits, without even changing the access-dates on the references, after running a spell-check on them. It's not your spelling that is unacceptably bad, it's your grammar. I and others have now had to fix your English (and note that no English spell-checker will pick up mistakes in non-English words like Deutsche Welle), and you have apparently missed Black Kite's other point, that blogs by Forbes "contributors" are not an acceptable source. I'm sorry to say that a certificate for participating in an editathon is not a guarantee that your edits will not be changed, or even reverted; see the statement that appears above the edit window in the skin I'm using: "Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Sundayclose was maintaining the encyclopedia. Thank you for the update at Climate change in the United States. But please make your future additions short and simple, use accurate access-dates, and let other editors fix them. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two comments made before me. The request to block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia on these grounds needs to be denied for sure. However, I would kindly suggest that in future, the talk pages of the articles could be used to work out better English for those text additions. So if I was Sundayclose I would perhaps revert the edit but also put in the edit summary "see talk page". Then on the talk page I would start a new section where I would copy the deleted text in question and say to the user "this paragraph is not clear, can you please clarify what you were trying to say?". It is a bit more time consuming but I think this particular editor means well and deserves a bit of extra time, not just a straight revert. For comparison, this is how I did it on an article talk page with another editor: here. EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile: I appreciate your comment and will give it all due consideration. I should point out, however, that if I start the numerous talk page discussions myself, I might as well just fix the edits. I certainly don't mind fixing edits for occasional grammar and stylistic problems, but most of this editor's edits are abundant with such problems, as has been noted by others here and on their talk page. I have suggested that this editor post proposed edits on the articles' talk pages. That is much simpler and puts the responsibility on the editor making the edit. But my suggestion fell on deaf ears, as did my suggestion to edit the Hebrew Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia. I also suggested that the editor seek a Wikipedia mentor, which often can help both the editor and Wikipedia improve; but again, refusal to consider it. I agree this editor usually has good intentions (except when trying to discuss their problem edits), but as we all know who have encountered this type of editor, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There's only so much we can do to rescue an editor who simply doesn't have the English writing skills to competently edit, and that's what we're up against here. Thanks again for your comment. Sundayclose (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • אלכסנדר סעודה, as noted by Black Kite above, unfortunately your contributions are poorly written. No worries, though. All this means is that you should probably think about proposing some of your edits on the talk page first, rather than making them directly in the article space. I know this can be annoying and burdensome, and causes arbitrary delays for some edits that seem otherwise acceptable and straight-forward, but if you post something that's poorly worded and/or has grammatical errors, someone else (like Sundayclose) has to clean them up. They're not being disruptive, and it's not personal, even though it might feel that way at first. And as Yngvadottir said, any contribution to the encyclopedia can be deleted or modified, and they often are. Rarely does anyone's work stand as is, in the same form as it was submitted. I empathize with those who want to contribute to the English Wikipedia when English isn't their first language, and their language ability is perhaps not as polished as the community expects. But there are always people willing to help, and your English language ability will improve as you contribute (from what I've seen of others in the past). Don't be disheartened. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I will use short and simple edits and I will propose difficult edits to discussion in the talk pages. I was thanked for many of my edits and many of them was developed after. Most of my edits did not meet opposition. There was edits with mistakes and other users help me to fix them and learn. Their reaction was similar to what you said me now.

For example, I learned how to copy in Wikipedia, how to cite from link with Commons Creative Licence. I think that my English had improved and I hope it will be better. I am glad that there are people willing to help me improve my English. Of course I am happy when users fix my edits. I heard that one of the policy of Wikipedia is to help new users and to encourage them to write in Wikipedia. But I do not think that this is the case with Sundayclose. He is not fixing, he is deleting. When I tried to understand what was wrong with my edits, generally he writed:

"I'm not arguing any further. I've made my point. I'm trying to help both Wikipedia and you avoid problems. If you can't accept the reality of your limitations, I can't convince you. You'll just have to keep making the mistakes until you lose your editing privileges."

"As I said, I'm not arguing further. I'm just waiting for your next huge mistake and eventually your loss of editing privileges. Minimizing your problem won't prevent that"

"You are not fluent enough in writing English to edit on the English Wikipedia. Please restrict your edit to the Hebrew Wikipedia."

" You do not have adequate English skills to competently edit the English Wikipedia. You can be blocked after repeated incompetent edits. Please restrict your edits to the Hebrew Wikipedia. "

And as I said, others users acted in completely different way. And If my edits was so hopelessly bad, I probably would not be invited to participate in the Edit-a-thone and would not get sertificate. So decide by yourself if it is "civil", "friendly" and why is he doing so.

@Symmachus Auxiliarus @Yngvadottir @Black Kite (talk) @EMsmile

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: Thank you for promising to restrict your article edits to the very simple and propose the rest on talk pages. That may well provide a workable way forward. I see from your user page that you have published on climate change and the environment; thank you for being willing to contribute to the project. But I am disturbed that you are continuing to present Sundayclose as having treated you badly, and although I am not an administrator, I have changed the section heading to a neutral one. Following your links led me to Sundayclose telling you clearly that a spell checker was not going to help with the problems with your English; giving you examples of poor English syntax in response to your query; and pointing out in increasing detail a case where you had drawn an invalid conclusion from the wording of a source. We are here to write an encyclopedia that readers can use. It is vitally important that we use reliable sources and summarize them accurately and clearly. I have participated here for over ten years and from the start I have been impressed with the willingness of editors to help each other. On the other hand, I have found many articles where mistakes, both vandalism and someone misunderstanding a source or making a typo, sat for years because no one noticed. And the worst are the errors of fact. Someone may have very good intentions but be using a biased source, or not understand the source they are using, and then who knows how many readers get misled? For that reason we have particularly high requirements for the sources to be used in medical articles; I believe this should apply to Effects of climate change on human health, and that you should not be using Forbes blogs in any such article, as you did here. But checking for mistakes, especially mistakes of fact, takes a lot of editor time, and we have millions of articles. That's why, with regret, we have a page saying that we expect a certain level of competence from editors on the project. The issues are not with Sundayclose's actions, but with your editing, and I have to tell you again: editathons are for the purpose of encouraging participation and not a good guide to whether your edits are generally good. These two sentences above: "And as I said, others users acted in completely different way. And If my edits was so hopelessly bad, I probably would not be invited to participate in the Edit-a-thone and would not get sertificate." by my count contain two major grammatical errors, 3 or 4 less serious grammatical errors (article and tense usage), two spelling errors, and two capitalization errors. I am sorry to be so forthright, but others have been trying to tell you gently; your English has some way to go, and we don't have paid copyeditors here as do most publishing houses, just fellow editors who have other things they could be doing. And you have been edit-warring and were asking for the editor who spent time trying to advise you to be punished, even barred from the encyclopedia. So please, let those who are willing to help you do so, and realize that that normally takes the form of rewriting, not pointing out the English mistakes and asking you to fix them. Write simply, avoid using blogs as sources, and look at the changes that are made to your additions as a way of learning how to do better. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


From archives[edit]

Before 2021[edit]

ANI by Guy Macon listing previous ANIs about XIIIfromTokyo: --Delfield (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

9-18 January[edit]

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)

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. (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [97]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[98]. 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[99][100].
And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

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

Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.
The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [101]. 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[102]" :
"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[103], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.
In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.
"abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.
So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a WP:POINT. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.
You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional[104]. 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"[105], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[106], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.
I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.
Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.
I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.
--Delfield (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"pursuing this obsession you say "[107] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2[108] : The use of websites like and clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[109]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 and
You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[110] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[111]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[112][113][114]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.
It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, either file a WP:SPI or withdraw this accusation. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August[115] Face-smile.svg. 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[116] 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)
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)
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)

1-2 February[edit]

The user XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants". It was added by bd2412 that Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block..
Furthermore, this user was topic-banned "due to (his) lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia" (which he commented once again in a talk page as constituting a "xenophobic behaviour").
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)
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[118]. 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[119][120]. 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)
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)

New ANI notice[edit]

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:

Former edits by Asterix757:

Warning of XIIIfromTokyo about this (and above the 9-18 January section) :

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)

Delfield's harrassement[edit]


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[121]. 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[122]... 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 [123].

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

(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)
As seen in the below section, he may have falsified the entire start of the conversation. 4D4850 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@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[124] (failed verifications and poorly sourced claims), has also seen something. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@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[125]
  • 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Citation needed}}[126]
  • 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork[127]
  • 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection[128]. 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[129]
  • 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination[130] : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield[131][132] in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
  • 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page[133], in order to promote Assas.
  • 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins[134]
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 [135], 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[136]
  • 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me[137]
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)

Possible falsification of conversation (verified: no)[edit]

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)

If I did everything correct, this should be the diff that added 26000 bytes. 4D4850 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

Possible falsification of conversation (verification needed)[edit]

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[138].

  • 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[139]. 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[

First messages

It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016[140]. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on 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)

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)

1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits[141]. 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)

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)

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 Face-smile.svg. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Further conversation[edit]

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"): (precedent similar edit already mentioned: [142] . Previous edit already correcting what he is talking about in these two new "analysis" of my bad faith: [143] )

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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[144]. The first time that you talk to me was to attack me on my grammar and on my edit count[145]. 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[146]. You don't listen, you don't correct the mistakes, and you start an ANI. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)

XIIIfromTOKYO: Focusing in on two interactions[edit]

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)"
"Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[147]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)"

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)"

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[148]. [...] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)"

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[149] 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)

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 Face-smile.svg.
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. (...)"[150] (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. "[151].
  4. Delfield ignore my warning, and altered again my quote [152].
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
I rest my case. Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
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)

Arbor-treeish break[edit]

  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    Done.[153] 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)
    Well, I'll defer to someone who's 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)
    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)
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)
Guy Macon, I asked on AN for someone to look at this... Drmies (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing without sources, past final warning[edit]

The protected article on Pagoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is being targeted by Ananta5421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who insists on changing things to suit their viewpoint, without providing any sources to back up the statements. I'm no expert on pagodas, and the user may well be correct for all I know, but it's impossible to verify as sources are claimed to exist but never seem to materialise. This has been pointed out repeatedly, including the final warning issued, but the user persists (and gets pretty argumentative when this is flagged). I'm not sure if all this counts technically as edit warring, because the edits get re-entered rather than restored by reverting, but the end result is the same. Could be that I've the wrong end of the stick here, but would appreciate if someone in the know could take a look. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The same user is also engaged in disruptive editing at Gautama Buddha. Teishin (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 24 hours for persistent edit warring, original research and adding unsourced materials. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Canterbury Tail: however, the same stuff continues on Pagoda, this time under IP — the edit notes bear a remarkable resemblance to those of the blocked user. These are easier to catch, given the article's protection, but perhaps something could be done about these, too? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ananta5491 has resumed disruptive editing at Gautama Buddha.Teishin (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant[edit]

  • 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)
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)
My bad, i added the tag --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@4D4850: User is still able to edit pr topics, i thought they where tban? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

@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)

Disruptive IP edits on Lush_(company)[edit]

Not sure if this is the best place to report this, but I want to report disruptive editing on the Lush page. After 4 reverts today, two by myself, we asked for this to be resolved on the talk page. This was ignored and instead the IPs went down the route of accusations and reinstating the reverted edits.

It seems to be a carbon copy of what happened on the Britannia (TV series) and a lesser degree, Jez Butterworth. Worth looking at the banning/activity of SethRuebens and also the recent sockpuppet investigation the connected IPs were involved in. Not sure if it’s a breach of the ban, since that also seemed to be for disruptive editing. Unsure what the next steps are.LittleMissFashionista (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please notify all parties to the discussion with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding to watchlist and reviewing edits now. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Overall, the changes seem constructive EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I am more concerned about LittleMissFashionista being questioned twice in relation to CoI/paid editing and not responding both times. SK2242 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor(s) encouraging disruptive editing[edit]

I think some editors are encouraging (and possibly applying) disruptive editing behavior. I find this "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned."[154] to be problematic, please advise. Feynstein (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I noticed Alexbrn simply because he was part of the discussion. I think input from him can be valuable to the assessment of the situation. Feynstein (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BOOMERANG, the disruptive editor here is Feynstein, who has been pushing the "lab leak" conspiracy theory regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 against NPOV, and has engaged in repeated personal attacks against other editors. For those unfamiliar with the recent goings on surrounding the "lab leak" controversy, It has essentially turned into a mirror of the Race and intelligence topic area, where there is extensive offsite canvassing and SPA activity attempting to influence Wikipedia by people who do not edit with the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: This is not about me, I respected administrator advice in all cases and I even apologised multiple times. And this is clearly not a conspiracy theory, we have one MEDRS candidate [155] and multiple RS saying it's not. You encouraging stonewalling until editors get topic banned is counterproductive to the current RfC and discussion. I'm sorry, but even I am not doing that. Plus I had no idea there was off-site canvassing on the subject. My last year edits on the subject kinda prove I wanted this subject to be properly adressed from the start. Feynstein (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Reading the source, the conclusion is that either is possible, which while not saying it's definitely natural, still isn't conclusive evidence it was a lab leak, as well as the fact the scientific consensus is that Covid is naturally occurring. Therefore, we should just say the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. 4D4850 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@4D4850: A lab can leak a naturally occuring virus. This is not the goal of this btw, it's about a user encouraging stonewalling on a legit RfC (which you should participate if you want to weigh in). Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all Feynstein (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Stonewalling a discussion is bad, but ANI discussions can and will change course. Overall though, I say OP should be blocked for POV-pushing. 4D4850 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
And by OP you mean? Feynstein (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Original Poster. So, you. 4D4850 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's about you. Read WP:BOOMERANG. Almost your entire editing history on your account from its de-facto beginning in May 2020 (with one prior edit in 2011) has been dedicated to pushing the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. You are a Single-Purpose-Account, in common with most other accounts who push the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we please not accuse every party to the discussion of everything. Still, consensus on the RfC appears to be that the lab leak hypothesis is considered a conspiracy theory, and the article on pubmed doesn't decide either way. 4D4850 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Btw the MEDRS requirement means editors can completely overlook RS about this? It's demonstrably not a conspiracy theory, I didn't want to get into it but since you're accusing me of POV pushing I might as well. [156] ... It seems like common sense doesn't apply to this subject it's so weird. Feynstein (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, right, tell that to my involvement in the WP:DRN and my work on industrial radiography. And read WP:NPA. This is pathetic mate. Feynstein (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither of the things you mentioned to support your case apply in this scenario. 4D4850 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What scenario? That editors are actively stonewalling and that it might ressemble POV pushing to go against it? That's fair. Feynstein (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I mean how the ANI discussion is currently going. 4D4850 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I really don't get your involvement in this, I'll let it play out without responding to you any further because I feel like I'm getting WP:BAITed. Seeing the comment below I think it's precisely what's happening gday to you. Feynstein (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I think that this needs to go to WP:ARBCOM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Why not mate, I know I have wrongs but I always listened to admin advice. Yes I came here in 2020 first because I didn't like what I was seeing and wanted to contribute (misguidedly at first of course). But then I went and stopped working on COVID, and continued to participate in many other pages, including WP:DRN until I got the hang of edition. You're completely disregarding my other work by picking the very start of my history. You're also disregarding how I translated a page into french wikipedia. And how I casually contributed to small edits like image caption and stuff on wikimedia using the mobile app. I recently saw legit peer-reviewed papers that weren't included in the article and wondered why. Then I saw signs of WP:STONEWALLING on talk pages. People using derogatory language qualifying editors of conspiracy theorists for something that clearly became mainstream[157]. I mean whatever you think of me I know I have done everything in good faith and this subject actually started me on a track to edit stuff I know about. I'm ready to face any WP:BOOMERANG that would come my way, but certainly not for false accusations of being a one purpose account by someone who didn't even care to look at my entire history. Feynstein (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that I talked about myself because you went there, why don't you explain why "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned.". Please enlighten us. Feynstein (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom is for behaviour, not content. This is a content issue, although some editors seem to be unhappy that they're not convincing others, so instead of waiting for the RfC which was launched to end, they're 1) disrupting it by making fictional consensuses [as involved editors] and 2) making an ANI thread accusing that editors who are legitimately not convinced by their arguing are stonewalling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What I get from your comment is that Stonewalling and Canvassing (with proof here) is ok when you agree with the view? Then it's called what? Like "legitimately not convinced"? Cool, cool. I wonder how legit this RfC is when there's evidence of a concerted effort to block a viewpoint. Meh, maybe I'm getting paranoid eh? Feynstein (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS explains what is considered canvassing or not, —PaleoNeonate – 10:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the deep insight mate. Stonewalling (which there's evidence here) probably involves some form of implicit canvassing. It's not in the definition of course but using tools like critical thinking can lead you there. Feynstein (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. let's back off on the back and forth personal comments and instead think about how an RfC works. The "stonewalling" advice is just an opinion, but nonetheless it is bad advice. Yes, there are times when SPAs disrupt RfCs. 90% of the disruption consists of the other editor responding to them. The best way to deal with SPAs is to not respond other than tagging the SPAs with Template:Single-purpose account, and ask for an experienced and uninvolved closer. The closer will almost always follow the advice found at Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Strength of arguments, and in the rare case where they don't you can appeal the close. The system works. RfCs are not broken and do not need to be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • A close was asked for, as the discussion has now become exhausted, and yes there was stonewalling, but not by any user named here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @Slatersteven: @Guy Macon: What's the takeaway then? There was/is stonewalling but it's okay? It's ok for editors to label other editors as conspiracy theorists even if the telegraph has an article on the subject saying multiple biologists agree it's possible? Clearly nothing's broken, nothing to see here, move along. Feynstein (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The solution is to close the RFC as quite a few people are getting a tad heated. I am not at all happy with a few users over there who basically refused to accept any other opini0so but the ones they wanted to hear, and tried to close it with "but my side has consensus if we ignore all the views elsewhere". Neither side here has been conspicuously policy compliant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
          • @Slatersteven: Yeah that wasn't a good idea I agree. How the question is formulated is also probably to blame. However evidence of stonewalling and maybe canvassing probably means the whole endeavour is cooked. Editors still saying it's a conspiracy theory and treating it as such in WP is not in the best interest of anyone. That's why I think editors thought it was ok to do shady stuff like that. It's not ok, we're not talking about flat earth or chemtrails here. So yeah no steps will be taken by admins because wikipedia eh? Great. Feynstein (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
            • This is not the venue to go over the content dispute again. But you need to wp:agf. "shady stuff" (as I said) was done by both sides. I would suggest the RFC is close, and maybe no edits without consensus be added as a DS for now added.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I get that, it's hard to assume good faith though. Considering what I reported. It kinda ruined it for me. I might as well "either get bored and stop editing". What I think happened here, considering the sections below, is no admin wanted to get involved because of how a clusterf*** this debate is. And since stonewalling is actually called "status quo stonewalling" the status quo and its proponents win. Its not broken (insert gif of dog in flaming house saying "everything is fine"). Feynstein (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposal could we consider salting COVID19/COVID-19/coronavirus to prevent new article creations so that the admins and community can focus on the hundreds of articles that already exist and prevent further forks, POV or otherwise? (Feel free to direct me elsewhere) Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is not article creation, but article content. But I agree though to salt any further article creation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Further evidence: I've found other evidence of a concerted effort consisting of indications of what to do in edit summaries. It has already been pointed in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. "(User:PaleoNeonate Think it's unecessary to refute every argument obsessively, try to comment as little as possible and only if there's some new, drastically different argument.)" [158]. And all of this is with everything that's going on at the fringe noticeboard. Editors are giving themselves the right to mess with the debate because they consider every aspect of the lab leak hypothesis to be a conspiracy theory. And on the other side there's evidence of SPAs and bad practice. Meaning that the anti-fringe editors are bound to mount a very solid defense against people trying to push legit conspiracy theories. I get that. But I demonstrated multiple times that there's a fine line to draw between a part of these theories and all the other nonsense. It's all explained in here. [159]. All of this ends up with me being labeled a conspiracy theorist. I'm not, I'm a physicist fgs. I'm very sick of it. Can we do something about that?
  • Proposal 2 Let's try to create a "group draft" for an article with editors from both sides involved, separating the legit RS science and media coverage from the real conspiracy theories. Also documenting Trump's and US official statements and such. Political controversies and all. There's LOADS of stuff to document on this. And when the truth finally comes out, either way, we'll write the conclusion. "How is this relevant to WP:ANI?". Good question! This kind of middle ground will most probably bring the shady editing practices to an end since everyone will have an open space to work on and with other editors of the opposing viewpoint. Feynstein (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That would be a good idea, if it weren't for editors like me who accidentally replace everything they touch with incomprehensible text walls in the talk page, as well as the people out to not constructively contribute to Wikipedia (for example, vandals.) Still, if it was appropriately community moderated, it would be a good idea. Also, should we put this and the other proposal in a proposals section? 4D4850 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
That misinterpretation of the edit summary I left is anything but AGF. I was making a point about WP:BLUDGEON. If you wish to go ahead and think there's a WP:CABAL somewhere preventing your 'opinion' from being advertised on Wikipedia that is none my concern, just keep it to yourself. As for your proposal of a "group draft": there's already an article about it, instead of asking for a new one where you can try to impose your views from the start, let's keep working on the current one. That involves accepting the outcomes of RfCs/MfDs and not trying to prematurely close them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
So, were you replying to me, the OP, or both? 4D4850 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @RandomCanadian: I interpreted it as you giving pointers on edition strategies to another editor. If you think there's a bludgeon, why would you choose to "hide" your comment in a summary? I'm AGF here, I genuinely want to know. It's weird to tag a user in a summary. I don't think there's a WP:CABAL, I think that editors hanging out in the fringe noticeboard are like-minded and collectively think they have the legitimacy to WP:GAME the process in order to prevent what they view as conspiracy theories from getting undue attention on WP, which is a good intention. However, when there's misunderstanding of the subject itself it will lead to situations like the one we're in now. Where multiple RS sources and MEDRS sources talk about a very precise possibility and don't dismiss the possibility, in that order, of a phenomenon. As to if there's really a WP:CABAL of politically motivated editors, that I don't know, and it's probably impossible to tell. That's why I AGF and suspect a misunderstanding. Feynstein (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Not true, and if you look at my interactions with some of the others there you would see that. The problem is here is that we are not talking about Cryptids or UFO's, people are dying. So many of us are a tad less willing to give the benefit of the doubt to (for example ) fringe views. We want to differentiate between "We need to make sure" and "IT WAS THE CHINESE! ITS A FACT!".Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I don't get your point. "We need to make sure" is exactly what (at least I) want to do with the subject. Like, there's enough RSs and the MEDRSs are pretty clear that we don't know if there was another sample inside the lab. Here: "Dr Lucey still believes that Sars-Cov-2 is most likely to have a natural origin, but he does not want the alternatives to be so readily ruled out. "So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations." Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said."[160] and here: "In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list."[161]. That's precisely the kind of stuff we need to put in WP. Those are very serious RS, we're talking about the BBC and the Telegraph! And we're still having this debate. This is exactly why I started this thread on WP:ANI. There's evidence of WP:STONEWALLING and some editors are blocking those quotes as per the ridiculous MEDRS requirement (which is applied arbitrarily btw). Scientists won't publish a paper because they don't know and "Not everything that's done is published". So we're basically stuck. We can't write about it and some editors are self-rightously using the fringe label to dismiss it and the editors who genuinely want WP to report on this as conspiracy theorists and WP:PROFRINGE. Great. Feynstein (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
But scientists have published papers specifically on the lab leak ideas, in excellent sources like virology journals. They call them unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories, and note they are being pushed hard by inexpert ideological believers on the internet. Which is - like you. This is why the Project would be better off if you were banned from this topic area, because your contributions are a time sink. Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely ... However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation."[162]. In our view, there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a recombinant CoV generated in nature between a bat CoV and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host"[163]. "A variety of weapons from the quiver are used: conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan, China, a special phraseology regarding an ‘invisible enemy’"[164]. "It was previously reported that, insertions and deletions near the S1/S2 of Coronavirus Spike can occur due to natural evolutionary process (or prolonged passage or sub-culturing [42-44]. However, in order to generate such virus through passage, a “progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity” needs “prior isolation” [40]. Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”.[165]. This is from your own sources. And finally the review paper (MEDRS) you are stonewalling These investigations indicate as expected that it is possible to adapt bat viruses to infect human cells or various animal models, and that chiropteran CoVs have the potential for direct zoonotic transmission to humans, particularly if they acquire an adapted proteolysis site, which requires only a few mutations or the insertion of a short sequence rich in basic amino acids (Hu et al. 2017). This hypothesis has been put forward by Sirotkin and Sirotkin, who developed the hypothesis that the virus might have arisen from serial passages, and accidental escape from the laboratory (Sirotkin and Sirotkin 2020)."[166]. All of these MEDRS say exactly what we're trying to include in WP. You can then take your personal attacks "inexpert ideological believers on the internet. Which is - like you." and respectfully archive them where the metaphorical sun don't shine. You're purposefully interpreting all those papers based on your own ideological views without any lightroom for in-context as a minority viewpoint information inclusion about this. And I have evidence of a concerted effort at stonewalling this information. *drops mic* Feynstein (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out, that Telegraph item is an opinion piece (whose authors are a pusher of the lab-leak idea and a businessman whose takes have aged poorly), and their litany of names actually ignores what those scientists have said in detail about the difference between possible and probable [167][168]. The paper by Sallard et al. is clearly not a review since it contains (an attempt at) novel research, and it's not in a MEDLINE-indexed journal, so there's no grounds to call it MEDRS-compliant. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to say the amusing bit that the Telegraph item seems to have been so sloppily edited that they didn't get the year right (early 2020). XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Sub-Sub-proposal: Feynstein, I'm quite confident all these points have been raised and rebutted in quite a lot of detail on the relevant talk pages so if you'd mind not having this repeated argument for the ten billionth time that would also be helpful (since it's already been explained to you many times, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with your view point; repeating it is unlikely to bring much except more boredom and annoyance - see also WP:DONTGETIT). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is what going against a WP:STONEWALL [169] looks like. QED. I'm done here now. Feynstein (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


For repeatedly pushing a WP:FRINGE theory and blatantly ignoring WP:MEDRS (as demonstrated above), Feynstein is topic-banned from COVID-19 articles, broadly construed.

  • @HandThatFeeds: As per WP:FRINGE/PS: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream.". This is not fringe, I'm not pushing the bioweapon theory, your accusation is bogus unless there's a distinction between RS and MEDRS "fringes". Also, if there's a concensus from editors who aren't involved on the fringe noticeboard I'll remove myself from editing anything covid-related. And probably from WP. Don't worry. I don't have time for this kind of garbage anymore. Feynstein (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Fringe and pseudoscience are different claims. Pseudoscience is the stronger claim. You cannot argue that something is not fringe because it is not pseudoscience. There are plenty of fringe claims that are pursued with scientific rigor by their proponents, but are still fringe because they are not considered plausible by mainstream researchers. ApLundell (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
That's literally the distinction WP:FRINGE/PS makes with "alternative theoretical formulations", and the one there's evidence of a concerted effort at stonewalling. "They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective". Feynstein (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Support — the discussion above about sources, including the statement, That's precisely the kind of stuff we need to put in WP. Those are very serious RS, we're talking about the BBC and the Telegraph!, demonstrates Feynstein doesn't understand best sourcing practices, especially for COVID-19, especially for lab leak theory. With less than 1,000 edits, Feynstein has already been blocked twice (I see in the block log, the first unblock was "per agreement to avoid Covid subjects" so I'm not sure what happened to that agreement), and their editing has already led to multiple noticeboard threads. They have become a timesink and should to learn to edit in other topic areas first, preferably topic areas that are non-medical and non-controversial. Levivich harass/hound 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ad hominems are easier eh? Feynstein (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes: because the hominem is what's under discussion here, you will find editors engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Levivich harass/hound 23:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not self evident that it is the case though, looks to me like the inclusion of the theory in WP:FRINGE is at the root of the problem. And in this proposition, it is assumed that what I was doing was pushing a fringe. Due process would require at least concensus on what constitutes the fringe I was pushing. But I'm not kidding myself about due process right now so yeah, cool. Feynstein (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose -- tired of seeing this group of editors misrepresenting MEDRS by trying to apply it to the historical origin of the virus, which is actually general (not biomedical) information per WP:MEDDEF. Geogene (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not about applying WP:MEDRS to historical origin of the virus, it's just applying regular old WP:RS, particularly WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG, plus regular old WP:NPOV. Levivich harass/hound 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Support The patience I've seen of other editors and the upholding of WP:AGF towards Feynstein is to be applauded. Enough is enough. (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Note If I'm going to be banned over this and since the question is about me pushing a purportedly WP:FRINGE theory. The minimum due process would be that there's a concensus over the classification of this theory (the simple, non bioweapon, accidental release of an unpublished virus) inside of WP:FRINGE. For which there is none. At least on the covid misinformation page. If a consensus is made over there that this is in fact a political conspiracy theory I'll also remove myself from the subject. I don't think me being passionate about something for which there's still no concensus would warrant a ban. In particular over a controversial issue. And, to be clear, if this is the case and I get to be banned over this, my faith of wikipedia will be lost. I already had to take a break from this issue last year because of how useless the process was. If this year, with all of the new legit sources, editors still consider it a conspiracy theory, I'm done. I mean, are people really dismissing the peer reviewed papers I presented? Do people really think the BBC, the Telegraph, the bulletin of atomic scientists and all the other mainstream RS are pushing a conspiracy theory? If so, you guys better do a very good cleanup of your perennial reliable sources, because it means that those sources can't be trusted for covid. Feynstein (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support For repeat engagement in personal attacks towards other editors, uncivil conduct, failure to understand why high quality sourcing in the topic area is required and not editing with the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk)
  • Oppose might as well get into it if the other involved editor is doing it. Let's go full Kangaroo court. There's no concensus around the inclusion of the simple lab leak theory in fringe. I presented multiple peer reviewed studies for inclusion and presented arguments for the inclusion of sentences from MEDRS research that were met with the very same kind of opposition I'm dealing with right now. I also don't accept the legitimacy of this particular survey and find it very insulting, akin to bullying. People are basically piling on me with fallacious arguments. This is perfect. And a perfect example of why Wikipedia is broken. Feynstein (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Let's see: "kangaroo court", denial of FRINGE, "illegitimate", "insulting", "bullying", "piling on", "Wikipedia is broken". Yep, support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah of course you do. Read the section below. Feynstein (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • (EC) Support. For the reasons stated above, especially TIMESINK and IDHT, and also for his constant BATTLEGROUND approach (like repeatedly gloating "#toldyouso") and ABF behavior. As Levivich pointed out (see also the first diff), an "agreement" about avoiding COVID-19 topics was made last year, but this user has again found himself on ANI for exactly the same things, so I am doubtful a self-imposed "ban" would really last. I also think his general approach to disagreement is problematic, like taking criticism of an idea personally and in particular when he feels other users just don't understand his argument and if only they got it he'd be vindicated. I know many of us have a compulsion to over-explain when we feel we're misunderstood, but being able to rein in those emotions is a crucial part of editing collegially and unfortunately I don't think Feynstein has demonstrated he can do this, at least not until after significant time has been wasted responding to him. JoelleJay (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for immediate closure[edit]

I retract everything I said in this post. I will be self excluding from talking about the lab leak only (in case there's something I can write about covid radiography that I know about). I just found out editors think the lab leak theory is a Trump talking point. I didn't know it was seen as a talking point to hide his covid response and really didn't care because I don't watch US News. But I get it now. I won't be able to change anything. I want an administrator to hold me accountable to my word. I don't care anymore. I genuinely don't. Feynstein (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

After reading UTP threads from May, June, June again, two weeks ago, two weeks ago again, and this thread, I don't think anything short of closing with a TBAN is a good idea. An earlier promise to refrain in May was followed by a change of heart by June (Boing! wrote in the "June again" thread: When I unblocked you on 21 May, it was after your agreement to avoid Covid-19 subjects. Now, the unblock was not actually conditional on that, so I'm not going to issue any sanctions based on the fact that you changed your mind and have been active in that area. However, I am disappinted to see that you have been very actively pursuing a fringe subject (the allegations of a lab origin for the virus), against the balance of reliable sources. You have been doing this using primary sources, and even preprints which are expressly forbidden for use in Covid-19 articles.). I'm counting three different admin issuing advice/warning/blocks, plus who knows how many editors on the content side. Levivich harass/hound 05:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree, this should proceed on its course. Feynstein's turn-around above seems disingenuous at best, and similar to assurances already given (and broken) in the past. The question isn't about whether the lab-leak theory is a "Trump talking point" or not (I certainly wouldn't characterize it as primarily that - it's primarily Yet Another Unfounded Conspiracy Theory), but about Feynstein's behavior. We can't do anything about the existence or promulgation of the Lab Leak Theory in the wider world, but we can keep it under control here, and restricting Feynstein's access to editing about it is part of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I edited any article on this recently tbh. "Restrict my behavior" all you want, I told you I don't care. And I probably won't write anything about it on radiography. I had a paper in my head from medical physicists I know but I won't be doing it. This pilup is making me sick and acting out. And the more you do it, the more I act out. I can't help it. It's who I am. Just end it. Feynstein (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Denial of fringe? So there's a distinction now between RS and MEDRS fringes is that it? Or is it the same fringe all of a sudden. Because there's at least a few RS sources about it. Would the BBC talk about a conspiracy theory? Would the telegraph, the bulletin of atomic scientists? It's like words don't mean anything anymore. I explained multiple and multiple times and I detailed the peer reviewed papers about what would precisely be possible. How can you come to this conclusion and accuse me of being some sort of conspiracy theorist? Just explain exactly how this is not baiting me. Feynstein (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Would the BBC talk about a conspiracy theory?yes. In fact this situation is parallel to somebody using such a BBC source to argue that the "second shooter" idea is plausible, and creating a fuss at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories saying it's "not fringe" and should not be referred to as "discredited". Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to "last updated" dates by IP user[edit]

A user, editing from several IP addresses has been indiscriminately changing last-updated dates attached to tables and graphs in a number of topics. The IP addresses include,,,,, and most recently

After the user's second edit to one of the templates, I added the following notice right next to the date in the template code:


While in many cases, the date changes are just a few days off from the correct date, in others the date changes are a week or month off from the correct date.

For more than a month, the edits have continued despite the user being informed through edit reversion notes and talk page notifications that the "Data last updated on..." or "Data as of..." dates are not indented to be today's date. Unsure of the appropriate next step. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice posted to User talk: and User talk: - Wikmoz (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
See a recent one-week block of Special:Contributions/ by User:Ohnoitsjamie. His block covers all the IPs mentioned above but might need to be longer. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I increased it to two weeks; if they resume when it expires, feel free to ping me directly and I'll extend it again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! - Wikmoz (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite blockage of IP user[edit]

Incident is here

For no apparent reason, IP user (talk · contribs · WHOIS) created a talk page on Wikimedia commons to comment You better suck a wood, fuking whuore hoe and prostitute 🖕

I know I’m not one to mince words, but I have absolutely no recollection of encountering this IP user let alone doing anything warranting sexist verbal abuse. I see this person, all but certainly a man, is blocked for a month but since he has already said these kinds of things to two other people, I believe he should be blocked forever. Trillfendi (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, but indeffing an IP is very very rarely done (if it is an IP which has persistent trend for abuse and previous shorter blocks have failed to stop the matter - though even for school blocks it's usually only gradual escalation to blocks of a year or a couple) - especially when it could otherwise be a dynamic IP. As for their comments on Commons that is not, if I may use some legalese, within our jurisdiction. And the IP is already rangeblocked here anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: See also Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Ohnoitsjamie has blocked Special:Contributions/ for a month. If there is also a problem on Commons it should be reported at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Patriot Bible University[edit]

(non-admin closure) Disruptive editors blocked and page has been temporarily semi-protected. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some help here, please. I've requested protection and a user block. Looks like a sock farm. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Dervaaaz reported by Shadowwarrior8[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dervaaaz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) The user known as @Dervaaaz is vandalising the Wikipedia page "Wahhabism". He kept constantly deleting data despite the data being backed up with sources. I warned him multiple times to reach consensus using Wikipedia rules and guidelines yet he turns a blind eye and keep on deleting the posts. An unknown bot with IP is also doing the same and @Dervaaaz is coordinating with him.

In the first of attacks , ( ) the bot did this. He accused "Wahhabism" of shirk/excommunication like a theological opponent. "(even though it is based upon Shirk)" For about three times he deleted edits , ( this being the last time. I called for talk with him twice, yet he refused.

No response, just deleting, deleting, deleting. I urge to take sufficient actions muting these two accounts. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadowwarrior8 has a history [170] of disruptive edits on Wahhabism and is bringing a lot of changes to the article that are OR and POV based. He uses self published sources and disrepresents sources. He should bring up these to the talk page before making such changes. He has been warned before and his extensive changes can be found in the history section of the article. Dervaaaz (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can an admin at least shut down their edit war? Both need a time-out and possibly a page ban. Shadow has made significant revisions over the last 10 days that are either a sign that the article had glaring errors and POV problems or their edits have introduced POV problems. Slywriter (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, so I've just frozen the article for 3 days. Any sensible changes can be requested on the article Talk page and will need to be implemented by an admin. Deb (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So I have not been editing much in the past few days, and have been caught by surprise of this edit war between the two fellow editors on a page I watch and infrequently edit. I have had one or two past dealings with the accusing user, Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs), which mostly focus around improper use of source material (i.e. citing sources and yet stating infomation not found in the source) as well as potentially biased editing, especially in relation to Iran and the Shi'a. You can see an edit I made here where I communicated these concerns to him. In response, he reverted my edit (which simply implemented an NPOV and OR article template to the top of the page). To be honest, I did not feel like taking this any further, have not had the chance to and I felt that I had been too harsh. Other than this, I reverted and criticised him for leaving misleading edit summaries once, and I reverted an edit where he brought an unreliable source on the article of a prominent Shi'i scholar. He seems to have a history of adding large amounts of content to more controversial topics, especially in relation to Shi'a Islam. Other editors have also had issues with him, and at other times his edits have led to page protection being put in place, his edits being classed as disruptive - see here.

However it should be noted that Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs), has been adding much content and detail to many WikiProject Islam articles such as Rashid Rida etc. and he has been using sources, unlike some of his earliest edits, although I have not checked as to whether the content added reflects the sources. It is clear then that he has good intentions in improving articles, but simply needs to be more aware of Wiki policy, avoid OR, Synthesis, maintain neutrality and decorum in preventing edit wars. He has also added copyrighted content in the past - I see from all of this confirmation that he simply lacks experience editing and dealing with other users, and that with time we should see these issues go away. I recommend he reviews a lot of the help pages, and Wikipedia policy pages.

As for the user being reported, Dervaaaz (talk · contribs), whilst I have no experience of him, it seems the cause of Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs)'s frustration against him is that he is alledging that Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) is making improper use of source material, similar to what I have said to him in the past. Both are at fault from edit warring according to the page log and seem to lack experience on how to resolve an edit war. A good example I would give, on a related article, is my interaction with another editor here. Whilst like many disputes this started off with a misunderstanding, but with discussion on the article talk page we both arrived at a compromise.

So, I suggest that there is no issue, as Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) does not seem to actually be vandalising anything, it seems he simply disagrees with Shadowwarrior8 and believes his edits are not reflecting the source material. However he has not engaged with Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) on the article's talk page, and I recommend that he should do this as well practically show (on there not on here) how his edits do not reflect the source material, maybe giving an example. Moreover, I note that Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) does not edit often, but both he and Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) should be aware of the revert rule. I would suggest that they both discuss the issue they are having on the talk page, which they can still do regardless of page protection. Also Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) you should give reasonable time for Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) to respond to you - you made those comments on the talk page just yesterday. Perhaps Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) has work or is otherwise busy and so can't respond right away - consider waiting until the weekend.

In summary I feel no action needs to be taken against either editor by the admins. Whilst I can corroborrate the sentiments of Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) against Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs), I suggest this is just an issue of not being fully informed of Wiki policy and suggest that he should try discussing the issues he has with the edits on that page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) should relax and tone down his rhetoric, but it is understandable that he feels annoyed. I would be happy to join in to discuss and evaluate Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs)'s edits on the talk page.

Happy editing, ParthikS8 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


Given LMComms has exclusively edited Chris Loder including uploading an 'own work' image coupled with the actual name it's probable that the editor is WP:PAID or at least WP:CoI. They have made no declaration as such. I'd appreciate some admin advice/support. Qazwsx777 (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of content, it's a dodgy-looking user name. I'll have a look. Deb (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is definitely a conflict of interest of some kind, as it says the subject of the article requested the removal of some of the article content. The other changes were innocuous enough, but if there's any more of it, I'm prepared to impose a block. Deb (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it.Qazwsx777 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Deb:, On the off chance it's any help. [171]. Tiderolls 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can hardly believe this thread - especially the last link to an external website for LM Communications which is NOTHING to do with me. To confirm, the name LMComms is NOT a company name - it is merely my initials 'LM' followed by what I do 'communications' or 'comms'. I work for the office of Chris Loder MP but had no idea I needed to disclose this on every minor edit - in future of course I shall by using the WP:PAID tag. I had no intention of becoming a wiki editor but did so last year when some malicious content was posted on Chris Loder's page which needed urgent removal. I am new to wiki and learning how I go along but thank you for the warm welcome and for giving me the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding LMComms (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

LMComms, thanks for the transparency. If editing the article is part of your employment, then you need to declare this on your userpage and on the talk page of the article. See and Thanks. Fences&Windows 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the removed material, which appears reliably sourced and fairly straightforward, and the matter (of Loder being a signatory to the letter) is non-controversial. If it's not a BLP violation, and it doesn't somehow intrude on an article subject's privacy, we don't remove material simply because they don't like it. Grandpallama (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thank you LMComms (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

User:Captain El Classico[edit]

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. [172] Some of the edits were copyright violations, [173],[174] some were poorly sourced, [175] some were undiscussed major changes, over which they edit warred [176] and were blocked, [177] 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. [178])

They do not respond to warnings left on their talk page,[179] 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)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)

Wait, am I Sea Captain now? El_C 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)👍 LikeDiannaa (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @BMK: I don't foresee Captain El Classico succeeding here at all; there's too many issues. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately yes.— Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)


Whilst not exactly a vexatious filing, there certainly doesn't appear to be anything for an admin to do here. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


User Bacondrum does not seem to respect NPOV. For several months, in infoboxes relating to nationalist parties where the political spectrum includes right-wing to far-right, he systematically withdraws the right-wing label (even when there are references) in favor of the far-right only (1, 2, 3 are some examples while these articles are stable for months or years) arguing that right-wing is not a position (very debatable and which would require a broad consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics) but a broad/catch-all term, that editors who bring right-wing to far-right are trying to "sanitize"/"normalize" this kind of parties and that the far-right is on the right-wing (which is not wrong in the latter case). In some cases, a consensus has been reached in talk page for only including far-right in infobox like at Vox (political party) or National Rally so there is nothing to complain about. However, he never does the same thing for anti-liberal or communist parties where left-wing to far-left are still present (like in Portuguese Communist Party, La France Insoumise, Communist Party of the Russian Federation; in this logic, he should also withdraws left-wing label for the same reasons as for nationalist parties otherwise there are double standards).

In addition, and it's even more serious, he does not respect the obligation to have polite and civil language, by making threats of 3RR blocking against users who disagree with him : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (@Helper201, Jay942942, and Mellk: have experienced it).

I perfectly know that editorial disagreements aren't the matter of administrators, but in this case, to avoid further problems could you apply a partial topic-ban on him concerning political parties ? Regards. --Martopa (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So the complaint here appears to be based on the fact that you disagree with the edits Bacondrum has made, and that he doesn't make the kinds of edits you want him to make. (No editor is obligated to make any specific type of edit just to please another editor.) This is clearly purely a content dispute, and no sanction against Bacondrum, least of all a topic ban, is warranted. A trout for Martopa for attempting to use AN/I to win a content dispute seems in order, however. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: To be honest, I was initially reluctant to take it to ANI, but you can't deny that talking about 3RR blocking is excessive and non-civil (it isn't the good way to resolve content disputes, especially considering that Mellk hasn't break 3RR), and can be seen by the 3 users mentioned above as potentially aggressive. --Martopa (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Mellk has been edit warring, that's the only problem and they are on the verge of breaking the 3RR rule, so I was warning them - it's a friendly act, I could just wait for them to revert again and they would be blocked for edit warring [180]. This is a content dispute and Martopa is just pissed off that they've lost a few debates over the "right-wing to far-right" tautology, this is a retaliatory and vexatious report. This should WP:BOOMERANG Martopa is using ANI to get revenge after losing content disputes. Bacondrum 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also this tagging in editors who you think will agree with you, it's a shifty tactic (like taking content disputed to ANI): [181]. Surely there's a sanction due for Martopa for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - they lost some debates, they need to accept this and move on. Bacondrum 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also this tagging in editors who you think will agree with you, it's a shifty tactic (like taking content disputed to ANI): [182]. Surely there's a sanction due for Martopa for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - they lost some debates, they need to accept this and move on. This is petty harassment, at best. Bacondrum 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You claimed that I "crossed the 3RR red line", which was not true. I made one revert that day. I asked you to explain your reasoning, but you haven't. Mellk (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You have reverted the same content 3 times despite seeing a number of other editors disagree.

As you can see the claim that Mellk has not been edit warring is false. I was warning them not to cross the line as it would result in a block - which is what we are supposed to do. End of story. Bacondrum 20:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You got 2 diffs from 19 February and 1 diff from 23 February. This is not within a 24 hour period. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I was referring to your claim that I "crossed" the line with WP:3RR. Mellk (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:EDITWAR thoroughly. I was warning you so you could avoid a block, not threatening you. I know it sucks when numerous editors disagree with you, but you can't edit war. Bacondrum 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand it was not intended to be a threat, but you told me: "You've already crossed the 3RR redline". You said the same thing in the edit summary of the other article. From what I understand, you accused me of violating WP:3RR. Note how you were talking about 3RR specifically. I did not violate 3RR (more than 3 reverts within 24 hours). Mellk (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bacondrum has never edited the three articles you mention (Portuguese Communist Party, La France Insoumise, and Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Are you suggesting it's an NPOV violation to edit articles about right-wing/far-right groups and to choose not to edit articles about left-wing politics? Wikipedia editors are allowed to choose which topics to edit and there is no expectation that they must edit some topics in order to "balance out" their contributions. Editors must follow NPOV on the individual articles they edit, but if an editor is only interested in contributing to articles about far-right topics that is perfectly allowed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, If I saw "left-wing to far-left" as a position but there was no evidence of a dispute over their position evidenced in sources then I would argue that is akin to a tautology and thus an inappropriate synthesis of sources, but unlike Mortopa if the consensus at talk was against me I would accept that. Also yes, as a leftist myself I'm not that interested in Left-wing party articles, I find the opposing right-wing ideologies more interesting to read about. Bacondrum 21:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I also fairly heavily focus on right-wing topics and don't edit that much in the left-wing topic area. I'd be peeved if others were accusing me of POV for choosing to spend my volunteer time and energy towards researching and editing topics that interest me personally, and not topics they think I should be editing. It would be one thing if you were editing those three articles and showing evidence of bias through how the edits to those pages compared to your edits to right-wing topics, but the suggestion that you are contravening NPOV by not editing those pages is bizarre and not based in any policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks GorillaWarfare, I feel I'm being targeted for harassment here. Bacondrum 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bacondrum did make this edit where they named a party as right-wing without a source. I removed the information with this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia You can't be serious? Quick, call the police!Bacondrum 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And I didn't just add it, I restored it. Bacondrum 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You said "The center-right is right-wing, it's a tautology", that is not an excuse to restore unsourced content. If the information added by Storm598 was wrong then you could have just removed it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It also isn't a tautology. Maybe in some limited contexts, but it's mostly a distinction which, otherwise, is not the same thing. The Right-wing politics and Centre-right politics pages explain all of that pretty well, I think. El_C 23:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll expand a bit further: the centre is generally more fluid. For example, to an average person in Western Europe, Biden is centre-right, but to an average American, he's centre-left. El_C 23:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
hi El C, I understand that it’s not a tautology, but I believe it’s something similar, one is a subset of the other. My issue is that an article stating that a far-right party is right-wing is not evidence of a dispute or that the author is claiming the party is not centre-right - the far-right is right-wing, the centre-right is right-wing, simply finding a source that describes a far-right group as right wing is not evidence of a dispute about their position, as Loki pointed out at another discussion “it’s like saying something is located somewhere between Los Angeles and California”. I hope that makes sense. Regardless I’m sure this isn’t the place for a content discussion. Bacondrum 23:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Bacondrum, I don't think this complaint is, at the root, a content dispute. It's about you responding civilly, politely and in a nonthreatening manner to other editors. I know the environment editing in U.S. politics on Wikipedia is very combative but not everyone you disagree with is the opposition. Every editor is entitled to be treated with respect unless they are committing vandalism. It can help if you try to deescalate disputes and not give editors a reason to bring cases against you to ANI or AE.
I know after 2020, editors who work on political subjects are a bit battle-scarred from seemingly endless debates but please remember to AGF. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I suppose I could be a little friendlier with some of these editors, but it's hard when they go about filing vexatious ANI reports and pinging others in for a pile on. Mortopa's efforts here to have me topic banned in a vindictive manner (without discussing any of their concerns with me directly first) do nothing to raise the level of civility, quite the opposite. Bacondrum 06:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It is difficult to dialogue with you because you do not take into account the opinions of others, you systematically revert them (and sometimes talk about 3RR blocking), which tires some editors (Helper201, Jay942942 who don't want to have problems with you). On the Yellow Vest Australia you have no consensus, there was no debate on talk page, you simply remove sourced content unilaterally. In addition, it is not forbidden to ping whoever we want (and I have pinged you and Loki even if I kow perfectly that you support "right-wing to far-right as tautology"). This will be one of my last messages here. --Martopa (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you are being petty and vengeful after losing a few debates over this issue - absolutely nothing else. Of course you no longer want to respond, this whole ANI report is a farce and should never have been started - just like this rfc you started after consensus was against you at the previous one - Buidhe even pointed out to you that the discussion had been had already "This is a dumb RfC, we already discussed the question above and came to a consensus based on how academic sources describe the party's political orientation." - shifty tactic, this report should WP:BOOMERANG. Your mate was edit warring, that's a fact, we are supposed to warn people not to edit war if they are doing so, that is also a fact - claiming that warning people not to edit war is somehow a threat - yet another shifty tactic. Your vindictive attempt to have me blocked here have made it a real challenge to assume good faith with you - yet another shifty tactic, ANI is not a place for you to settle grudges. This whole ANI report is a personal attack as far as I'm concerned - Martopa launched this ANI as an attack on me because discussions have gone against them several times, nothing more. Bacondrum 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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


I think we're done here...? Stepping in, then, after all. Soapboxy highlight of my own comment in this thread, with the hopes that its message resonates. El_C 14:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I understand that WP:CIR can be a fraught thing to bring up because saying somebody lacks competence can be taken as an assault on their intelligence. Let me start out by saying I do not in any way doubt Wikieditor19920's intelligence. He is perfectly capable of making his arguments heard. However, he seems to lack the basic level of understanding of our policies that make collaboration possible. We all agree to follow certain things when we edit here, most obviously WP:V. Wikieditor19920 has been repeatedly making a mockery of that policy, so far to the point that I see no reason for him to be allowed to continue to do so. This will center on Talk:Palestinian enclaves and the contention on including bantustan as an alternate name. We can have arguments about NPOV and LEAD and WEIGHT and all sorts of things, but what we have here is an editor claiming what is quoted from multiple rock solid reliable sources is not verifiable, and a discussion at RSN with unanimous agreement that the sources are in fact reliable for what they report as fact that no such consensus exists and the statements are not verifiable. I honestly do not know how to argue with somebody who says what is quoted from a multiple books published by some of the most respected university presses on the planet is not verifiable. Here are some of the problematic arguments by Wikieditor19920:

  • 15:58, 23 February 2021: The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles.
This about the following sources:
  • Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
  • Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa

These sources have been discussed at WP:RSN with, besides Wikieditor, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable for the statement at issue. Wikieditor has continued to challenge that there is such a consensus, despite the unanimity of opinion against him at RSN. See here. But Wikieditor continues to insist that these are not scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise in books published by respected academic presses but rather "active participants" and "biased and partisan", and on that basis what is quoted from them is anything but 'verifiable' .

  • 02:24, 18 February 2021: I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject. They may simply perceive wider usage than evidence supports, and they really don't offer anything but a conclusory statement to back it up. This is contracted by reporting from the NYT and other outlets which attribute this analogy to Israel's critics, probably are more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take.

The idea that we allow editors personal opinions to say that scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise are making things up and on that basis claim that they do not support what they report as fact is a direct assault on WP:V. The entire basis of this place is that we do not prove or disprove sources with our personal beliefs.

This, again, about academics writing in the area of their academic expertise in peer-reviewed journals or books published by respected presses. Basically, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But Wikieditor insists that they cannot be relied upon for verifiable facts, in direct contravention of WP:V and WP:RS. The repeated demands that we prove sources correct is likewise in direct contravention of WP:V. The opening paragraph of WP:V says [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. We have an editor demanding that we bow to the beliefs or experiences of editors over that of actual scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise. The attempts to get Wikieditor to edit according to these basic principles have gone unheeded and I feel it is long past time that such editing be dealt with.

He has also repeatedly modified others comments in a blatant display of WP:OWN over an RFC. See here, here, here. Or here where he tells somebody to follow instructions. Idk about you, but I certainly would not appreciate being spoken to like a child. After being challenged on sectioning off somebody else's comments he continued to demand his position be the one enforced. I feel that WP:CIR is an issue here and that there is nothing to be done besides removing Wikieditor. Given that he already has other topic bans I think this is not necessarily a topic specific issue but a Wikieditor19920 issue and that another topic ban will only lead to disruption in some new topic area. nableezy - 17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This complaint breaks down into two issues. First, that I am somehow wrong on a content issue, to the extent that it violates policy. Perhaps half of the commentators at the ongoing RfC, which currently leads with a slight majority aligned with the views I've been expressing, should be reported as well? I stand by all of the arguments on content I made above, which were agreed with by other editors in an active RfC and supported by sources. If Nableezy thinks I am wrong on content, they are free to disagree, and they have been, vociferously, as opposed to reporting my arguments at ANI.
The second is that I have "edited others comments." This is absolutely false. I have not modified anyone's comments. The RfC was formatted to include a vote section and a discussion section. Nableezy has repeatedly attempted to merge this section with the votes section and equated adding logical breaks in the discussion with "editing another's comments." Nableezy says me asking editors to follow the same format that everyone else had been following is "speaking to them like a child." If my comment conveys a tinge of frustration, it's in the face of repeat edit-warring and completely irrational resistance to good faith efforts to organize the discussion with logical breaks and dedicated sections, not by editing anyone's comments. A well-formatted RfC allows everyone's views to come across, including Nableezy's, so this behavior is harmful to all sides.

And finally, another point worth noting, Nableezy's tone and commentary have been persistently belligerent and uncivil, which is why I and others are reluctant to engage whatsoever.

  • Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used.
  • WP:RSN has, outside of you, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable and directly support that the term bantustan is widely used. Any part of that summary in dispute? A patently untrue statement, since users at the relevant talk page commented at the referenced RSN and did not "unanimously agree."
  • What you have is a propensity to demand your personal position be given equal weight to actual scholarship.
  • Your view on bias of sources is backed by literally no policy. Yes, a consensus exists at RSN that these sources are reliable for this statement. You not liking that is unsurprising but also unimportant. nableezy - 14:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

These comments above are mocking, uncivil, and show a level of anger and disrespect that should be considered unacceptable. There is an active RfC with a slight majority opposed to the views Nableezy expressed above. That could change, and I would accept the outcome. But if it doesn't, I am absolutely sure that Nableezy will not accept the outcome. This needs to stop. I do not claim to be blameless and am happy to step away from this page for a bit, but no editor should be expected to submit to this relentless bullying and misuse of process. Once it does, we can all move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

No other editor that I have seen has been claiming that what is quoted from several sources is not verifiable. That is not a content issue, that is a competence one. I accept there are arguments to be made for and against any position. Your arguments however have been bastardizing our policies, and that is why I am here asking for relief from you and not anybody else. And yes, unanimous agreement outside of yourself. Proof. nableezy - 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to double check that RSN discussion, because I see two editors in the beginning of the discussion directly disagreeing with you. As for WP:CIR, rather than simply implying anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, consider that I am raising the exact same arguments from a prior move discussion which resulted in consensus in favor of those positions and moving the page to "Palestinian enclaves." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Great, an opportunity to demonstrate that CIR is an issue. Which two editors here said that the sources are not reliable for the statement? nableezy - 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems me like attempt to eliminate editor with opposite POV from the WP:ARBPIA area --Shrike (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Shrike, Nableezy's repeated accusation (insults, really) of incompetence is based on his assumption that you were in full agreement at his RSN thread. Feel free to clarify. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Shrike didnt say one word about the reliability of the sources at RSN. Do you have two editors who said the sources were not reliable for the contested statement? Because above you said there were two. Was it Shrike and the editor who said I don't think anyone is questioning the reliability of university presses or Routledge? Because like it or not, they didn't disagree with the reliability of the sources, and any person who actually reads the discussion will see that. And will see that your repeated rantings about there not being any consensus are just a further example of disruptive editing. nableezy - 19:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Shrike, this appears to be an attempt by Nableezy to get rid of an opposing editor through the misuse of AN/I (must be something in the air today; see above and below). This is a content dispute, and should be sent back to the article talk page as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It very much is not a content dispute. An editor is saying what we quote from sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable. He is saying what is in black and white is not there. How is that a content dispute. I understand that there are a lot of words here, but this is way beyond a dispute about content. That something deals with content does not make it a content dispute. An editor engaged in tendentious editing is always editing content. That does not make tendentious editing something that cant be dealt with here. nableezy - 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor is saying what we quote from sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable. He is saying what is in black and white is not there. is not an accurate summation of Wikieditor's arguments on the talk page, as shown by the very same quotes by Wikieditor that you posted in the OP. Wikieditor is making an NPOV argument, not a V or RS argument (as I and others have pointed out in the past). That NPOV argument is at least plausible, and thus this is a content dispute. You are repeatedly straw-manning Wikieditor's argument in an attempt to re-frame it from an NPOV objection to a V or RS objection and then arguing that based on this, Wikieditor has a CIR or POV-pushing issue. I can read what Wikieditor wrote and it doesn't match what you're reporting. Bottom line: the argument that some of the proposed language for the article doesn't meet NPOV is a valid argument, and even if you disagree with it, the editors who make that argument are not being disruptive by making an argument you disagree with. Ordinary dispute resolution, such as the ongoing RFC, should be allowed to conclude to resolve this. Levivich harass/hound 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, cmon man. I posted the above sources and quotes here. His response here was The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable". But you are going to tell me that he did not say that it is not verifiable? Am I insane here? What did he say there? We can have an argument about NPOV, about WEIGHT, sure, and I am not here about that. But when an editor says essentially that the sources dont say what they say how is that even possible? He has repeatedly said that the statement is not verifiable, a statement that is explicitly verified. That is the CIR issue here, not a content dispute. nableezy - 19:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Because context. Those two diffs you posted are what you wrote, and what Wikied wrote (all emphasis in the original):
  • Nableezy: Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. You are bastardizing our policies here, and I really hope an admin does something about it.
  • Wikied: The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles. Posting the same block quotes over and over again is absurd. The fact that a warning is logged against me for showing a tinge of frustration with this open belligerence is so absurd.
Nableezy, you're just wrong about policy in your statement. You point to WP:BURDEN but you're actually making an WP:ONUS argument. Burden is about who has to provide citations for a challenged statement. But just providing the citation doesn't mean the challenged statement must go into an article, nevermind in wikivoice. That's what ONUS is all about. You ignore it.
It right there where you say: The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. Just because one source (or multiple sources) say something doesn't make it a "verifiable fact". There are more than two, or three, or five, or ten sources on this subject. I personally posted like 18 sources on that talk page. So claiming that because some of them say something, it's a "verifiable fact" and anyone who disagrees with that has CIR concerns... well, no. This is a content dispute about the proper weight of (many) sources.
It's perfectly acceptable for editors to say that one source or even multiple sources are not enough to meet ONUS, or that a particular author may be unreliable, or may be "a biased or partisan source", and it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to argue that a biased or partisan source does not (or should not) be used to verify a statement in wikivoice. To say "the claims of biased and partisan sources ... [are] anything but 'verifiable'" is not the same thing as saying that, as you put it, "sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable". That is not what Wikieditor is arguing.
Frankly, you shouldn't be having so much trouble understanding that Wikieditor is arguing that the particular sources you point to in order to support a statement in wikivoice are insufficient to support a statement in wikivoice. You might disagree with that argument, but you should be able to understand it. Levivich harass/hound 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Uh, no, when a source says something is a fact it is a verifiable fact. This is crazy town if people can just say no I dont believe the source. And Im sorry to say your context reading lacks context. I responded with burden because he said the burden is on me to demonstrate that the term is widely used. Frankly, it should not be so hard for you to see that Wikieditor is claiming a statement is not verifiable when he says the statement is not verifiable. How is that even in dispute now? I get he's on your side of the dispute here, but thats a level of intellectual dishonesty I did not see coming. And yes, he flat out said what is directly quoted from a source published by OUP is not verifiable. I legit do not understand how you can pretend otherwise. nableezy - 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You are still ignoring WP:ONUS, the common part about verifiability not equaling inclusion. You have so much experience working with content, and I'm 100% sure if I dug I'd find a diff where you were making the ONUS argument to some other editor about how just because something is in a source doesn't mean we include it in the article (esp. in wikivoice). I know you understand "verifiability does not equal inclusion". I don't understand why you are describing this argument as some disruptive, novel, or "crazy town" argument. Accusing me of intellectual dishonesty reminds me of the other things you've said that we discussed recently on my talk page. Then as now, this is what makes me bow out. Levivich harass/hound 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Parting thought: You say "'bantustan' is 'widely' used". Other editors say "'bantustan' is not 'widely' used". You say "sources support 'bantustan' being 'widely' used". Other editors say "sources do not support 'bantustan' being 'widely' used". What's the next step? RSN? ANI? No! It's to make a table, and list the sources and quotes from the sources, and see how many say that "bantustan" is widely used. Do 15 out of 20 sources say "widely"? Then we should say "widely". Do 3 out of 20 sources say "widely"? Then we should not say "widely". Resolving this content dispute is simple. I really think the most productive thing that everyone could be doing, rather than discussing who should get sanctioned for what, is to just get to work on the source analysis table and get on with it. Everyone's already posted some sources and quotes so the work is half done. Levivich harass/hound 20:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Acknowledging that there are sources that directly say widely used would be a start. Acknowdledging that those same sources were found reliable by RSN for that specific statement would likewise be useful. I said, we can have arguments about a whole host of issues on whether or not the name should be bolded in the article. I am not here because of that. I can argue ONUS, I can argue WEIGHT. But when an editor says that the sources dont say what they say, when they say that scholars writing in the area of their expertise are combatants in the arena and as such cant be used for facts, thats when it is not a content issue. I am not ignoring ONUS, not even a little. He isnt making that argument. I have not brought anybody making any other argument here because I am not just looking to remove an opponent. He is making arguments that are fundamentally incompatible with our base policies. That is why I am here. Can you acknowledge that he has in fact repeatedly said what has been quoted in multiple sources is not verifiable? Can you acknowledge that has in fact been verified? It would help immensely to know we are all playing on the same field here and not some universe where what was said was not really said and what is written is not actually written. nableezy - 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Levivich has done an apt job summarizing the debate, and Nableezy is still misrepresenting my arguments. I already openly acknowledged the sources provided and the language they used. By Nableezy's logic, anyone who questions the neutrality of a source is violating policy. That includes basically everyone on the talk page who at some point has suggested bias in one source or another. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there are sources that directly say widely used. And you're right, we can discuss the bolding and whether to say "widely used" in wikivoice at the article talk page, not here.
I don't agree that "those same sources were found reliable by RSN" — it's still open, some of the sources (university publishers) never really had their reliability in dispute, and the actual issue (author bias) has not yet been really discussed, nevermind concluded with a result ("found reliable by RSN").
"... when they say that scholars writing in the area of their expertise are combatants in the arena and as such cant be used for facts, thats when it is not a content issue ... He is making arguments that are fundamentally incompatible with our base policies." — I disagree with both those statements. Wikieditor is making an argument per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources.
"Can you acknowledge that he has in fact repeatedly said what has been quoted in multiple sources is not verifiable?" - yes and I understand that "not verifiable" in context means "not verified by enough neutral sources to say in wikivoice/bold in the lead"
"Can you acknowledge that has in fact been verified?" - Nope, I think "widely used" is an opinion held by some scholars, but I don't think it's the scholarly consensus or the mainstream view. It very well may be a significant minority view, or it may need qualificiation (such as "widely used by critics", "widely used by Palestinians", "widely used in Israel", all of which are formulations I've seen in one source or another, and I'm not sure which if any are the predominant qualification). Levivich harass/hound 20:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I dont see how the idea that when scholarly sources report something as fact that a Wikipedia editor can dismiss that as an opinion held by some scholars is something we can allow here. I dont see how when somebody says something is anything but verifiable one can say they did not say that it is not verifiable. But maybe I am insane after all. nableezy - 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Supposin' we look at 20 sources. 3 say "often called bantustans", 17 say "sometimes called bantustans". Is it a verifiable fact that they're often called bantustans? Or is it a verifiable fact that they're sometimes called bantustans? That a scholarly source reports something as fact doesn't make it an undisputed fact. We have to look at all or most of the sources.
For example, in the discussion Talk:Palestinian enclaves#Lead sentence, I posted three example sources, and Nishidani wrote, One cannot write a lead without summarizing the existing source base ... Choosing just two or three texts to do so is pointy ..., and Selfstudier wrote in response to that, Thank you, that saved me some ink. We have sources that point to enclaves going back to Allon ... and better still would be an attempt based on all relevant sourcing ... Wikieditor homes in on critics of "bantustan" but omits the critics of enclaves .... Both of them (as I understand it) are making the same exact argument that Wikieditor is making: we can't just look at two or three or some sources, but instead we must look at the entire "source base", and "better still would be an attempt based on all relevant sourcing". Levivich harass/hound 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Both of them (Nishidani and Selfstudier (as I understand it)

Wow, Levivich. Did you write that with a straight face? I wrote that the article's 60 plus first rate RS using the descriptor 'Bantustan', per LEAD summary style, obliges all editors to use that term in the lead, since it occupied most of the article. Wikieditor (a) admits he reads the talk page, not the massive sources used and (b) challenges 3 sources that provide precisely the evidence for text he won't accept. Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That isnt where we are though. And personally, if we were there, I would say we would be on safe ground just saying also known as bantustans the end. You are making a weight issue, but to your question, both are verifiable statements. A statement is verified when a reliable source directly supports it. It may be challenged by other reliable sources, but that does not make it not verifiable or even verified. But that is again going in to the weeds of the content issue. The behavior issue of denying what is in fact a consensus at RSN (things dont get closed there generally, and even you admit the sourcing is reliable), and denying what has been verified is verifiable is still what I'd like to address here. Nobody has ever said anything is undisputed fact. What Ive said is that it is verifiable fact, and the response is that what multiple sources flat out say as a fact is anything but verifiable. nableezy - 21:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Much as I appreciate the valuable points raised by Levivich, this has devolved into a content debate, as expected. Nableezy, when multiple other editors are telling you that a point of view is valid, maybe it's time to drop this already dubious position that anyone who disagrees with you must be thrown off the encyclopedia for incompetence. And, look, yet again another double standard. Nableezy describes the RfC, which has a small majority in favor against the positions he's advocated here, as unsettled because it is not yet closed. The discussion at RSN, which drew smaller participation and remains open, and which did not indicate "unanimous disagreement" (Shrike and Levivich raised the same points there as they did here), Nableezy describes as "settled" and "consensus." Which is it? Is "settled" a flexible term that adapts to whether or not a user likes the outcome, or do we wait for closure in all cases? Clearly neither are true, yet only the former describes the distinction drawn here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is an example edit by Wikieditor. This one claiming that the outcome of a still running RFC is a forgone conclusion and that this should therefore be reflected in the lead right away. Wikieditor is ad nauseum repeating claims that are rather distant from WP policy, one assumes in an attempt to influence the outcome of the RFC. Having only recently received a logged warning from an admin and asked to dial it back, Wikieditor agreed to do so only to once more engage in provocative editing practices. Trawling the entire page is work but a flavor of what's going on can be found here and here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I really dont want to get in to why the edits are problematic, only why the arguments he is making are fundamentally opposed to our core policies like WP:V. Can an editor repeatedly claim that what is directly quoted from multiple reliable sources is anything but verifiable? Can an editor repeatedly claim that academics writing in the area of their expertise are participants in a dispute and thus are not usable for factual statements? Can an editor repeatedly demand that others prove or disprove the factual statements made by reliable sources? Those are behavioral issues, not content ones. nableezy - 19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that this has nothing at all to do with content.Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

{{{1}}} Striking this for the sake of moving forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • One cannot seriously expect uninvolved editors to spend the necessary time to read and parse all that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, it is a complex issue meant for article discussion. The RfC was opened for some headway. I for one do not care what Nableezy calls me, and I do not care if the RfC determines I (and others) are wrong. What I ask is that the users above -- Selfstudier, Nableezy -- with or without warning, please stop messing with the formatting of the RfC. I have seen:
  • Users merge discussions into the vote section, making it impossible to sift through
  • Users hide some sources and delete subheaders from the ToC, and then highlight other favored ones
  • Users argue under votes and counter every argument until the vote thread is totally disrupted
If we're going to make any progress, this behavior has to stop. Clearly Nableezy and I, or Levivich and Nableezy, or anyone, are not guaranteed to reach a compromise. The RfC can help that process where the breakdown fails elsewhere, but only if it's allowed to proceed. So please, I don't care about sanctions, warning, or tit-for-tat -- just stop with these changes over formatting. I've done my best to organize it in a manner that gives everyone a fair shot. Assume good faith and try to do the same. If we can accomplish that, and the RfC proceeds to completion, then I think this will resolve itself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to reiterate my long-held belief that it is nearly always a bad idea to launch an WP:ARBPIA complaint at ANI as opposed to at WP:AE. But, for my part, for once, I'm not going to touch this and am going to let it otherwise play out. But I'm pretty sure it's gonna end up being a timesink —not due to the case's merits or lack thereof (of which I simply do not know enough about to comment further on)— if it hasn't become one already (likely). To sum up, for the most part, ARBPIA + threaded discussion + no word limit = fail. El_C 23:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not file the report here but I could have done so and I did think about it. It says at the top of the page that "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Well, it's obviously not urgent. And my past interactions with Wikieditor inform me that his behavior is not in any way out of the usual for him. Not that I blame anyone for not wanting to trawl that page (and there is more in the archive) and if time does not permit that then might as well just close this and be done with it.Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree nothing will come of this now, which is unfortunate. An editor has repeatedly made a mockery of our policies, but because it touches on content the conduct is being ignored. Just like every other instance of Wikieditor19920 relentlessly bludgeoning discussions with nonsensical arguments, this one will be ignored. Hooray for Wikipedia. I didnt file on AE as I was here asking for a wider remedy as I think Wikieditor19920 has demonstrated across topic areas that he is unable to edit according to our base policies. nableezy - 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you just allow this to conclude without the polemics and accept that differing opinions are permitted. I really have nothing else to add other than my request to stop messing with the RfC format. It's continuing to attract opinions from a broader audience, and hopefully that's a good thing if I'm wrong on the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Dubious edits on Melanin theory by User[edit]

null, self close JJNito197 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)​ 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User involved- User:Sangdeboeuf

Hello, before I start my position is completly NEUTRAL on wikipedia, I follow the guidelines and have never been blocked or vandalised anything.

This article came to my attention Melanin theory one day and I thought it was interesting, albeit sad. I revisited this article one day and @Sangdeboeuf: had cleared it up, [183] however she seemed to placate the the fact that this is a racist theory under the jurisdiction of WP:IMPARTIAL and re-edited to say how it is 'described' as being racist, which could be construed as a deviation from truth, and is not commonplace around other articles on Nazi racism and other such racist topics. I wouldn't have a problem with this soley, but after viewing said editors other overtly political contributions, I was clearly intrigued. I intervened [184] and was rebuked. [185]

After this, this user included a rather academic and poignant quote from Psychiatrist 'Frances Cress Welsing', I intervened [186] noting that she is a black supremacist and she was giving academic credence to a her without giving context, this was interestingly left out by the users edits. After I called up the user on this she left it on the page, only to remove it in later edits after arduous editing fetching quotes from proponents of said racist theory.[187]

Sangdeboeuf in later edits [188], after reverting my edits, capatilized the B in black which the user said was normal in 'US orientated topics'. This capitalization of B is problematic, this article is on english wikipedia and encompasses all english speaking countries, all which hosts 'black people' who fall prey to this scientific racism, it is not just US specific. This interference is not mandated in wiki per [189]. After doing so Sangdeboeuf wrote on my talk page how I was clearly interested strongly in politics [190] and in a manner of speaking, reprimanded me formally, which couldn't be further from the truth. All I was doing, and ever do, was making the article NEUTRAL, upholding the tenets of wikipedia.

I left it at that for a few months. I have returned to the article and have seen that this user has requested FURTHER information on why this is considered racist, but we know this is racist by the very definition of the word(!!!). This leads me on to believe that this user is acting in a way that is unprofessional on wikipedia, not neutral and is trying to push a certain viewpoint, which this user is doing successfully unimpeded under the guise of neutrality. I ask for someone to intervene as this user will no doubt revert these edits and throw a couple wiki policy tenets in my face. This seems to be a problem that some users can become accredited zealots and continue pushing views under the protections of the policy guidlines on wiki, impededing contributions from others.

None of what I have said is a direct attack on this user, but how I view the situation. I will not be dissuaded by people donning administrator powers and will continue striving for NEUTRALITY. JJNito197 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf is not an admin. The fact that you and Sangdeboeuf disagree on whether or not to capitalize the B in "Black" is not a matter needing administrative attention. Asking for sources for a claim in an article is standard operating procedure. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute and I suggest you self-close this and open a thread on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof Changed to User and it was not soley about that if you actually read what I wrote. This user at hand has already reverted all my edits and I am requesting further help, this is more about the users activity than that article. JJNito197 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
JJNito197, you need to notify Sangdeboeuf about this discussion. See the instructions in the red box at the top of this page. Also, diffs would be helpful to know what (if any) chronic, intractable behavioral problems are at play here. See WP:DIFF. This looks like a content dispute to me as well, but it's impossible to say without actually knowing what was changed. Woodroar (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Woodroar I have included the DIFFs now, it might also help if you look at the log for that page for the bigger picture JJNito197 (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
JJNito197, I'm only seeing 3 diffs: you fixing a typo, Sangdeboeuf reverting you once, and the same diff of you fixing a typo. The rest of your links are to old revisions of pages, which doesn't tell us anything. Look, I'll put this bluntly: we're all volunteers here and we're not mind-readers, so if an editor has "chronic, intractable behavioral problems"—which is what ANI is for—then you need to show us clearly and concisely. You can't expect everyone else to go digging for it, especially when we don't know what to go digging for.
Beyond that, I strongly suggest taking this to Talk:Melanin theory. This looks like an average, ordinary content dispute, with some added differing interpretations about sourcing and the manual of style. The article's talk page is still the first place to have that discussion, and then maybe some method of dispute resolution if you can't find a consensus there. Nothing about this says behavioral problem. Woodroar (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Woodroar okay I will do and if the problem continues, I will take it up through dispute resolution, regards JJNito197 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar, Beyond My Ken I would have gone to dispute this, but my qualms aren't with this article per say its with this user and how this user is operating. Would a content dispute stop this users behaviour or would it simply stop that users interference with that article. If that user continues operating that way unimpeded the content dispute wont stop anything? I have notified that user by the ping do I need to do that on her talkpage JJNito197 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to use a ping to notify a user that you've filed an AN/I report. Please read the top of this page: you must post a notice on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken Okay thanks, have now done. JJNito197 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion[edit]

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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))

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)

  • Per this discussion, if Mztourist is only conducting redirects/merges for ship namesakes as we only know about these people in relation to the ships, they have the consensus to do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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: [[191]] 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: [192] 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)

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)
  • I participated in a number of these AfDs [193] and they were overwhelmingly merge/redirect. They have a clear consensus to merge or redirect without creating endless AfDs. I agree with Black Kite assessment, so I won't repeat it. There is also a clear consensus that having a ship named after you is not enough to establish notability in the absense of SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Merging or redirecting an article does not delete it, the article history is still there and it can be improved without any problems if someone can find sources. Mztourist is doing good work.  // Timothy :: talk  04:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)
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)
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)


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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • @GreenC: Please see WP:PAGEDECIDE. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Okay then. So, that's zero answers and lotsa rudeness... I think we're done here. - wolf 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • Merging in this situation seems entirely reasonable to me. If anyone wants to source a proper biography, then a redirect can be converted into a stand-alone article. Unclear why this at ANI in the first place. But the "Massive Attack" reference was good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Request for closure[edit]

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)

I deny the accusation. Nothing to see here. 7&6=thirteen () 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
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 ([194], [195]). Here we are again: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. ——Serial 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow, certainly looks like an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
@Ritchie333: Indeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — The "massive attack" reference [196] is nothing new [197]. In October (months after the last ANI linked above), I posted to ARS's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Attacking AFD nominators on the ARS page) about previous comments (there was no response), including yet another "massive attack" reference [198] and this comment about a closer. It's got to stop. Levivich harass/hound 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support closure - There's nothing really actionable here, IMO. Although I do support warning ARS to stop hounding good-faith AFD nominations. It's not a "massive attack" to merge or AFD questionably-notable articles in a responsible way. I'm still in somewhat a state of shock to see ARS compare an AFD to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. And I've seen several spots there lately where users who nominate articles for deletion get accused of trolling, which is borderline personal attack. Let's all move on, stop the name calling, and keep it in the top three segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. And let's close this AFD soon, as I don't think anything productive is going to come from much more discussion of this matter in this setting. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support warning for the OP, User:7&6=thirteen. The Aug 2020 discussion did not result in sanctions (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Proposal:_Topic_ban), which was appropriate at the time, but the lessons do not appear to have been learned. A formal warning in this situation is needed to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding: I've not noticed this comment before: Troll. Go do likewise, and sin no more., with edit summary "