Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy

• BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Des Vallee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Per Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:TPG, I am qualifying that this was added long after the fact (on Jan 15) by Vincentvikram (diff), even though this report was originally filed on Dec 31 by Des Vallee themselves. El_C 19:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I found a diff from much earlier (9 Jan) and I think the tag was added just a few days after the discussions started. [1] Vikram Vincent 04:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR on BunnyyHop's soap-boxing behavior

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

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

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

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

Removal of properly sourced content:

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

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

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

Example 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example 5: Marxist-Leninism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of quotes to give a soapbox to Marxist-Leninists

Example 1: Marxist-Leninism

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

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

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

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

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

Example 10 More Soapboxing for the PCP:

Edit Warring

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

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

On Marxist-Leninism, Various reasons mostly POV pushing sections

(Diffs of the user's reverts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll deal with these one by one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6- Not backed by source after verification

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

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

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

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

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

• Topic ban from politics or block indefinitely. Bunnyyhop is an WP:SPA who engages in tendentious editing. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to advocate for the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist POV (compare WP:NONAZIS to see how I and many other editors feel about pushers of another totalitarian ideology). TFD/The Four Deuces, who downplays the problem above, has been heavily active for a long time at Talk:Marxism–Leninism and is not an unbiased observer. I have only stepped into the topic very recently and saw right off the problem of Bunnyyhop's editing. That Des Vallee's report is not perfect does not matter (and getting the length of these right is very hard anyway - too short and people say there's not enough evidence to take action). I will add this diff [2] as a representative example of their tendentiousness and POV pushing. They changed "As the only legal vanguard party it decided almost all policies" to "the vanguard party that guided the establishment and development of socialism"; "Tiananmen Square massacre that stopped the revolts by force" to "Tiananmen Square protests that stopped the revolts by force" (which is not only POV but also makes no sense - the protests were the revolts); and removed "anti-religious". What TimothyBlue testified regarding this user's editing [3] is also highly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossroads, I don't think that being "heavily active for a long time" in the discussion page makes me biased. In fact I only joined the discussion in October. Incidentally, I notice you were canvassed to join this discussion.[4] When other editors have improperly canvassed me to join I discussion, I have always recused myself. I suggest that editors ignore your comments on the basis that you were improperly canvassed. TFD (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [5] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE. How did you find this discussion? Your accusation is baseless and does not help your case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I will be very clear about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Proposal

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

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

• Support: as proposed.   // Timothy :: talk  21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support strongly per the evidence and reasoning above. A complete net negative to the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support This editor is a determined POV pusher. The topic ban should be indefinite and broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above, especially Crossroad's comments. — Czello 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - based numerous edits like that [7], [8], [9], discussions like here and persistent edit warring and disruption to keep "his versions". This subject area already has a number of leftist pro-Communist pro-Soviet POV-pushers. We do not need more. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Commment: I missed this and am glad My very best wishes pointed it out. I had been struggling to AGF regarding their attitude towards the Red Terror and Cheka, and that pushes my good faith past the breaking point. This inexcusable edit combined with the other issues here merits adding a site ban.   // Timothy :: talk  04:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose As I said above, this appears to me to be a content dispute and I don't see any difference between the editing of the complainant and the respondent. In fact Des Vallee received 3 blocks in November including one for biased editing on U.S. politics and a block on editing an anarchism related article.[11] Also, I would reject it because of improper canvassing. Crossroads wrote above, "That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [12] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE." [13][20:44, 31 December 2020] In fact APPNOTE allows the notification of "uninvolved" editors. CANVASS clearly prohibits selective notification of editors based on how they are likely to vote. Since this article comes under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, I recommend that we post the notification to the article and follow up any disruption through Arbitration Enforcement. TFD (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said above, TFD is taking "uninvolved" out of context. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying Editors who have asked to be kept informed. If this isn't a case of that, then what is? I would have just watched Bunnyyhop's talk page anyway. And TFD is far more "involved" in this topic than me, as is Davide King who posts below. TFD's whataboutism and irrelevant "poisoning the well" about Des Vallee is completely irrelevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I encourage anyone reading your reply to read WP:APPNOTE and determine what it means. One of the reasons for sanctions on Eastern European related articles is canvassing: "While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive." (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Final Decision. You were IIRCMy very best wishes was one of the parties to the case.) In particular, editors had worked together to get editors blocked when they had content disputes. It is clear that if informed of this discussion that you would vote for sanctions against Bunnyyhop. TFD (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      • What!? I wasn't even editing at the time of that case! Stop trying to discredit me with nonsensical arguments and falsehoods. APPNOTE is very clear about the ping I requested and I would have made sure I knew about this report no matter what. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I recalled incorrectly. It was My Very Best Wishes under one of their previous names. In any case you read the case to see why canvassing other editors to get another editor blocked is disruptive. (Incidentally, in cases where it is appropriate to contact other editors, it is still considered canvassing, but not inappropriate canvassing. So let's stop with the arguments about whether it was canvassing and concentrate on whether it was appropriate.) TFD (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD. However, before I go to explain my reasoning, as I wrote here, I suggest that BunnyyHop refrain from editing these political-related articles, as a sign of good faith, and write drafts, sandboxs and discuss on the talk page their proposed changes and edits, gaining consensus for them. If they are a sockpuppett, that can be investigated. However, I agree that this is a content dispute. I would note that Des Vallee also engaged in violations of due weight, original research and synthesis to push their anarchist POVs; I do not think either should be banned because with more experience and time they are going to better understand our policies and guidelines. Finally, context is important. Communist-related articles are one of the most controversial and indeed the academic field is one of the most conflictual, controversial and politicised fields in academia.
  • There is indeed a double standard, which take as fact that Communism was equal or even worse than Nazism, something that is not actually supported by the vast majority of experts. It is simply assumed and taken for granted that sources and scholars agree that ideology alone, not just Bolshevism but communism itself of which Bolshevism was the natural and inevitable result, was to blame. This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism, so they are not in their articles because they fail weight, and there is nothing I can do about it, although an article about a link between capitalism/liberalism and the events could be made. Going back to Marxism–Leninism, I would argue they also fail weight for this article; as written here by Czar, it is supposed to be about the ideology, not anything that Communist leaders and states did. We already have a bunch of other articles, perhaps too many and coatracked, for that.
  • In conclusion, if Crossroads rightly warning me about canvassing, I do not see how this was not canvassing, so I agree with TFD on this point too and also of applying the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. For the record, I am pro-European Union, anti-Putin, anti-Trump, anti-Stalinism. I simply believe one can oppose Communist leaders without being an anti-communist or adopting anti-communism, which is not any opposition to communism but an extreme opposition to communism, which usually conflates communism and Stalinism; the same way anti-fascist does not just mean anyone who is not a fascist but one who is actively opposed to it. I do not see how any of these are extreme views.
  • If you are curious about my views of Communist states, I think the following comment by TFD here is what I hold too. "I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise." I do not hold the view Communism and Nazism were equal, nor I believe in the double genocide theory. I think Nazism was the worst and Communism had more in common with 19th-century capitalism and liberalism. In other ways, both Communism and 19th-century liberalism had similarities with Nazism. 19th-century Western racism and white supremacism was a precursor of Nazi racism, but Nazism was still the greatest evil. I always found curious how those who hold Communism and Nazism as equal do not hold the theory of red fascism, or that both were fascism, but that they were totalitarian. If everything the anti-communist scholars about Communist states is true, I do not see how they can even be considered communists, as if they are right, they were much more similar to fascists and Nazis. Yet, instead of coming to this obvious conclusion, they both group and separate the two, so as to blame small-communism, socialism and the broad left, for Communism and Nazism were the inevitable results of them. Whatever one think of this, these are not exactly my views, since I simply came to held these from reading on the topics and what legitimate academics and scholars have written, the same way I usually but not always take the academic and scholarly consensus on other issues and topics. I do not see any of these views of mine as extreme or fringe. If they are, it should be very easy to prove.
• Davide King (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• My final comment: This [14] and the follow up here [15], plus this and this elevate the seriousness of these POV edits. This is going down a very bad path.   // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A new topic was opened in Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour. For the last diff, one has to look at TFD's comment. After looking at the «cultural genocide» citation on the current article, I opened a new topic on the Talk:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#Cultural_Genocide. The removal of a journalist's opinion from a WP:BLP stated as fact is POV pushing? BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support BunnyHop is clearly here to push a POV, and isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as demonstrated by the vast amount of diffs provided by Des Vallee. Also, I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology, but either way, POV pushing cannot be tolerated no matter what the POV is. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just another political content dispute. I see, however, that this ANI report crosses the line on political discrimination. First, a supposed (and unproven) political affiliation is used as a one of the points justifying a block (note this is not a COI dispute). A supposed (and unproven) political affiliation to a party that is legal and with parliamentary representation in Portugal and the European Union. Not that this matter for the main jurisdiction of Wikipedia, since discrimination against communists is codified in US law, but a lot of us are used to live in countries where this kind of discrimination is illegal (not a legal threat: I know this has no standing in the US). --MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Des Vallee, listen to Timothy. Even reporters have no immunity, regardless an editor spotted you and a few who is opposing sanctions agains Bunnyhoop are supporting, just let it go. The reviewing admin likely will check everything, so you don't have to be afraid or desperately prove your innocence, do not feed anyone to draw away the attention of the real issue of this thread. For every neutral reviewer is clear there have been serious problems with Bunnyhoop since his/her appearance in WP, and of course you do not even approach such problems like the reported user. I think Timothy has been a bit harsh with you in his previous comment, but if he wanted to scare you :), the earlier the better. Just drop the stick, and let admins wo work, they have already enough information. I can assure/reinforce anyway, shall anything you did in the past and anyone blame for you that for now, I consider you are recently a decent, collaborative editor, at least this is my experience in the recent months. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC))
• Comment Des Vallee, I will double back by saying listen to KIENGIR. I was harsh in my tone, and I apologize. I agree with KIENGIR, you are a good, collaborative editor. One thing I have learned at ANI and on talk is use the minimum number of words possible to make your point; once made let the quality of your arguement, not your tenacity and word count, make the point.   // Timothy :: talk  01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and also support restriction for anyone engaged with the BunnyHop in any similar conduct, should it exist. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Additional information: See [16] regarding the removal of information regarding the genocide of the Crimean Tartars. I have reverted the edit and added refs.   // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In your edit (diff above) you removed all criticism and everything about well sourced practices/implementations of this ideology. Instead, you included essentially an advertisment/propaganda like "As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality", "it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation", etc. "Science"? I am sorry, but Leninism is a pseudoscience [17] just like Lysenkoism, in addition to being an ideology and practices. Consider someone removing two last paragraphs from the lead of page Nazism and replacing it by an advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh no. This is old diff. I recently had a discussion with BH here [18], and he did not show any signs of that. He is making sure that the last word in each discussion is "his", and in that example insists that the forced labor has nothing to do with slavery This is contrary to sources. The Unfree labour is a part of a series on Slavery according the template on the page - correctly. An why did he waste our time? Because he wants to exclude any mentioning of Gulag on page Slavery. Why? Becase of his political views, and I would rather not define what they are. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Just because some editor disagrees with you does not mean their editing is tendentious. You not assuming good faith blocks you from realizing that there's no reason to include penal labour in the article, not assuming good faith drives one to unreasonably fight what they perceive as «tendentiousness» or a «tendentiousness editor». --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, an editor disagreing with me does not mean their editing is tendentious. However, if many different contributors disagree with editor X (you, me, whoever) for a prolonged period of time, and that results in very long discussions on multiple article talk pages and here on the WP:ANI (this is beyonf tl;dr), then the editing by contributor X does qualify as WP:TE, and a topic ban is in order. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support; I think that people of all political persuasions ought to be welcomed on Wikipedia, and I'm willing to accept that diffs can be taken out of context to make someone look bad, but this is too many for it to be an accident. While any well-meaning person who edits political articles can be forgiven for occasionally slipping up and writing something a little slanted, this seems more like a deliberate, constant attempt to spin content in a disingenuous way. jp×g 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Possible socking: Today I saw this edit [19] and this edit [20] from an account named AxderWraith Crimson. Very similar to Bunnyhop's MO for POV pushing; edit summary and talk page comments sound very much like things BH has said.

I checked the account history. This was their first edit [21], the edit summary is very unusual for a new user.

About an hour after they created their account, AxderWraith Crimson post's this to BH's userpage [22].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose — This thread goes waaay further than TL;DNR. The original complaint is a guarantee that resolution is not going to be found here. The incessant tit-for-tat among the principals blocks the possibility of progress here. My idea of a workable solution is a one edit per day limit for each of the major actors in this contretemps for each article on which they conflict (self-imposed). Wikipedia editors are expected to put energy into reaching consensus—not compel other editors to solve their conflicts. This is a squabble over content with plenty of suboptimal behavior all around. — Neonorange (Phil) 21:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support The amount of disruption this user is causing is tremendous. The removal of well-sourced content is unacceptable in my opinion. I see no reason to believe that this editor will change their behavior once this thread closes. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a sidenote. I found completely biased the description given here to each diff, and I'm surprised such is even allowed - there was absolutely no intention of portraying my point of view, only to (falsely) portray me as a vandal. On the first one, there was no mention of the discussion in the talk page Talk:Marxism–Leninism#Twelfth_break, where I further detail how this was complete original research and how there was a manipulation of the citation given, after I requested it from Des Vallee. On the second one, it's a complete appeal to anticommunists who have the preconception that they indeed were, so no reliable sources need to be cited - one might check the link and see that the «works» cited are: the constitution of the German Democratic Republic and one work about religion in Russia and China. The third one is also blatant defamation - one should just open the diff and check that the reason was that «Yahoo is not a reliable source». Colleagues, why does one set the reliability bar to Yahoo! and claim it's «source content»?

On the fourth one, please check the edit summaries and what I opened in Talk:Execution_van#Repeated_phrase. The scope of the article is not Capital punishment in China, yet currently it occupies most of the article's lead. Fifth - within the scope of a long discussion in Talk:Marxism–Leninism, and I was correctly punished for edit warring. The 6th one, one must really check what I wrote in the edit summaries - which was completely ignored by this user. Sixth - Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour and Talk:Slavery#Soviet_Union. Seventh - was not fit to be in the lead, since Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism, and WP:RSUW. If this was to be introduced in the respective article, it would have to be within a category of the equivalency between it and fascism, where there's the fair representation of all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Colleagues, is it not POV pushing to drop the term Red fascism in the lead, which has obviously strong connotation, in the Marxism-Leninism article (notice the purposeful conflation between Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism), outside the discussion seen in the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism article? He who tries to obey Wikipedia's guidelines will automatically realize that this was an attempt to push a POV. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• You say: "since Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism". Yes, that is exactly your problem. You should simply check any good tertiary source on the subject like "A Dictionary of 20th-Century Communism" by Silvio Pons and ‎Robert Service by Princeton University Press. Page 781, article "Stalinism", and it tells that "The ideology and practice of the regime might be identified as Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism", etc. It also tells that "Stalin introduced certain ideological innovations", etc. Yes, sure. But this is the same continuous line of descent of similar ideologies leading up to North Korea [23], according to most RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• A followup to this question was brought up in this user's talk page, for anyone interested. Diff --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Once again, the lead of our page Marxism–Leninism correctly (i.e. in accordance with academic publicatios mentined above) tells that "As an ideology and practice, it was developed further by Joseph Stalin in the 1920s based on his understanding and synthesis of orthodox Marxism and Leninism" [the key word is "further"], and "With the death of Stalin and de-Stalinisation, Marxism–Leninism underwent several revisions and adaptations such as Guevarism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, Hoxhaism, Maoism, socialism with Chinese characteristics and Titoism". You persistently argue this should not be included, which I think qualify as WP:TE and POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ironically, the academic source states used in that sentence states: «Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) further refined communist ideology into a system known as Stalinism». There are plently other sources in the article itself that state what Marxism-Leninism is: «the interpretation of Marxism by Vladimir Lenin and his successors». Also, the second quotation is taken from an editor's perspective, «underwent several revisions (especially this word) and adaptations» is not a referenced phrase. One might now ask «why hasn't the lead been altered then?», to which I would reply: Good question. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• BunnyyHop I would advice for you not try to post walls of texts attempting to obsecure your actions. You tried to add this to the page Marxism-Leninism, everyone can see through your the definition of a soapboxer.

• "As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Bolshevik Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism." Des Vallee (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism:
  • WP:ANI is being used to discuss content rather than the issue of behaviour and I can see four-five editors from the Marxist project creating walls of text here by responding to each and every point that other editors make here so the problem is not simply BH but the four others as well.
  • The editors are having differences of opinion on whether theory should be mixed with implementation. Examples of implementation are being given and being used to argue failures or problems with theory, which are basically strawman arguments. A mediator would be required to discuss this fundamental problem of separating theory and practice.WP:DRN
  • The sources being used by certain editors are highly biased versions of capitalist notions of the Marxian concepts and hence there are other venues to discuss on how much weight should be given to a particular source.
  • The same set of diffs are being rehashed multiple times to make arguments. The issues needs to be looked at as a whole rather than simply a set of diffs which can present widely varying results. While one can get overwhelmed it also means that all the editors already involved on the ML project group need to PLEASE stop posting for some time and go drink your favourite beverage. While many editors have voted, I think this "conflict" requires a relook from the ground up from the perspective of content. Vikram Vincent 05:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

All of BunnyyHop's edits break rules on neutrality. That's removing correctly cited information, defending psedue science, denying genocides or massacres, blanking content and disruptive edits. Putting in text that states "independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades" is simply POV editing. Des Vallee (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Des Vallee for giving a good example of how you and a few other editors try to WP:BLUDGEON a discussion. You have repeated your argument so many times that you have actually become a nuisance yourself. Vikram Vincent 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain how to put this in a proper way on the talkpage or whathaveyou, (I do not know of any guide on how to post on admin boards) but I would like the ability to defend myself, because I was accused here of being a sockpuppet and the people doing it didn't even use the ping mechanic thing! Now that that's out of the way, I'd just like to clarify that I am not a sockpuppet, alright? I was eventually driven to create an account on account of me and my friends reading about this very discussion, and because I figured it'd allow me to better contribute to the Wikipedia project, not to be a puppet of someone. I cordially assure you all, especially my accusers here in this thread, that I am not a sockpuppet. Having similar interests isn't the same as being the same. AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Saflieni

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

---

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

Saflieni is disruptive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These repeated attempts to paint me into a corner are pure harrassment. HoC and Buidhe have taken turns to delete and revert my edit, one of the last remaining, to dodge 3RR.[24][25][26] Digging up old diffs and quoting me out of context? Please. Saflieni (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• The resumption by HoC and Buidhe of edit warring to get rid of my edits, even the old ones, and the continued posting of insults against scholars and me personally ...the posting of suggestive edit summaries accusing me of dishonesty, etc. I'm curious to learn what else the arbitrators expected would happen after handing them a free pass[27]
• They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule.[28]
• Please feel free to look at my edit summaries to see which ones are "suggestive" or accuse Saflieni of dishonesty. And feel free to compare Saflieni's edit summaries.HouseOfChange (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Detailed response by Saflieni:

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

• HoC says: Salfieni ignores our policy concerns. However, I followed the WP:NPOV guidelines. HoC doesn't agree with a brief content summary I made according to RS and the author herself. HoC and Buidhe for some reason only known to them do not want to give the aspects I mentioned a place in the article. Because they can't argue with RS, they either dismiss them as "anti-Rever militants" or worse [29], or they accuse me of biased editing and start dissecting every phrase, demanding that an exact match of the phrase must be somewhere in the book. So this is not about a "new analysis" or "synthesis" or ignoring a policy at all. My only "sin" here is to fairly represent the book's content based on ... carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
• HoC says: Saflieni is defensive about "his" edits and contemptuous of criticism. This refers to an old dispute where they falsely accused me of deliberately misquoting the literature. I have explained the truth of the matter several times in a civil tone, such as here: [30] and have invited others to check for themselves. However, this behaviour is more contemptuous: When HoC realizes they can't "win" a debate they respond by attacking scholars and dismissing my patient and careful explanations as: you've explained your reasons for not caring, so perhaps we are done here. [31]
• HoC says: But Saflieni does not want the article to mention RPF crimes. This is the type of framing they use all the time. The truth is that I have asked HoC several times to note that nobody contests RPF crimes, not the scholars I cite, nor me personally.[32][33] However, there's a difference between acknowledging the fact that criminal acts happened and quoting "guilty" verdicts against individuals or groups who have not been convicted by a court of law.
• HoC says: He insists that The main topic of the book is double genocide. More framing. Most subject matter experts regard the book as an indictment intended to prove a second genocide (making it a double genocide theory). It doesn't matter what I think about it. According to WP:DUE We have to represent the majority view of RS in this matter: ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
• HoC says: he chose to provide no evidence for his opinion but instead attacked me for requesting evidence. But I did provide evidence, here for instance: [34]. HoC responded to it so he knows. Besides, RS listed by HoC support my argument, not his. I have shown this by quoting directly from one of the articles on HoC's short list (Claudine Vidal) which, by the way, is titled "Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide", but if that's not clear enough I can do the same thing with other RS.
• I could make a list of personal attacks and expressions of sarcasm by HoC and Buidhe on the Talk page as well as in the edit summaries, but just look at tendentious section titles like this one: Caplan's "little doubt that the RPF under President Kagame is indeed guilty of war crimes" is more relevant to this article than disputes about funerary arrangements. Completely disrespectful. They themselves deserve a ban. Saflieni (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban from Rwanda-related articles, if only because maybe then we won't have to come back here again and face these Walls of Text. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies should disclose their personal feelings in this case and on the subject of the book. For awhile I couldn't understand their uncivil outbursts that follow me wherever I go, their false accusations, using words like bullshit while providing diffs that actually contradict their argument [35], until I saw their description of my careful efforts to explain the scholarly literature and improve the article: To see someone shit on that in that way, that's more than a bit hurtful. [36]. Besides incredibly rude, they're not leading by example WP:ADMINCOND, and it's definitely not a neutral approach of the subject.Saflieni (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Saflieni:: Clearly DrMies was upset that, instead of recognizing his efforts to inform himself and provide helpful input, you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources, eg Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification. Also, please re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • My personal feelings? It's a ridiculous amount of butter, but these are the best scones I ever made. I also have strong feelings about Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, and I wish you did. And your "careful edits to explain the scholarly literature"? Pshaw. And now I am here again, explaining for the third time to the ANI audience that you are the problem.

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

• If editors get so upset by the majority view among reliable sources that they resort to insulting main stream scholars and their work, and an editor who wants to give that majority view due weight, there is a bigger problem than my alleged "walls of text". For the record: my arbitration request was not "a stunt" but supported by 25 diffs; evidence of polarizing remarks and insults against scientists, mainly - not an exhaustive list.[37] Saflieni (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've asked HoC to be honest. I'm asking again. This is the notification on HoC's Talk page: Rwandan genocide case request withdrawn by filing party [38] Saflieni (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Please explain to me first why all the bad faith assumptions against me by HoC, Drmies and others are endorsed, and second what good intentions might have been in HoC's suggestive edit? I had just been pointing at my evidence for advocacy. HoC's response post suggests that this evidence was rejected, which is not true. This is all part of the framing I've explained in my detailed response on this page. And while we're on that subject, let me flag this one too: you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources. That's a distortion again. I've asked them to check a specific section in a specific source because Drmies repeatedly accused me of misconduct based on something HoC had posted on the Talk page. I even provided a link to the (open) source. [39]. They never did but continue to accuse me of the same imaginary misconduct whenever they get a chance. Anyone can check this. Unfortunately nobody ever does. Saflieni (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I understand your initial impression, and am even grateful that you took an interest in the case. But since I've explained the context and provided additional evidence I expected that to mean something. WP:GF says This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. I grant that this wasn't the best example, but it's the totality of the evidence that should be taken into consideration. It's all rather one-sided. Btw, HoC is still continuing the argument on their Talk page [40] Saflieni (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• General remark: ANIs are pointless when they're used as a tool by hostile editors to railroad another one, when the defence of the accused is ignored, when evidence is misinterpreted, when relevant Wikipedia guidelines are neglected, when double standards are applied, and some editors come here to condemn me for old offenses that were already punished. I won't respond to any further harrassment on this page.Saflieni (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that Saflieni and HoC were able to resolve the content dispute through the ORN thread. While there were a few comments here and there that could be taken as personal attacks, it's somewhat understandable given the level of animosity on display here, and given that the content dispute appears to have been resolved and there have been no attempts to edit war since this discussion was opened, I think that this may be closed without action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill: Respectfully, this ANI is not about one instance of edit-warring but about the fact that it is sheer torture to try to collaborate with Saflieni. The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. Getting compromise on just one sentence took hours of my time and the help of two other editors. And of course he concludes with another blast of PAs: HoC and Buidhe reported me on ANI over the very issue that we've just solved here, which they wrapped in a bundle of fake facts that nobody is going to verify. If there really is a spirit to cooperate they'd have dropped that case by now. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight in anyone's BATTLEGROUND. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Rosguill while the issue is around content, I still do have concerns about Saflieni being able to work WP:CIVILly with other editors. A detailed examination of the conversations on the article talk page, ANI threads and OR thread show that they tend to use a bully approach with other editors by attacking them personally during content discussions and then tend to use a victim approach when cornered by the community. When this was pointed out to Saflieni they equated it to labelling them a liar. See Special:MobileDiff/1000466500, which is a complete mischaracterisation. A WP:TBAN will be appropriate until Saflieni can spend some time to reflect on their self-defeating approach. Vikram Vincent 07:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Vikram Vincent, In order to clear the air I've invited you and others who accuse me of something to come and discuss peacefully the facts of claims such as a bully approach with other editors by attacking them personally during content discussions and then tend to use a victim approach when cornered by the community.. Instead you come here and just repeat the same accusations. Another one responded by making general assertions about "some editors" to avoid having to examine the evidence and facing the possibility they might be wrong. Another one dismisses every factual explanation as "walls of text" or "bullshit" or "shitting on that" or "who the hell cares" etc. and posts one insult after the other without evidence. Who's bullying? Saflieni (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Saflieni I am no longer interested in mediating as I see no substantial behavioural changes on your part. Kindly don't tag me in any more replies. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 09:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Mediation requires taking the arguments of both sides into consideration. You did that on the OR Noticeboard for which I'm very grateful. But on this case you've made yourself part of the dispute last month. Don't pin that on me please. Once people form an opinion, there never seems to be a way back to reality. No amount of evidence is ever enough to change people's minds.Saflieni (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• NB: It is against Wikipedia policy to post falsehoods and insults about someone else, according to WP:IUC. Untrue statements like: The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. violate that policy. The discussion at NORN did not conclude that I violated WP:SYNTH. The edit-war to remove my contribution from the article [41][42][43], should not be twisted into the opposite story. My contribution was already there, so nobody tried to "insert" it. A good example of wasting everyone's time: pretending that a paraphrased sentence from a peer reviewed article is original research of the editor; that a simple list of two concepts is somehow a newly synthesized thesis; starting an edit war over it; starting an ANI over it; having a lengthy discussion at NORN and then misrepresenting the result. Saflieni (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature. Saflieni has continued to deflect appropriate requests for sources ([44]) and to snipe at HoC ([45] ). I also reviewed the discussion at that talk page in its entirety, and affirm the assessment of other editors that Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. Saflieni has at this point been given more than enough opportunities to bury the hatchet and it seems like a topic ban is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. Vincentvikram: Your repeated accusation of bullying has no evidence. That makes it a personal attack. Besides, read WP:CRYBULLYING please. You refused my offer to discuss the matter peacefully.
2. Robert McClenon's "kindly remarks" (according to HoC) are textbook examples of depersonalizing. That's one step away from dehumanizing. He too did not produce any evidence and refused my offer to discuss the facts of the matter.
3. Rosguill: Your two diffs are not evidence at all. That's misleading. The first diff is me asking HoC why they ask questions that I've already answered many times, latest here: [46]. So your accusation that I deflect requests for sources is a false accusation. The second diff is my response to HoC misrepresenting Claudine Vidal's article, the one I had used as evidence. HoC twisted her information to make it look as though it supports their argument instead of mine. I'm sorry, but that's what HoC specializes in: endless circular discussions, twisting and massaging and inventing facts to push their POV. I don't think that's being cooperative, no.
4. Drmies: You should be ashamed of yourself. Consistently dismissing my contributions and explanations as "walls of text" and "only adding bytes" to make sure everyone knows how worthless you think I am, that nothing I do could ever have any value. Other expression of your demeaning attitude are "bullshit", "shit on that", "who the hell cares", "incessant whining", "gaslighting", and so on, not to mention your evidenceless accusations of misconduct. The worst part of it is that you're an admin in dispute resolution. I'm not claiming innocence to our differences but your routinely jumping to the wrong conclusions and dumping your - pardon my french - merde on me has gone way too far. Just like HoC's persistent attacks against scientists, I can't believe why such hatred is tolerated here on Wikipedia. Saflieni (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

One Editor's Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Saflieni - User:Rosguill said:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

  I respectfully ask the editors who continue to talk about me, rather than with me, even after the closing of the case to stop tracking me. I don't lie. If you believe otherwise you're welcome to my Talk page to discuss the matter peacefully. Saflieni (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Saflieni Your self destructive behaviour is only isolating you into a corner. You have attacked every editor who has tried to work with you, found your behaviour distasteful and discussed your behaviour either with you or at the appropriate forums. There is no rule which says we cannot discuss once a discussion is closed. It only says don't edit a closed discussion. I saw you WP:CANVAS your case and reported back here for clarification. Please use some discipline and either appeal your WP:TBAN at the correct forum or let it be. My good faith advice to you is to just take a break and come back 6-10 months from now and then appeal the ban. And yes, continued antagonism on your part will, unfortunately, lead to a block as well so do tread carefully. Best! Vikram Vincent 08:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I will appeal, I'm just saying that discussing my alleged behaviour without me, ignoring or misrepresenting my side of the story, and soliciting others to impose consequences is uncivil and if I'm not mistaken an example of canvassing too. It's a two way street. Every behavior I've been accused of has been exhibited by the accusers as well. That doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make the accusers right either. I was blocked for using the word "lie", for example, but others can say it without problems. I don't remember any dialogues on equal footing, which is why I'm repeating my offer. Saflieni (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry Saflieni. You please proceed with what you deem fit. Now that the WP:CBAN is in place do note that scrutiny of your actions and words will be higher and not lower than before. Vikram Vincent 11:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind scrutiny. I welcome it as long it's done with the right intentions, without prejudice, and if everyone gets the same treatment.Saflieni (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I requested a Rwanda topic ban at this ANI because I thought it was Saflieni's strong feelings about Rwanda that caused his BATTLEGROUND behavior. The last few days seem to show I was mistaken. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting slogans like his BATTLEGROUND behaviour and suggestive remarks like Saflieni's strong feelings about Rwanda reveal a framing campaign, not good intentions. So do horribly tendentious posts like this one: [47]. "Mistaken" doesn't quite cover it. Saflieni (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Why is Saflieni busy asking editors for proof of his bad attitude after the TBAN is in effect instead of approaching AN? He pinged Robert and See Amantio on their pages and then they gave him this advice which he promptly deleted with an "OMG" summary. Then he comes to my talk page demanding "proof" and to "peacefully discuss the allegations" and then attacks. Vikram Vincent 07:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example is an exchange with Barkeep49 where Barkeep49 suggests a break to get a new perspective and Saflieni attacks with a nasty racial equation. I some how feel that the issue is not simply related to the Rwanda article but personal toxicity at a deeper level. Saflieni this is specific proof I am offering regarding your toxic engagements. Vikram Vincent 07:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of racism on top of all the other unsubstantiated allegations? WP:WIAPA - Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Please stop looking for dirt in my discussions with other editors on their or my Talk pages. Clean up your own first. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh! "Racial equation" and racism are such different phrases but then again... @Saflieni the issue here, at least for me, was we were talking about a single article about a book. It wasn't clear, for me, that this had spread to related articles. When I get to the place you do with an issue, I find a way to step back from it for a time and focus on other things. Sometimes within Wikipedia sometimes outside of it. Then when I'm feeling a bit more relaxed, I often find I can come up with new approaches to the situation or at least a great willingness to take a longer view about the approaches I had been using. I don't know if that will be of any help to but I hope it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC). And the response, Making me the problem again is not very helpful here, no. I am relaxed, had time outs. I don't respond well to dishonesty, but got that under control now. However, I wonder if the community would be okay with this situation if it was about a more familiar but similar topic, for instance: if editors were promoting a book which claims that Jews had infiltrated the SS, were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and had themselves carried out a secret genocide on the side? Well, maybe they would. I've been picking up some strange vibes to tell you the truth.Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC). There! The "racial equation" has been put into context. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is actually a good example of the reason for inviting people to discuss content before jumping to conclusions. You called it a nasty racial equation while I was referring to something very different: the theory in IPOB that Tutsis had infiltrated the extremist Hutu-militias (Interahamwe etc.) and "enemy ranks" (government army) and that these Tutsi infiltrators incited the Hutu-extremists to kill their fellow Tutsis, and had even taken part in the killing themselves. Even Kagame's fiercest critic was appalled by it. The analogy - where I transposed that theory to the Holocaust situation - was meant to clarify that context makes a huge difference here. IPOB is "just a book" (your words) but if such theories were published about the Holocaust, would it still be considered "just a book"? That was my point. I did get "vibes" (not from you) but it was stupid of me to write that down without following up on it so I take it back.

I looked up the edits you were referring to in the text of your post in December where you accused me of bullying. That was a misunderstanding which resulted from judging one side of the debate and not the other. I was actually the one being bullied over two content disputes and in the process I was bombarded with misconduct accusations. In the end I offered a compromise that wasn't accurate to finally see the end of it. However, I made the mistake of using explicit language to define what was happening, and for that I received a block. Saflieni (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

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

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

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

Dinglelingy you didn't "notify" me. And I didn't "accuse" you of being a sockpuppet, but asked you (once) whether you were the same as another user[48] -- it just struck me as odd you appeared from nowhere in the middle of an exchange and seemed to be responding as if continuing that user's conversation. Sometimes new users don't understand that it's problematic having multiple accounts, and have a less thorough grasp of the WP:PAGs, when new, than you evidently did.[49] Anyway, I was happy to accept your response, which you already gave. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is ridiculous.

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

Statement from Britishfinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No response from Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for ScrupulousScribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  And the cycle continues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Oppose for the same reasons that Forich and others have listed. JustStalin (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC) BLOCKED SOCK. Britishfinance (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. The discussion at Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology is a long disput by multiple parties. Pathogens leaking from labs is not "fringe". That had happen a number of times in other labs, including other pathogens in Wuhan. The only question if the Chinese scientists actually had COVID-19 in their lab (they say they did not). This is a new user being engaged in a difficult subject, where others have strong opinions too. Understandably, the user is making mistakes with copyright and other aspects of editing around here. Yes, they are interested in one specific subject and have an opinion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this per se. As about COVID-19 lab leak theory, well, that might be a conspiracy theory, but we have a lot of pages about notable conspiracy theories. This page can be placed to an AfD whenever it is ready. End of story. I would suggest to create another page, Origins of Covid-19 where such controversies could be neutrally covered. Importantly, contrary to assertions by some participants, we do not need WP:MEDRS sources for pages about politics-related conspiracy theories. We would need MEDRS sources only if we wanted to say that the virus was in fact leaked from the lab. But we do not because there is no such evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Using WP:MEDRS as a cudgel to exclude non-medical claims is a bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support The draft article ScrupulousScribe created gives far more credence to the Lab Leak theory than reliable sources do, where it has been relegated to fringe. The statement in the lead is a clear violation of weight: "Some scientists, have said that the possibility of a lab leak is unlikely." In fact the consensus is that it is very unlikely if not totally ruled out. This approach inevitably leads to conflict. Until they are willing to accept Wikipedia policy, they cannot contribute constructively, at least on this topic. TFD (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Have you read the recent threads at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology (still ongoing)? —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Here are last comments by ScrupulousScribe. Frustration aside, I do not see anything really problematic. Para #1. Peter Daszak does not object to WHO or any other investigations, and he does has a conflict of interest here. The Wuhan lab was indeed partly funded by US. He is right. Para #2. Yes, MEDRS is not applicable to non-medical claims (this controversy is not even scientific; this is merely a question of what people in the lab actually did). He is right. Para #3. Yes, this is an official claim by US government, and it can be cited. He is right. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support; their edit history strongly suggests they're here solely to push a particular fringe theory, and while editors above suggest they may improve or invoke WP:ROPE, there's no particular indication that that basic goal is going to change, which raises WP:NOTHERE concerns. If they are genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, or if they're just a new user grappling by our policies, then they would be better off taking an enforced break from that topic and contributing elsewhere; they can always appeal later after they've learned more and demonstrated that they're not here just to push one conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with others that ScrupulousScribe seems too focused on pushing a fringe conspiracy theory. And their replies here suggest that even after the comments here, they still don't get why their editing is a problem. Unfortunately then, the only option is to keep them out. Hopefully if they gain more experience in areas they don't feel so strongly about, their will learn how to edit here and how to handle it when your views are not supported by the sources, and will one day be able to successfully appeal their topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• But this is not a fringe conspiracy theory. For example, David Relman (who is an expert) described "several potential origin scenarios" in PNAS, such as "SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally." and another is even worse. He tells: "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts. Just because there are no public reports of more immediate, proximal ancestors in natural hosts, doesn’t mean that these ancestors don’t exist in natural hosts or that COVID-19 didn’t began as a spillover event. Nor does it mean that they have not been recovered and studied, or deliberately recombined in a laboratory." And so on. And this just one of many sources claiming this is possible, although yes, unproven, in the absence of proper studies and independent investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support – per Johnuniq. A block is overdue. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No longer a fringe theory. While there are reasons for thinking this was not a lab leak from the high security lab in Wuhan, there are also indicators that are at the very least concomitant with in vivo lab research. It is important that we have non-orthodox voices in the community, provided they abide by community norms, which seems to be the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Oppose. This is clearly among the most contentious topics on Wikipedia; the New York Times is writing articles about how we're defending the truth from subversive elements, and I'm sure everyone here is cognizant of the possibility that these very comments are going to make it into a thinkpiece about Wikipedia governance. That said, I think it's important to stay on topic; while I don't know whether the claim that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by accidental release from a virology lab is true or not (it seems unlikely to me), I'm not sure that this is 100% relevant to whether the person here gets topic-banned. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

• Information that is not true. There are a few categories of how true something is, ranging from obviously true per every RS ("the Earth goes around the Sun"), controversial but knowable ("being vegetarian is more healthy than eating meat"), inherently subjective ("Led Zeppelin is better than Pink Floyd"), and obviously false ("COVID-19 is caused by 5G equipment", "Bill Gates is putting microchips in the COVID vaccines"). Obviously, while we can mention that some people say these things, it is crucial to our role as encyclopedia editors to avoid saying, or implying, they are true. Their falsehood is well-supported by all available evidence, and there is no credible source that says they could even potentially be the case. In this scenario, I think it would be absurd to let someone edit articles to say so.
• Information with harmful implications. I don't think it is within the purview of our role, as encyclopedia editors, to remove content solely because it could hypothetically cause people to hold false beliefs. Guidelines, policies and consensus do not support this interpretation: for example, we have well-documented factual articles about the environmental impact of aviation, despite the fact that some people may use this as a basis for claiming the chemtrail conspiracy theory is true. We have well-documented factual articles about the Watergate scandal, COINTELPRO and Jeffrey Epstein, despite the fact that some people may use this as a basis for claiming intricate pederast conspiracies within the United States federal government. True statements which can cause people to distrust authority ("an investigatory committee found that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was made worse by TEPCO's half-assed safety protocols") are not removed on this basis.

This brings us to the current issue, in which people have brought up a variety of rationales for why writing a draft article about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should justify topic-banning its creator. One is that the information is simply too harmful to document. I don't buy this: the origin of the virus does not, to me, seem to in any way affect what actions people take about it. On WP:RSN, I pointed out that finding irrefutable evidence that little green men brought the coronavirus from Neptune would not have any effect on whether I should wash my hands or wear a mask or avoid attending crowded indoor restaurants. The only argument I have heard on this basis is that it could cause people to distrust authorities, which I don't think justifies a topic ban.

Another argument against this information's inclusion is that it's been conclusively proven untrue. There are a lot of sources that seem to say different things. Reviewing all available literature would be prohibitively time-consuming, so I don't have a very strongly-held opinion on this. Certainly, if an overwhelming majority of reliable sources say it's a complete crock, our article about it should say that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources say it's a complete crock (as we do for the "Elvis is alive" hypothesis). If our article suggests that a total crock is true, it should be edited to say otherwise, and if it cannot be edited to say otherwise, it should be deleted. I do not think that merely being incorrect about something justifies a topic ban. :That said, I'm sure that additional research will be done, and we will have a confident answer fairly soon on whether this is a total crock or not: the balance of evidence will be overwhelmingly in favor of one model, and reliable sources will say so. At that point, it would certainly be disingenuous to claim otherwise. Until then, however, I'm not conviced it is our role to decide what they say.

Note that, as with my other comments on this issue, what I'm saying here is based on having read what people have had to say in the discussions above; if someone can make a convincing case that my thesis is in error, or bring to my attention some important thing I've forgotten to take into account, I will happily change my opinion. jp×g 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The above appears to suppose that writing a draft or acknowledging the possibility of a leak would be the reason various editors support a topic ban, when it is more behavioral, including persistent promotion, using source misrepresentation, repetitive arguments, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is my naïvete showing (since I have never had an AN/I thread made about me nor had an article nominated for deletion), but "misrepresenting sources" seems like a content disagreement; and wouldn't anyone argue "repetitively" if they were engaging with a dozen different people making broadly similar points about why they shouldn't be allowed to edit an article? jp×g 10:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) Strong support. For almost a year now, WIV etc. have been bombarded by "new", persistent editors pushing the lab leak scenario. These talk page discussions take up enormous amounts of time because they inevitably devolve into arguments over whether or not MEDRS applies to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, despite the thousands of kilobytes other editors have spent explaining why MEDRS obviously applies. The walls of text demanding we read whatever misrepresented non-compliant article they (plural "they") are trying to insert and insisting all the veteran editors just don't understand the sourcing policies do start to blend together, so I can see why some socking allegations have been made over the last few months. It's not the fault of an accused new editor that their debate style and singular focus resemble that of past blocked accounts, but it's also exhausting to AGF when like the ninth brand-new editor shows up having leapt straight from personalizing their userpage to arguing policy on Talk pages. Like others have said, the issue in this (and previous) cases hasn't been the content being pushed or the quality of the editor's argument per se, but rather the unrelenting IDHT-style refusal to drop the stick. Bludgeoning other editors with the same primary medical sources, then pivoting to claim MEDRS somehow doesn't apply and opinion pieces from non-experts should be accepted, is exhaustingly tendentious and can only be stopped with a TBAN. JoelleJay (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, in case you are unaware, there have been new developments to this story, calling for a new discussion and change in consensus (WP:CCC). If you are unfamiliar with controversy that lead to the addendum made by Shi Zhengli to her Nature article, relating to the timing and sequencing of RaTG13, then you can read about it here. Besides for the addendum, there has also been a number of articles published in reliable sources (such as the Boston Magazine, New York Magazine, Wired Magazine and just yesterday CNET), as well as a US government statement just last week. All of these new articles and the US gov statement clearly differentiate the lab leak theory from conspiracy theories suggested by other editors, and it is not presented as fact, but as a possibility. These articles and the US government statement call for Wikipedia to remove the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" labels from its mentions of a lab leak as a possible origin scenario of Covid-19. Furthermore, from the very start of this conversation, I have always maintained that MEDRS does not apply, and it is not a recent "pivot" as you falsely claim. :/ ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The only way I can see for non-MEDRS RS to be used in support of the lab leak not being a conspiracy theory is in the case that a government investigation actually reveals compelling evidence of coverup. Right now, all we have is the lab's proximity (location- and research-wise) and the shitty opaqueness of the Chinese government. These are both circumstantial and unconvincing, so the media relies on overinterpreting scientists' evaluation of the virus's genetic origins to strengthen their narrative. This means the evidentiary details that we can actually empirically analyze are all dependent on expert interpretation of viral evolution and epidemiology. That is to say, any "evidence" we have to boost this out of misinformation territory requires a) constructing a timeline that fits with the known epidemiological timeline; and b) proposing a mechanism that would align the genetic history with what one would expect if there was passage within the lab beforehand. Both of these necessitate MEDR sourcing reflecting expert agreement. The consensus among scientists, from very early on, has been to assume a zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans, because that is how all prior epidemics have arisen and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance. Of course there are lots of unknowns in the early days; we almost never have a clue as to who patient zero was for any outbreak. But given the corpus that has been published over the last year, the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Instead they looked at the available data, found it comports with the standard origin assumptions, and did their analyses using those assumptions. That a handful of academics, many not even in virology, have spoken up about a lab leak does not change the consensus. This is best demonstrated by the fact that when the lab leak is addressed at all in the literature, even in articles directly relating to viral origin, it is treated as a hedged "sigh" note to humor the pressures of laypeople before being discarded. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I was just on my way here to begin this discussion after looking through User:ScrupulousScribe's edits. I didn't realize this conversation had already begun, but I'm not surprised. This account is less than 2 months old. In that time:
  • SS' first edits [51] advanced the conspiracy theory, over the objections of Alexbrn, of a "lab leak" origin for COVID19.
  • SS then began advancing the claim [52] that their own close reading of theses or original scientific research proved that Shi Zhengli is lying about RaTG13.
  • Boing! said Zebedee blocked SS for edit warring over these issues [53].
  • SS created Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory.
  • SS created Ralph S Baric, which I'd ordinarily support, but I'd rather that bios for these scientists aren't being created by conspiracy theorists seeking to undermine their work.
  • SS creates The Cambridge Working Group, indirectly suggesting that gain-of-function experiments are the source of the COVID19 pandemic.
  • SS has now created a bio for Huang Yanling, an otherwise unknown research whom conspiracy theorists allege is the COVID19 "patient zero."

Literally the entirety of SS' brief Wikipedia career is spreading conspiracy about COVID19 all over the site. In the summer, I gave up trying to keep track of the extent to which conspiratorial COVID material was being added to this encyclopedia: the rate was too high, and the admin response too relaxed. I'd like to see some tougher rules being applied in this area. If we don't do it, readers who come here looking for answers are going to be seriously misled, and we'll be responsible for our failure to educate them. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lengthy topic ban; absolutely oppose block' Where COVID19 originated and its route of transmission is a public health question; whether there have been attempts to suppress information about the origin is a political, not medical question, and is equally a political question whether such attempts have or have not occurred, and regardless of the actual epidemiological question of the actual origin. I do not know and am not going to guess whether or not this particular origin account is correct; I similarly do not know whether there is a conspiracy to suppress discussion of it in the general media either in China or elsewhere, though I do have an opinion. . As pointed out earlier, it wouldn't be the sort of conspiracy theory which is patently implausible on the face of it; such an supression attempt is within the bounds of possibility; it involves a government known to suppress non-official views; it is about a topic where they have been reliably reported to have attempts to conceal or hinder or control the dissemination fo some information at some points in time in more than one country. It is the sort of topic where fair coverage is part of the core mission of Wikipedia as a NPOV medium.

I see here an attempt to rule out discussion in WP articles of some of the possibiltles, and I do not even understand it, because it's not the sort of absurdity that some editors here sometimes honestly (but in my view mistakenly) try to minimize. Conspiracies do occur. Conspiracies to conceal information are a particularly common type, and recent years have had quite a number of them that seem to have been real--and also a number of accusations of them that clearly have not been real, & more that probably not been real. All these are appropriate topics for WP articles.

It certainly is possible that the particular ed under discussion here has tried over-zealously or unfairly to force inclusion of his own viewpoint. But I cannot accept the assumption that seems to have been made by some editors here that their viewpoint does not merit discussion. I would consider reasonable a short break from the subject; I would consider unreasonable and prejudicial anything more than that. I've heard various opinions in general about the appropriate length of such topic bans. My own thought, never having been the subject of a topic ban proposal myself, is that 48 hours away from a topic is enough to bring about a pause, but I may be judging by the relatively short time I personally tend to follow any one issue. An editor who has ben the subject of such topic bans has told me privately, not with respect to this particular topic, that two weeks or so the right time to regain perspective, and this may be more realistic. Since we are speaking about suppression, an indefinite topic ban or a block would seem to merit such a description. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: The topic ban I placed has got nothing to do with the plausibility or otherwise of the lab leak theory. You say you have an opinion on it, but I do not and I have no interest in discussing it. The problem is the relentless promotion of the theory using horribly unreliable sources, rather than trying to produce a balance of reliable sources as required by WP:NPOV. This has extended across multiple articles, occupying the valuable time of other Wikipedia editors. The last straw was the article about a person rumoured to be patient number one, sourced to gossip, blogs, conspiracy chat, and no reliable sources showing anything remotely close to notability (and I judge that partly on the AFD discussion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I must also respond to "It certainly is possible that the particular ed under discussion here has tried over-zealously or unfairly to force inclusion of his own viewpoint. But I cannot accept the assumption that seems to have been made by some editors here that their viewpoint does not merit discussion." No Wikipedia editor's viewpoint (on the lab leak theory or anything else) is of any relevance, and no Wikipedia editor's viewpoint merits discussion. We're supposed to leave our own viewpoints at the door when we enter, and edit only in line with what reliable sources say, reflecting their balance. Any editor who can not do that with a specific subject should not edit on that subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues with this view: (a) the issue is not their views, but how they go about pushing them. Conspiracy theories can be totally plausible on the surface, and still be conspiracy theories. In fact, many of them sound quite plausible. And reasonable talk page discussions are the way to go to establish so. Poor sourcing, walls of text, arguing points endlessly, changing ones point, arguing that new point endlessly, then coming back to the original refuted and already-exhausted point and discussing that again is beyond disruptive. It's just disrespectful of the time of others, and the sheer volume of fringeness is overwhelming. (b) admins should really step up in the COVID misinformation department. It's ridiculous to what lengths editors trying to keep fringe content out of Wikipedia have to go to. It shouldn't be this difficult. It's quite unfortunate that only a couple of admins are willing to actually use the GS that the community has authorised to take action. The talk page is full of walls of text yet next to zero substance. So much time of productive editors drained. This is far from the only such case on COVID-19 articles. Just look at Talk:Ivermectin, for another recent example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Topic banned

I have banned ScrupulousScribe from writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, on any Wikipedia page (with some noticeboard exceptions described on their talk page) for three months from 20 January 2021. This is in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. The sanction is a lesser one that that proposed above, and the community can of course continue with the discussion and impose a greater sanction should the consensus go that way. But I chose what I thought was a minimum, taking into account that ScrupulousScribe is a newcomer here and I think they genuinely don't understand the problems with their contributions (despite, admittedly, a large number of other editors challenging them and trying to explain the problems). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: ScrupulousScribe emailed me about this ANI discussion and their subsequent TBan. As I understand the situation, SS has made mistakes and may have held some beliefs with respect to editing that are not completely compatible with WP:5P. I have suggested that they they adjust and align their beliefs to the principles of Wikipedia and learn more about community policies and guidelines, should they choose to continue making contributions to the project.
  On the other hand, SS complained about a small clique of users leveraging WP:MEDRS as a cudgel to exclude non-medical claims, which I share a similar concern. I have been editing collaboratively with SS and others on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I consider this article largely a work in progress that has a lot of potential to have well-sourced, WP:BALANCED information and perspectives, both scientific and non-scientific, presented in a way that meets the standard of the project. I did sense some tribalism and WP:BITE mentality when I examined the editing history of some of that article's more recent editors, as well as when I participated in the discussions on the talk page Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I hope this comment can raise the awareness from the broader community about these issues, and I urge more editors to help monitor and check unconstructive behavior and conduct on this article as well as related topics. Normchou ^💬 22:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Normchou: Thanks for your thoughts. The "beliefs with respect to editing that are not completely compatible with WP:5P" thing is essentially why I only made the ban for three months, though I'm convinced that is not the entirety of the problem. I'm hoping that ScrupulousScribe can spend the time contributing in other areas and getting on the right side of Wikipedia's requirements and of the community's expectations for working in the Covid-19 topic area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, as I said above, I think you are in error to make the topic ban so long. Quite apart from my own view, I do not think there was consensus to do so. I very strongly urge you shorten it. I'm not sure of the etiquette here--when I was an arb, I would not have let myself be involved in this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I said above, the block is in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and is not as a result of this ANI discussion - I informed the community here as a courtesy. I imposed no minimum time before ScrupulousScribe can appeal the ban, and I'm open to shortening the length if they make an appeal that convinces me it doesn't need to be so long. But I do think they would benefit from editing in less controversial subject areas for three months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I also note that the discussion here preceded the creation of the most recent article that was snow deleted at AFD, and I think that article was a microcosm of the larger problem. It was what trigged my action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have often complained of the procedure at arb com, but I see things are even worse here--we would never have a single arb enact a ban or block when the committee had not yet decided. t am not suggesting I am appealing on behalf of the user, which under current practice I think only the user can do. Rather, I do want to appeal against your misreading of consensus.in a discussion. I have widely discussed the need to reform the over-slickyness of AE based DS, and a number of the current arbs seem at least partially convinced, but it seems there/s another process which has copied our bad ideas. ( I know it may seem strange to see an arb asking questions like this, but I was not elected on the basis of my (almost nonexistent) previous experience here at AN/I. ). Hypothetical: suppose we had formed consensus here to do a one year topic ban and enacted it; could you then over-ride the discussion here by placing an indefinite block for essentially the same offense? If you personally could over-ride or preempt the decisions of an admin board, why do we have the board? Suppose that in analogous case I were to have enacted under the same community sanctions a 2-week topic ban, and informed this board only under courtesy.

I do recognize the possibility that this board or for that matter arb com should be discussion one offense, and a totally unrelated one by the same editor might occur--the community has in practice pre-empted the need for arb action several time in this manner. DGG ( talk ) 11:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not misread any consensus, because I was not acting on consensus. I acted unilaterally as permitted by the applicable General Sanctions applied to Covid-19, and to stop what I saw as ongoing disruption. And as I say, I acted upon further developments that had not been discussed here and did not play a part in the !votes cast so far. If you don't like the current General Sanctions then feel free to try to get them changed. And if you don't understand what the General Sanctions empower an admin to do, then I suggest you read them (sorry, that sounded a bit snarky) it is all explained at WP:GS/COVID19. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But to answer your hypothetical (on what I would do rather than what I could do), had any topic ban already been enacted (by another admin under GS, or by community consensus), I would have not have modified it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For all the various complaints I have with DS "slickyness" is not one of them. Here is a great case of where an admin taking some initiative with the GS reduced disruption and provided quicker relief than waiting for the wheels of consensus to turn. More admins should step up and use it in cases where it's needed, now and earlier in the year. Not doing so is a great disservice to readers (who rely on non-fringe information, especially in these times) and editors (who spend countless hours removing nonsense whilst screaming for admin help to no avail). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm losing interest in the Wuhan lab article. After spending some useful time working (mostly with Forich) to try to identify which were the WP:BESTSOURCES, this work was set aside because apparently it was too much like hard work and instead things have descended back into too much forum-esque argument, with too many editors with their switches jammed on "transmit". The final straw was finding I had spent a great deal of time arguing with a sock, JustStalin. As has been said, we've had similar problems with Ivermectin, which is actually much more serious because it's treatment information rather than stuff about a conspiracy theory. More proactive admin involvement would have been welcome in both cases. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WHAT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XIIIfromTokyo

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

@Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [54]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[55]. 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[56][57].

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 [58]. 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[59]" :

"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[60], 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[61]. 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"[62], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[63], 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 "[64] ? 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[65] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[66]. 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)

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

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

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

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

You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[67] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[68]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[69][70][71]. 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[72] . 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[73] 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)

User:Armatura

User:

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

Comment by reporter:

• The user has serious behavioural issues, mostly present in Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war. Constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS has created quite a toxic environment in the said talk page. I've linked some particular cases below, but it'd be better if an Admin took a look at the overall behaviour of the user. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Particular incidents:

• Accusing a user of bullying and personal attacks when that user asked Armatura to not divert from the discussion topic with other irrelevant topics - diff. Similar behaviour in the same discussion when replying - diff; Armatura was called out for the baseless accusations in this particular discussion by a third-party editor, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI - diff, and Armatura's response to this consisted of judging the commenter, User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI rather than focusing on the comment - diff.

• Accusing me and other editors of denying the Armenian Genocide, out of nowhere, because of our ethnicity - diff and when I reply that I do not deny it, Armatura is surprised and gives "kudoz" to me for "not denying something that is denied by your government" and calls me a "rare exception" - diff.

• Failing to WP:AGF countless times and using weird & irrelevant excuses to justify this behaviour. E.g. they're using the fact that a few Azerbaijani editors were banned for off-wiki coordination in Russian Wikipedia 11 years ago as a reason for why "assumption of good faith is difficult" - diff. They have used this 11-year-old incident in multiple occasions (e.g. in their reply to User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI which I linked earlier - diff) and have also threatened to report the few users that were involved in that incident to ANI in the English Wikipedia, 11 years later, because, per Armatura's words, they still have the "same zealousness for pushing Azerbaijani POV forward, no change in behaviour" and that this has made "making assumption of good faith practically impossible" for Armatura.

• Armatura was previously reported 2 months ago. Though, as the reporter was, at the time, topic-banned, the report was dismissed, although the closing Admin also suggested concerns with Armatura's edits, including other Admins and Users in the report itself who wrote about Armtatura's problematic editing style and behaviour.

Comments:

• Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour . I'll start with reminding about the rules of complaining here:

• Take a look at these tips:

1. Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page [not done]
2. Or try dispute resolution. [not done]
3. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly [not done]

1. Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better. (If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you.) [not done]
2. Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended. ';'[not done]
3. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ("That made me feel..." is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was...") [not done]
4. Ask them to strike through an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally. [not done]
5. No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become the editor who can't be baited. [not done]
6. If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors. [not done]
7. In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard. Bear in mind the risk of being hoist by your own petard if you yourself are guilty of policy violations. Please also read the ANI Advice first. [the only step done, without any "emergency", skipping everything above]

• As an example of your habitual reverting in general behaviour being scrutinised, I will provide just one example where the only reason you were not blocked was that the admin was kind to offer abstinence from NKR-related articles as an alternative. A search with name "CuriousColden" on noticeboard archives gives so many results it would take a life to post here all diffs of people being unhappy with your edtis, so I won't, admins have better tools of batch-searching then me I believe.

• Now,

1. Could my behaviour been better? - it definitely could, mostly by not taking the bait and not answering the provocations and being less emotional
2. Does CuriousGolden's background of being from Azerbaijan / Turkey / Turcic world / Muslim world matter much? No, because there are other editors from the same background with whom it has been possible to talk and reach consensus, despite some of them having strong points of views and being on the list that caused a scandal on Russian Wikipedia. Even awareness of Azerbaijani Laundromat does not preclude from interacting with Azerbaijani editors constructively. And when a good suggestion is made I don't hesitate to write thank you.
3. Do CuriousGolden actions matter much? Yes, and they make assumption of good faith justifiably difficult - constant edit reverts, arbitrary additions from Azerbaijani/Turkish-only sources, voting to support a "faction" instead of providing sensible explanations and trying to reach a consensus, baiting, intimidating and attacking other editors on Armenia / Azerbaijan / Nagorno Karabakh related articles while remaining formally civil, demonstrating symptoms of ownership of the articles he contributed to significantly, making other editors who disagree with his edits feel frustrated with what the discussion become in the end. There are multiple people unhappy with his behaviour yet instead of reflecting and improving he keeps accusing Wikipedia guidelines and tries to eliminate the others, so he could Azerbaijanify Wikipedia even further.
4. Is CuriousGolden to be blamed for his behaviour? No, he is not alone; it is not a secret Armenophobia is widespread in Azerbaijan, as Armenian Genocide denial is, and formalists shouting AGF better look into these realities carefully.
5. Does CuriousGolden need to be sanctioned for trying to eliminate a user whom he did not like, taking the abovementioned into account? I will leave this to uninvolved admins, but I think the user is not there to build an encyclopedia, but to infiltrate English Wikipedia with Azerbaijani POVs. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
6. What else can help the situation in the Nagorno Karabakh related topics and their talk pages? More admin presence, please.
7. I suggest all editors who may comment below to first state whether they have any conflict of interest / involvement on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, for transparency. --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin notice

There have been many incident reports like this regarding this conflict, and still there is no solution here on Wikipedia. In my view, this has to do with the design of ANI:

• Being aimed at urgent issues, it is geared towards quick fixes rather than actual solutions of the underlying problems.
• Being aimed at behavioral problems, it focusses everybody's attention on individual users rather than issues, contrary to what WP:FOC recommends.

Since there is no rush for this issue, I will therefore put this on hold while I do some research at my own pace and will report back here in about a week. ◅ Sebastian 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reopening the case now. In order to prevent this case from dragging on until it becomes TLDR, I am asking involved editors to refrain from adding more opinions to the case – see hatnote to the next section. ◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am now recusing myself from this case, because (as I learned (from Dreamy Jazz) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Moving towards closure) once I expressed my opinion, I may be regarded as involved. Therefore I'm asking other admins to take over the responsibility for closing this case correctly. ◅ Sebastian 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Findings by neutral editors

To avoid the prolonged discussions seen in other ANI cases, this section is reserved for uninvolved editors who impartially investigated the behavior of defendant and plaintiff, as well as for short questions pertinent to these findings. Off-topic remarks, even if phrased as questions, will be removed or replaced with a link to their diff. For any questions or concerns regarding this decision, please use the project talk page.

SebastianHelm's findings

Previous related AN cases: I'm aware of the following:

• 29 October 2020 at AN/EW: CuriousGolden reported by Գարիկ Ավագյան – Result: agreement that can be described as an informal, short topic ban
• 17 November 2020 at AN: Armatura reported by Mirhasanov – closed with no action because reporter was under AA2 topic ban.
• 26 December 2020 at AN/I: 212.156.71.30 / 37.155.240.129 reported by Armatura – this was the first time I became aware of Armatura. We closed it with no punitive action, but some recommendations, including to “first seek agreement on which sources count as reliable”.
• 26 December 2020 at AN/EW: CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura – I did not contribute in that case.

Overview of the diffs provided: Because most of the diffs appear on the same page or even in the same section, I am listing them just with their time stamps, so that it will be possible to just display the talk page as of the time this report was filed, and then search for the time stamps (in parentheses). Unless otherwise indicated, the section is “Non-reliable sources”:

from Particular incidents, bullet 1

(19:53, 10 January), (20:42, 10 January), (14:00, 12 January), (18:54, 12 January)

from Particular incidents, bullet 2

(16:00, 10 January), (16:48, 10 January),

from Particular incidents, bullet 3

(19:07, 12 January) in section “Dilgam Asgarov & Shahbaz Guliyev”, (20:42, 10 January) – same diff as above,

from Armatura's reply

None of the links are diffs.

As requested by both parties, I looked at Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war (and some other places) to get an impression of the overall behavior of Armatura and CuriousGolden.

1. The topic that contains most of the evidence provided here, section “Non-reliable sources”, was started by CuriousGolden in compliance with my recommendation (in the IP case of 26 December listed above) to seek agreement on sources first.
2. The discussion about “Non-reliable sources” seemed to have reached a conclusion with Armatura's argument at (14:58, 10 January), but neither side said so. Armatura kept ranting about their pet peeve, and CuriousGolden switched the topic to the still relevant, but different question of whether Armatura's inclusion met WP:UNDUE.
3. Sometimes both sides agree, at least in other discussions on the same page: (00:01, 10 January), (20:29, 6 January), (16:05, 9 January). Those can be seen as good signs that cooperation is at least possible.
4. CuriousGolden, while bringing up a the 29 October 2020 case against Armatura, omitted the fact that CuriousGolden, themself, was a defendant in in the 29 October 2020 case, where he was issued an informal, short topic ban.
5. The diffs provided by CuriousGolden in their first bullet, and most of the others, do not exhibit behavior that is significantly different from the behavior of other editors in the area, including CuriousGolden.
6. In the “Comment by reporter” section, CuriousGolden accuses Armatura of WP:ASPERSIONS without providing diffs. That itself meets WP:ASPERSIONS in the description given at 22:45, 13 August 2013.
7. The behavior described in CuriousGolden's third bullet refers to disruptive behaviors exceeding that of other editors. This has indeed occurred several times (although the characterization as “countless” is clearly peacock wording). While one should have full sympathy for people traumatized by genocides in their recent history, the repeated off-topic bringing up of this and other pet peeves – as again here on this ANI case – is striking. The effect is similar to the first corollary to Godwin's law: It makes it much harder for the discussion to remain constructive.
8. In one case (12:48, 12 January) Armatura further fans the flames with yet another off topic stab – even as reply to a demand for other [on-topic] arguments.
9. Armatura's reply, at 815 words (excluding signature and headline), is far longer than CuriousGolden's report with 374 words (excluding signature, two usual headlines and the usual “user5” template).
10. Most of Armatura's long reply does not address or explain the points of the report, but either veers off to Armatura's pet peeves (see finding #7 above) or is dedicated to accusing the plaintiff and even casts aspersions (finding #21).
11. Armatura begins with the sentence “Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour.”, which sounds promising. However, the text that follows (see previous and next finding) contains hardly any reflections on Armatura's own behavior, so this doesn't seem to be more than a well chosen polite phrase.
12. Another sentence of Armatura's, the confession in “Now, 1” goes a bit further than the former, but it remains superficial, because (a) by insinuating “provocations” it places at least part of the blame on others, and (b) there is no indication that Armatura actually “reflected” on how to prevent these inappropriate reactions in future.
13. In their reply here, Armatura accuses others of “provocations” without backing that up with diffs. Conversely, in at least one case, (16:00, 10 January), Armatura is the one gratuitously provoking the other editor.
14. About half of Armatura's reply consists of a copy of the lists on top of this page and at Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility, commented with short accusations that CuriousGolden didn't follow them.
15. These two lists are bundled together, without reference for where they each come from, with duplicated numbers so that they are hard to refer to.
16. There is no evidence that Armatura themself considered the aforementioned recommendations either in the situations where they felt provoked nor in Armatura's own report two weeks earlier. (Examples: #1 of the first list #6 of the second.) In some cases, such as #2 and #5 from the second list, CuriousGolden was better than Armatura at following the advice.
17. In view of Armatura's accusations against CuriousGolden for not following these points, it should be said that CuriousGolden just followed Armatua's own request: “If you have problem with my behaviour, raise it on my talk page or the noticeboard of your taste, please” (20:42, 10 January).
18. Taken by itself, it takes little AGF to see the “Kudoz” (16:48, 10 January) as a well-intended concession. The evidence provided here by CuriousGolden contains no indication for assuming otherwise. CuriousGolden therefore failed to AGF when they used that in their second bullet as an Argument against Armatura.
19. However, the “Kudoz” are put into question by Armatura themself later in this report: In bullet #4, Armatura again connects CuriousGolden with “Armenian Genocide denial”, this time even throwing in “Armenophobia” in the same breath. That doesn't sound like Armatura honestly felt anything like “kudos” for CuriousGolden. Conceivably, with much AGF, one could assume that Armatura only was very clumsy when writing bullet #4, but that wouldn't look good for somone who wants to be an editor – see WP:CIR.
20. Armatura wrote that for them “assumption of good faith [is] practically impossible” (21:36, 12 January) based on an incident that has nothing to do with the topic nor with the editors participating in the discussion.
21. In #3 and #5 of the fourth bullet, Armatura accuses CuriousGolden of misbehavior and alleges that CuriousGolden “is not there to build an encyclopedia”, all without evidence. That meets WP:ASPERSIONS in the description given at 22:45, 13 August 2013.
22. In #6 of the fourth bullet, Armatura writes “More admin presence, please”. That was appropriate at that moment, since no admins or uninvolved editors had contributed to the report yet. However, there is a reason for that: In the case Armatura opened on 26 December, Armatura was not satisfied with my attempt at being fair to both sides, and asked “would it be too much to ask for more than one admin to help with this, please?”. Only when luck had it that someone showed up who, in addition to being an admin and uninvolved, also met the standard Armatura demanded of knowing the area, was Armatura satisfied. Later, in the case of 26 December, that other admin apparently wrote something Armatura didn't like, resulting in them now recusing themself.
23. Summing up the above points, it becomes apparent that Armatura creates a lot of drama and need for admin involvement. Chances that Armatura will improve are slim, as the evidence provided here shows no sign of true introspection. In conclusion, I have serious doubts whether that editor is a net benefit for Wikipedia.
24. CuriousGolden is creating problems, too. But there is still hope that CuriousGolden can learn and improve.

◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommended consequences

1. Armatura needs to stop off-topic remarks that are not conducive to a calm atmosphere. This includes in particular such emotionally charged topics as the Armenian Genocide or the ru.wp incident.
2. Armatura needs to decide whether they can assume good faith or not. If not (as suggested by finding #20), then Armatura needs to stop editing. WP:AGF as a fundamental principle on Wikipedia is not negotiable.
3. CuriousGolden and other editors in this topic area, regardless on which side, also need to make more of an effort to assume good faith. I know that that can be hard especially in conflict areas, which is why I came up with A4GF, which I'll be happy to discuss with any editor who is making an honest effort to try or understand it.
4. Armatura should be subjected to an AA2 topic ban. A 6-month AA2 topic ban could be justified, but I believe that Sanctions against editors should not be punitive and therefore suggest an AA2 topic ban for one month. That should allow Armatura to cool off while editing in a less controversial area, to thoroughly understand their own actions and reactions and to decide whether they still can assume good faith on Wikipedia.
5. CuriousGolden is warned that any repetition of WP:ASPERSIONS, as per finding #6, will be sanctioned with serious consequences.
6. Armatura is warned that any repetition of WP:ASPERSIONS, as per finding #21, will be sanctioned with serious consequences.
7. Armatura is advised to refrain from WP:ADMINSHOP (per finding #22)
8. CuriousGolden is admonished to not use peacock terms, especially when writing anything potentially controversial, such as the term “countless” in their third bullet above. Instead, in discussions, do the homework and count. (One doesn't have to count to an arbitrarily high number; one can easily write e.g. “at least 3 times” and provide 3 diffs.) (In article space, of course, sources are usually needed instead.)
9. CuriousGolden should stop using the expression “Jeez”: As that article explains, it's a minced oath from the word “Jesus”. It therefore is offensive to some Christians. Even if one disregards its religious connotation, it still focusses on emotions, contrary to WP:FOC, and is therefore disruptive.

◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

General comments

Thanks Sebastian. This is an example of ideal treatment of conflicts - the parties should really expect to be subject to such treatment, rather that throw mud on each other and hope that something sticks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Elizium23

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Elizium23 is engaging in persistent disruptive behavior regarding the captions and new photographs I've added at Wilton Daniel Gregory. After adding 3 new photographs, first the user made uncivil and entirely false claims against me at Commons, then attempted to claim they were copyvios, despite the website claiming they were free use and in the public domain.

• here;

• here;

• here

Then, moving from Commons to WP, the user was forced to remove those claims and did offer an apology for the false personal attacks. But now the user is engaged in edit-warring when all I am doing is captioning those photos consistent with their provenance. The user was warned against warring. The user was exhibiting WP:OWN behavior, which the user was warned against.

Now the user tagged my talk for the crime of Style Guide vios(?) and now, inexplicably, has tagged the entire article itself? Because of the captions on 2 photos?!! When I civilly engaged the user, this was how that went. Now the user has RFC'd those captions. Seriously? Enough. Recommend user be temporarily topic blocked from this article. Or at minimum, be given a timeout and advised to act more civilly and reminded to edit more collaboratively. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6's behavior speaks for itself. I myself reverted the copyvio templates on Commons, once it was pointed out that the Diocese had suddenly modified their legal terms to something that we could actually use. Nevertheless, my conduct (and his) on Commons is not at issue here.

I've opened an RFC, per WP:DR. Why is this at ANI if DR is in progress? *shrug* Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So Elizium23 admits to having to self revert (several times!), both at Commons and here - and even apologized at Commons - but yet somehow my behavior speaks for itself? Baffling bit of doublespeak there. As I said, the user has also opened an RFC providing 2 supposedly conflicting captions, when the caption presented wasn't even a disputed one. There's just a lot of erratic behavior going on with this editor and I just don't want to fall down the rabbit hole any further. My request for review here was basically because I did not appreciate getting tagged at my talk for nonsense. That misuse of tags for the purposes of attempted intimidation is ultimately what brought me here. So my request for a warning or timeout for the editor on the subject page still stands. Just some warning/reminder re: behavior and collaboration with other editors. Also throw in a bit that the user doesn't OWN the subject page in question, regardless of how much time the user has spent there. Then I'll happily move on to lots more interesting matters. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: Yes, the use of terminology in the captions has been disputed. What exactly is wrong with opening an RfC to settle a content dispute? And you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before complaining about edit warring, especially since 3RR has not been violated. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also take offense at someone dropping the welcome message on my talk page and then following it up with a FINAL WARNING over MOS issues. But I think the grammarians of MOS are a well-meaning niche group who are constantly at odds with good-faith editors over mundane issues that have little effect on the substance of articles.

100%, it is on the editor claiming copyvio to know the policies of a website before they accuse an editor, so yes you should have known policies suddenly changed.

With that said, this looks like a content issue that should be resolved through DR and other community methods especially as both editors are veterans and know the tools available to avoid being here Slywriter (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, well unfortunately I had no choice because X4n6 has a long, long talk page history full of warnings, including WP:EW and similar ones to the one I issued, so I did not feel comfortable using one at a lower level.

As to Commons, I checked the archdiocesan website where the uploader obtained the photos. I wrote: 'website specifies images are "public for free use"' and I stand by my statement that "public for free use" does not constitute a release to public domain or a valid license for use on Wikimedia Commons, which has stricter standards than enwiki. I only wished that an administrator arbitrate the situation as they are the final say about copyright issues. X4n6 chose to illicitly remove tags from his own files, which is against policy, so I restored them. No edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Slywriter:. Now you see what I was dealing with. Nothing like a little "I had no choice, the Devil made me do it!" Followed by more obnoxious slander out the door, from Elizium23. And you wonder why we're here? Fifteen years here and Elizium23 wants to bust out the proctoscope to find less than a handful of items during that entire tenure. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Within just the last 24 hours, Elizium23 has had to self-revert over half a dozen times over two platforms. Because the files were/are public domain. The damn website says so! But you know, reading is still fundamental! Besides, are there no mirrors in Elizium23's world? This could go on ad nauseum, but I'd much rather focus on vaccine delivery and a peaceful transfer of power. Can't give this obstreperous editor any more oxygen. But you mentioned the style niche folk? Funny thing is, I was a big JOBTITLES editor myself back in the day. But the anal retentiveness of some of them was too off-the-tracks for me then; and now I see little has changed. Anyway, I've had my say here, so whomever else wants to weigh in next can have theirs. Although I'd still appreciate a little comportment reminder for the subject of this ANI. Not for me. I'm beyond immune now. But for the next editor who may have the misfortune of falling down that rabbit hole. Thanks again. Now off to find a good Star Trek rerun somewhere. X4n6 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As for "exhibiting WP:OWN behavior" you haven't shown us any diffs. Interesting.

Often I do write in the first person plural, because I represent the consensus of interested editors in a given topic. It's quite the opposite of OWNership: I carry out the wishes of others as we have forged consensus about how articles in a given topic-area should look. I don't claim any singular power to override this, so any editor seeking to contravene it should be prepared to follow WP:DR to overturn the consensus in their favor. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons issues don't really concern us. But websites can claim whatever they want. When it comes to copyrights, we need to be certain. If there is any doubt e.g. whether a copyright or licencing statement is clear enough or whether the website is actually able to licence the images that way, it's quite appropriate to raise the issue. If you don't want people asking such questions, then don't upload media, or at least not media from someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't just comment generically. Often it doesn't assist in resolving anything. Here is the exact website at issue - and what it states: "The images below are free use and in the public domain. For questions or more information, contact communications@adw.org." By any reasonable standard, Wiki or otherwise, it could not be clearer. X4n6 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what it states as of 05:02, January 15, 2021, but I assure you that it had different wording less than two hours before that. When I checked the license, the verbiage did not include the phrase "public domain". I wish the Internet archive had saved copies. Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 already pointed this out to X4n6 here [74]. So even if they didn't remember the old wording, they should have remembered it changed. While it's great the website has clarified they copyright policy on the photos, it's disturbing that User:X4n6 is now misleading people on ANI into thinking that the wording was always so clear to make it sound like Elizium23 was silly to question the copyright status. Actually in my eyes, with the latest response this comes very close to a personal attack on Elizium23 by X4n6, since they're misleading people into thinking Elizium23 did something they didn't. No wonder Elizium23 is so frustrated with them, frankly while I haven't looked into the other stuff, this is looking like a major WP:boomerang to me. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: even without Elizium23's clarification my point stands. If you don't want people questioning you on copyright then don't upload stuff which isn't your own work. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopaedia and commons in particular is intended to have only free content. It is imperative we get copyright right. If you don't respect that then sorry you don't belong here. Actually Wikipedia in general is intended to be a collaborative project so if you aren't happy with people asking questions then sorry but you don't belong. While Elizium23 was wrong to comment incorrectly on your history at Commons, something they've already admitted and apologised for, they are fully entitled to question you if they have doubts over copyright which again I'll repeat it's imperative we get right. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Your ability to consistently get it wrong is what's impressive. Originally, I warned you that generic comments weren't helpful. So now you've gone to the opposite extreme and apparently concluded that cherry picking the log is the way to go. But my response remains the same. It doesn't assist in resolving anything. Especially when your cherry picking is so sloppy that it gets everything backwards. Contrary to your claim, Elizium23's apology had nothing to do with the website's policies. It had everything to do with falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." Which was provably false from the log. So Elizium23 got it wrong and apologized. But now you've accused me of a personal attack against Elizium23 when, as is plainly evident now, I was the one attacked. So now you owe me an apology. So where is your BOOMERANG now? Then you said Elzium23 told me the website's documentation had changed. And? Did it never occur to you that perhaps Elizium23 may have been doing some CYA, because he/she couldn't find exactly where on the website the public domain statement was made? Or in your leap to judgment, was that not even considered? Unlike you, I stop short of making accusations. I'm only pointing out the possibility. It wouldn't be the first time a well-intentioned editor simply missed something, then swore up and down that it was never there to begin with. We're both veterans here, so I've seen it. Would be shocked if you haven't. So you should know better. And you should do better. Especially since you're spending so much time weighing in on Noticeboards these days. I've already shown you in bold above exactly what the website says about public domain. There isn't an editor here who would ask it to be any plainer, nor an editor who could reasonably be criticized for using it. So let's stop the nonsense right now. You still owe me apologies for both your false claims and your false conclusions. But seriously, if you're going to wade into disputes and hurl accusations, which again by your Noticeboard log appears to be your current penchant, be damned sure you know what you're talking about. And as a final response, if Wikipedia or Commons wanted to require that only original content be uploaded across its platforms, the community is certainly capable of making that decision. So it's above your pay grade to be unilaterally dispensing that advice on Noticeboards. Just as you're way over your skis saying who does and doesn't belong here. To anyone. Let alone to veterans. So stay in your lane. X4n6 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wading over his skis into disputes above his pay grade while hurling accusations out of his lane? What a workout! EEng 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's right, mixed metaphors. Definitely taught at Harvard. X4n6 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Stay in your lane" is uncivil language that does not belong here and is, in fact, a huge red flag that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a way of driving others editors away. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Y X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Entirely true. Also entirely true: "stay in your lane" is language that is not compatible with a collaborative project and is in fact antithetical to the very method in which Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Entirely your opinion perhaps, but that doesn't inherently make it true. I've seen much worse. Even from people with admin titles. Bottomline: I was falsely attacked and responded. Making it worse, in the attack someone overstepped their bounds, misquoting policy in the bargain. So my response was reasonable and appropriate. Which is more than might be said for your non-proportional fixation on 4 words out of a 437 word rebuttal. Words, I should add, that don't meet any of the criteria of NPA. Further, re: CIVIL: This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. Which is exactly what you're trying to do. So we're done. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6, you weren't falsely attacked. Provide diffs of attacks and proof that they are false or that didn't happen the way you say it did. Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, read the thread. You weren't being referenced. X4n6 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6, Oh, I see, it's ANOTHER false attack? How many people falsely attack you in a given day? That kind of thing must get old after a few years! Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 But no personal attack there, right? X4n6 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No - actually it is something I go through on a weekly basis, because of the areas of the project I work in, I am regularly accused of harrassment and false templating and being mean in general, and sometimes we come to ANI and have it out and it turns out I'm not so mean after all.

But sometimes people refuse to get the point -- my grandmother used to say "If you don't listen, then you must feel" -- so I would say it is in your best interest to be polite to administrators who are making the case that you should be blocked. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: I never said Elizium23's apology had anything to do with any website's policies. I said they apologised because they incorrectly characterised your commenthistory (modified at 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC) after X4n6's reply below) which you seem to agree with.

I also pointed out that you appeared to be misleading as at ANI. I stand by that comment. I did try to look for an archive, before my responses above to confirm that it had changed but I didn't find any. Since there was no archive, I took Elizium23 at their word that the website since they specifically made that claim and you did not, and still have not disputed it. If you want to dispute Elizium23's view that the website has changed, then say so, and since there is apparently no archive, we'll just have to leave this as a case of we don't know what happened.

Until you actually dispute Elizium23's statement that the website changed, I'm going to stand by my comment that you are misleading us at ANI. If you do challenge Elizium23's view that the website changed, I withdraw my characterisation and apologise for being wrong. (Since whether you're right or wrong about the website changing, I'm willing to accept that you genuinely believe it didn't.) I won't apologise for making the comment though since I stand by my view that if someone has claimed the website changed, and you dispute that, you need to actually tell us this rather than expecting us to guess you disagree, especially when you come to ANI. Maybe I could have asked and given you one final time to dispute the claim, but frankly I was hoping to never revisit this thread hence why it took me so long to respond.

And I stand by my other earlier comments as well. Again let me say for the last time, if you are unwilling to be challenged or questioned over stuff, especially over copyright issues then Wikipedia is not the place for you. We need to collaborate, which means you need to be willing to accept people will ask you questions. We also need to get copyright right. Sometimes this means people challenge stuff where you feel it's unnecessary. Provided they don't challenge stuff unnecessarily so often that it becomes a problem, and they are reasonable about their challenge, that's fine and an expected part of editing here.

This doesn't seem like an unnecessary challenge anyway. Whatever else, I see no reason to doubt that Elizium23 genuinely thinks the website changed. Whether they are wrong, and just missed or misread it the first time, or they are right and it did change, it's reasonable for them to ask the question. If they simply missed/misread it, then all you had to do was to point out what and where the website said it and it's over, which is more or less what happened. (This is why I feel your first reply to me is so pointless. Whatever happened to the website, there's a reasonable reason why Elizium23 challenged it which they already explained to you before you even opened this ANI. The fact that they may or may not have been wrong doesn't change this.) That's part of collaborating and besides copyright, it comes up a lot with sourcing stuff where people don't see what you saw. Again I'll say this does not excuse Elizium23 incorrectly characterising your history, but since they've apologised for that, I see no reason why we should continue to worry about that.

P.S. You're wrong about the release being the best possible. It isn't. While I'm fairly sure it's good enough for commons, there's a reason why actual attempts to release stuff into the public domain by copyright and legal experts, like CC0 tend to be so complicated [75] [76]. Copyright law is complicated as with a lot of laws, especially when you consider all the different jurisdictions out there, some of which don't really have a clear concept of releasing stuff into the public domain, As opposed to stuff entering the public domain from expiry of copyright. While to be fair, this was likely considering the US only, it could still be better. One obvious example, it's unnecessary to say anything about "free use" if it's in the public domain. Free use generally means a work where the copyright is retained but offered under a free licence, something which is different from releasing a work into the public domain which tries to give up all copyright.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Quite a lot to unwrap. Which is unfortunate, because I was done here. But since you pinged me, I'll respond this final time. Afterwards, feel free to have the last word. You wrote: "I said they apologised because they incorrectly characterised your comment." As I already told you, you're wrong. The apology was for falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." Totally false. So the apology had nothing to do with incorrectly characterizing my comment. And no, I did not "seem to agree with it." In fact, I said this about the apology: "It had everything to do with falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." So you were wrong again. Then you said: "I also pointed out that you were misleading as at ANI. I stand by that comment." Still wrong. By your own admission you said: "I took Elizium23 at their word." to which, again, I said: "It wouldn't be the first time a well-intentioned editor simply missed something, then swore up and down that it was never there to begin with." So let's be clear: if you want to take someone at their word (with no proof), that's your business. But you don't (based on that same absence of proof) accuse someone else of being misleading. You can stand by that all you want. You're still wrong. Finally, then you tried to lecture me saying: "if you are unwilling to be challenged or questioned over stuff, especially over copyright issues then Wikipedia is not the place for you." But I was "challenged and questioned" here, here, here and here. So your claim that I never disputed Elizium23 saying the website changed is rubbish. I consistently said the images were taken from the website and legal for our use. That's all I needed to say. For Elizium23's claim to be believed, the website would have had to be legal for me to use when I uploaded the images; then unavailable for Elizium23; then magically available for me again. All within an hour or so. And this supposedly happened for 3 separate images! Did the website play hide and seek? I only know what I know. Since I posted the images and went back to the site to cut and paste the permission as proof of their availability, that is what I know. The editor below has said there were changes recently. Were they during the narrow window of an hour or so that we're talking about on January 15th? All I know, is that the images are available for our use and that has been confirmed by several editors. They are beautiful images and the project is lucky to have them. As to you, from the beginning I said your ability to consistently get it wrong was impressive. I stand by that. But at this point all I really know is we got the right outcome. The project has the legitimate benefit, legitimately obtained, of 3 current, quality images. Take yes for an answer. Now I'm done. X4n6 (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say "incorrectly characterised your history". I have corrected my statement above in a manner that makes it clear that it came after you replied. This is what I said the first time "comment incorrectly on your history at Commons". Again apologies the the the confusion, but you there seems to be zero disagreement that Elizium23 described your history incorrectly/wrongly/falsely/whatever you want to call it. This was wrong of them. I agree. They agree. They've apologised for it. You should move on from it. If you don't agree with me that Elizium23 incorrectly/wrongly/falsely/whatever charaterised/described your history at Commons, you will need to further explain, since you reply doesn't address the issue because of my mistake. Your other stuff, I don't understand at all. As I explained below, the dispute is over what the website said, according to Elizium23 and another independent editor, it said something else before. I think you are trying to claim it did not say something else before, but really I have no idea since your description is totally confusing. It's clearly perfectly possible that the website had those images and said something else which you thought was sufficient for us but wasn't. For some reason, the website later changed the wording and so now it is sufficient for us. This is a perfectly plausible thing to have happened. The timing is very weird although as I said below, we have fairly conclusive evidence the images only appeared about 2 days before you uploaded them so it isn't that surprising they were still adjusting the wording. Maybe you know this since I figure if you managed to find these images so fast, maybe you're regularly searching. In any case, I think we don't know exactly what the website said, since no one thought this would be such a big issue so bothered to record it. I expect something like "these images are free use". It's also possible there is someone involved in that website or in contact with them who is monitoring Wikipedia or Commons. If there is, it would be great if they would comment to clear up any confusion, there's nothing wrong with what they did provided they're in complianced with WP:PAID (i.e. have declared if they've been paid to edit any pages). Donating material is something we welcome with open arms. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was somewhat sceptical about the website's wording having changed, and looked for an archived version a couple of days ago. Archive.org didn't have one; nor did archive.vn (archive.today's current guise), but it sent me to a Google cached version of the page. The wording was indeed changed quite recently: the earlier version did not say that the pictures were in the public domain. Unfortunately, I didn't save the cached version, and Google's bots being the efficient creatures they are, the current cache has been updated to reflect the revised version of the page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks greatly BlackcurrantTea. I realised I'd forgotten to search search engine caches, and unfortunately as you've found, it's now too late. And I did try Bing and Google. Although interesting enough, I also found from Yandex this [77] suggesting those images are very new, at most about 2 days before they were uploaded here. I guess given how new they are, it's not surprising they were still adjusting the wording. In any case, with 2 different unrelated editors saying it changed, I think we can be sure it did. I have no idea WTF User:X4n6 is on about above. No one has ever said the images were unavailable for Elizium23 AFAICT. The only thing that has been said is that the commentary associated with the images changed over time. Originally it did not specifically say in the public domain. Then it did. No one has ever suggested it changed to say public domain then stopped saying public domain then said it again. (Although it's possible website caching could make it seem like that depending the the device used I guess.) The specific wording x4n6 keeps highlighting only appeared on Wikipedia, after Elizium23 had raised the issue, so we have no evidence X4n6 ever saw it before they highlighted it when Elizium23 brought it up. Instead the evidence from 2 different editors suggests it did say something else before. I'm still willing to WP:AGF that X4n6 is simply misremembering what the website said before if that's what they claim. Even if I find it interesting that not only did the website quickly change after there was a dispute, but the images were uploaded to Wikipedia so soon after they appeared on that website. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:"Unavailable" meant "unusable" as in they could not be used by us. Hope that helps Nil Einne understand. It should also be obvious that I knew they could be used by us when I uploaded them. Hello?! If Nil Einne really wants to AGF toward me at this late date - long after accusing me of misleading this ANI - then that would be an excellent place to start. How about assuming good faith enough to assume that I knew they were legal to use from the text provided at the time I uploaded them. Listen, nobody understands the need to be vigilant about uploading copyvio images and copyvio text, more than me. I've been a varyingly prolific member of this project for (almost) 15 years and was an IP editor for years before that; and still have the battle scars from both to prove it. So I suggest your AGF should start there. Employ some AGF to assume I knew WTF I was doing. So the website tweaked their text after they uploaded images? And?! Obviously, most major websites update all the time. Some update several times a day every day. Did some version of their text confuse Elizium23 as to our ability to use their images? It seems so from the log, where Elizium23 alternately says the license "is unclear."; to, since the website changed, I may be the webmaster or photographer; culminating, mercifully in Eilizium23's apology. All while I consistently said the images I uploaded "passes muster" (Elizium23's term); and "the images are 'free use and in the public domain.' It couldn't be more clear"; to trying to graciously accept Elizium23's apology. So I don't know what Elizium23 saw; or didn't see; and where he/she looked; or didn't look; and if/when the text changed; and if/when this particular text changed. And neither does Nil Einne, or anyone else for that matter. The bottomline is: however we got here, we're here. We have 3 great images that we can use! That part, no one has disputed! And to answer Nil Einne's final question: I found them because as far back as last November, to end another unpleasant exchange with a contentious editor, I said I would take it upon myself to find "an image that will be above any editor's reproach". So I kept looking. It seemed logical that either the Archdioceses of Atlanta or Washington where the cardinal has recently served/serves; or the Archdiocese of Chicago where he's from and first served as a bishop; or even the Vatican itself; would post current images to celebrate the cardinal's elevation. And because of its historic nature, those images might even be in the public domain. Possibly even hi-res. If not them, any number of other religious organizations with online presences might have offered their own original images for public use. So it was just common sense to check regularly. Which I did on a weekly basis. Finally, I hit the jackpot and found 3 great images on the Archdiocese of Washington's website on the same week they were posted. And they were "unusable" as in they could not be used by us. So I uploaded them immediately; luckily before some other editor found them. So I just did what I said I would. So there you have it, Nil Einne. So unless Nil Einne, or anyone else would like to ping me again - this time for the sole purpose of an apology; or perhaps (gosh!) a thank you; or (warning: shameless plug to follow: jeepers, even a... barn star) - then kindly do not ask me to return here again. Done, please in the name of all things holy, done. In closing, I'd just like to thank the Academy. X4n6 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-report by Elizium23

While we have this going with some steam, I'd like to self-report myself for cruelly and viciously stalking and harrassing Rcb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who were respectable, constructive editors until they met the likes of me. I improperly warned them over and over about their good work on additions to year-based chronological articles. I dragged them to a noticeboard rather unnecessarily when they complained. I have been mean and rude and I deserve the punishment you decide to mete out. (I acknowledge the need to notify these users but I am unable to do so myself. Sorry.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Александр Мотин again

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

---

Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is already under a partial block from MH-17 and under indefinite topic-ban from Covid-19 as well as Russian politics, and they regularly get featured at this noticeboard (they got more active here since they have been banned from the Russian Wikipedia, unbanned and got banned again after a few days), but managed to escape site ban because users claim that he has good contributions or works without problems in other topics. This is just not true. His main topic is, after the topic ban has been imposed, railway stations in Russia, which unfortunately overlaps with one of my interests in Wikipedia. In particular, I created articles about all railway directions / lines in Moscow such as Savyolovsky suburban railway line (which happened before Александр Мотин became active on the project). Александр Мотин for whatever reason does not like these names, he moved one, I moved it back and insisted he opens a RM (Talk:Savyolovsky suburban railway line), the result was no consensus. This is obviously a content dispute, so I tried to resolve it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Moscow suburban railway lines and got some reasonable suggestions. I was planning to open a move discussion with multiple options (and had unfortunately less time recently because Ukrainian districts, with several thousands articles with outdated info, have a higher priority, but I am still planning to do it). At the same discussion, Александр Мотин was clearly told to stop. However, as with other topics, he is not prepared to accept the fact that consensus is different from his personal opinion. He started to create articles like Petrovsko-Razumovskaya railway station (Leningradskaya line) (the name of the article about the line is currently Leningradsky suburban railway line), and today they moved Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line perfectly knowing this goes against consensus. I am not sure why we should tolerate this any longer. The whole editing history of the user, both here and at the English Russian Wikipedia, shows that he is incapable of listening to other opinions and would not stop. We finally need a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Most recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive328#Unban--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I moved Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line because this Russian administrator failed to provide reliable sources for name like "Gorkovsky suburban railway line" etc (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Moscow suburban railway lines). And I provided such reliable sources as: Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation [78], Moscow Mayor official website [79][80]. What is the problem Ymblanter? Why did you file this request instead of providing reliable sources? Is it WP:HOUNDING again? When will you start providing reliable sources for the names you came up with (see WP:OR)? I don't know anyone in Russia who call these lines like "XXX suburban railway line". It is pure WP:OR of this administrator who cannot even provide reliable sources. If you look at the official route map you will see that the line is called "Gorkovskoye line" (Template:Lang-ru). --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have told you countless times that calling me a "Russian administrator" is factually incorrect, but, as usual, you prefer not to hear it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  And I've told you that you should provide reliable sources instead of harassment. Why don't you provide these reliable sources? What's wrong with the official scheme of Gorkovskoye line? Why you can't translate two words into English (Горьковское направление) from that official scheme?--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably this needs to be closed, either as site ban, or as insufficient participation to impose site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no minimum participation for a community ban, only a minimum time (72 hours barring a clear WP:SNOW case, in which it can be 24). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Site-ban for Александр Мотин

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

---

• Support (as proposer). Note that I very rarely support site bans, I have supported may be two or three during my whole tenure. However, we really need it here. The time good-faith users (and not just me, but also these who tried to argue with them that Russian propaganda must not be in the articles in Wikipedia voice) lose for dealing with this user is enormous and can not be justified by any potential benefit from his editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  If this is not clear from the exchange above, Александр Мотин just does not care about WP:CONSENSUS. It is just not within his horizon. Referring to WP:CONSENSUS is just not a valid argument for him. We have seen it in MH17 discuissions. We have seen it in Covid discussions. We have seen it in his unban request which I referenced above. We see it here. If he is not site-banned, we will continue seeing it in all new topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I waited 4 months for you to start providing reliable sources which prove those original railway line names you came up with. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support From what I see thus linked, you have my full support in your reasoning for this Ym. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 09:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cancel culture?--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, enough already. Александр Мотин had been given more than enough chances and WP:ROPE, to no avail. Александр Мотин's comments in this thread just underscore the conclusion that this is a WP:NOTHERE case. Nsk92 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support (after edit conflict). This editor has been given too many second chances already. Just the pointing out of another editor's ethnicity ("this Russian administrator") should be enough for a ban, on top of everything that has been mentioned in previous discussions. We wouldn't tolerate, I hope, anyone who habitually referred to another editor as "this Jewish administrator" and we similaraly shouldn't tolerate this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Phil Bridger: Disgusting commentary about "this Jewish administrator". You should be banned for attempting to incite a racist conflict here. This Russian administrator left a bad legacy in the Russian Wikipedia. And that's it.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Well, this is just bullshit. Not even a lie, just bullshit, in hope that something would stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Ymblanter: Oh really? So you forgot how you called the editors of the Russian Wikipedia "scum", for instance? How quickly you forget everything that you managed to do in the Russian Wikipedia. P.S. I can provide that diff with insults if required to the Arbitration Committee because it contains personal information. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Phil Bridger, the idea that mentioning another editor's nationality constitutes an attack is not only flat-out incorrect, it's something that happens all the time on Wikipedia. ("The consensus looks clear but every editor to participate so far has been British, I won't close the discussion until people in other parts of the world have had a chance to comment", "There's a clear split in the Arbitration Committee with American arbs consistently taking a stricter line on civility", "You say this isn't considered important in Turkey but every Turkish editor to comment has agreed that it should be included"…). This isn't particularly relevant to this particular case which is a straightforward conduct issue, but "Russian administrator" warrants at most "I'm not Russian" or "the fact that I'm Russian isn't relevant in this particular case". ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Ymblanter has made such replies many times before, but Александр Мотин persists in calling him "this Russian administrator". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Iridescent, Ymblanter has asked AM many times to stop calling them Russian, but they persist. If you look at Ymblanter's user page, they're Dutch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support based on what he's written in this thread and the case laid out above. It's pretty clear he cares more about winning than collaborating, a mindset which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 10:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a siteban. It shouldn't take three topic bans to get someone to behave properly. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but should this be a global ban? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the formal site ban from the English Wikipedia (to formalize the indefinite block). It only needs to be a global ban if he is banned from other Wikimedia projects also. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know what his status is at ruwiki but I believe he is at least indeffed. Could be worth looking into. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    He is blocked for an indefinite duration. Ruwiki does not have a site ban. He might be unblocked there either by the same administrator who blocked him, or by asking the ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Well meta:Global bans suggests that this meets the third criterion for a global ban: Indef blocked or banned on two or more projects. Whether the behavior is severe enough to be called "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" I'll leave to those more capable of vetting his contribs to other wikis. It does look like he's active at Commons and Wikidata. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support the site ban. It seems that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Renat (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Desysop for Ymblanter

Pure retaliation and continued nationalistic mislabling after multiple requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. It is clear that the actions of this Russian administrator correspond to WP:CTDAPE and WP:HOUNDING (1, ). I suppose he should be desysoped to prevent further harm to the English Wikipedia.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Александр Мотин indefinite block

Noting that I have indefinitely blocked Александр Мотин. Happy to let the WP:CBAN discussion progress as it may, but otherwise, enough is enough. El_C 10:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I am sorry that you now have to spend your time discussing with him at his talk page and explaining that your block is not misuse of the tools (which they have already implied). Hopefully this is the last time someone has to invest to this timesink.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's almost done now, anyway. There seems to be a sort of dissonance, made more obvious with this ANI report and culminating with my block, that ultimately just leads to an unmistaken dead end. El_C 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Given this should the block be amended to remove email access? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, it was only one email, so I'd hold off, for now. El_C 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to participants, Александр Мотин's talk page access has been revoked. So don't expect further defense against the siteban proposal. I don't think that should prevent it from being enacted, but felt it worth noting here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Laska666 non-collaborative editing and racial PAs

• Laska666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Laska666 began a major restructure of the several articles around Vietnamese dynasties, which was contested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties by myself and Qiushufang. Laska666 has been encouraged multiple times to discuss the content changes so we can achieve a consensus for how the articles should be structured, and did initially engage slightly in discussing the article structure.

But Laska666 has repeatedly focused on (what they perceive to be) personal background and reverted their edits back in:

1. your don't have much knowledge about Southeast Asia history. I recommend you should read some Southeast Asian history books (04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)‎)
2. This MarkH21 is just confused the difference between Chinese dynasties and Southeast Asian royal houses (04:10, 15 January 2021‎ (UTC))
3. Reverts their contested changes back in anyways (20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
4. Who are you? You're from project China, why you are here? Do you even read history books I recommended? (21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
   • If they're referring to WP:WikiProject China, I'm not even a participant there.
5. What problem with you? The Dinh was a royal family, not a state. I know you are angry guy, but did you buy and read the books I recommended? No? Pseudo enough. (21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
6. @MarkH21 so what stuff you had contributed to Southeast Asia topic? (21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

They were warned about this multiple times during the discussion; all ignored:

1. Comment on the content, not the contributor (please see WP:NPA). (04:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC))
2. Edit-warring warning (21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
3. You continue to focus on the contributor while ignoring the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties. This is your final warning to engage in constructive discussion and stop commenting on editors (especially without evidence). (21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

Laska666 has engaged on a talk page only one other time in their 6 months on WP, involving racially-based personal attacks against Kanguole at Talk:Chữ Nôm#infobox changes:

1. Stop faking our national customs, Chinese. (17:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC))
2. Stop telling lie, Chinese. (17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC))
3. Stop claiming our cultures, Chinese! (17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC))

I don't think more warnings from me will accomplish anything. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I came into conflict with Laska over linking to Dai Viet instead of the dynasty articles a while ago because he insisted on changing it to Dai Viet, when the page did not contain any useful information. Eventually Dai Viet was improved to the point where it at least had links to the appropriate dynasty articles which contain actual information valuable to the reader. Dai Viet still does not contain adequate information on each individual dynasty and their corresponding historical information, so to delete content from the dynasty pages is essentially destructive behavior. Moreover, it does not hurt to contain more detailed information on the political history of Dai Viet in each individual dynasty page anyways, as it prevents bloat in a single article. Both Dai Viet and the dynasty pages can have useful information, but at this stage of the pages' development, it does not matter because neither have adequate amounts of information to warrant deletion of content. I suggest Laska to simply add content rather than delete, especially when no alternative sources of information exist on wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: That's the content side of it. But Laska666 has several conduct issues here. They need to stop focusing on personal background and engage in collaborative content discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This person attempts to divide our community into a Southeast Asian/Vietnamese section, a Chinese section, and whatnot, by insulting everybody who they believe is of Chinese ancestry or for some ad hoc reason unsuitable for "their" field of knowledge. Such conduct is shockingly racist and highly disruptive to collaborative work. As multiple unmistakable warnings have been of no avail, I believe the time has come to make them painfully aware they've crossed more than one red line. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive and partially uncivil editing by WhyDoIHaveThisName

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

---

• WhyDoIHaveThisName (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Diffs of disruptive editing: [81][82][83][84]

Edit filter log: [85][86][87][88]

Wiping talk pages: [89] [90]

The user in question edits disruptively, but seems to know about the three-revert rule: They make 1, maybe 2 reverts every 24 hours. The user's edits are disruptive: Usually breaking links (changing Special:UserLogout to Special:UserLogin), or adding massive amounts of text (pasting the same page twice, adding copious amounts of "fuck you"). According to filter 1053, they fit the pattern of an LTA. Oshwah, who made the filter, may have more to say on this matter. Additionally, instead of vandalizing a highly-visible page, they went for a humorous essay, why not create an account; which gets, on average, 14 daily pageviews. The knowledge of 3RR and project pages make it more likely that this user is indeed an LTA. Thanks for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 11:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like some type of vandalism to me, with failure to engage (only two project talk page edits were to blank some of their content and the only edit to their own page was to blank a warning). No edits to other articles or project pages. —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This may be a nitpick, but check the edit filter log. They created a draft, BaconShadow, which was later CSD'd for promotion; and made an edit to Never Gonna Give You Up. Also, they removed a series of uw templates, and blanked my attempt at discussing the matter with them on the article's talk page. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 07:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is definitely a VOA, and I've indefinitely blocked the account as such. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Steveengel

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

---

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

I'm not sure what Steveengel (talk · contribs) is up to, but their edits for the last three days have been strictly almost entirely confined to copying bits of material from Talk:Gab (social network) to their userpage [91] (which I've blanked pending this discussion) and a subpage [92] (which was nominated for deletion as an attack page (and which was properly declined by Liz), together with a list of the editors who have been editing there. This editor first came to my attention when they complained about the "jew star" [93] in the sidebar, in their very first edit. There is a valid discussion to be had, which has been ongoing, about whether the article should be part of a series on anti-Semitism, in which Steveengel has not participated since starting the section - since renamed. Given the nature of editing associated with Gab (social network) and their choice of words in their initial edit, I don't think it's appropriate to compile lists of editors on that topic on a userpage, especially as a single focus on WP. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I filed the request for deletion because having a list of editors, and copying the comments of various editors, looked like it was trying to put aside attack material as you said (in particular, having a list of editors). That being said, this [94] still just seems weird.

I'm also concerned by their linking a Gab account on their user page (prior to Acroterion's blanking it for WP:UPNOT).

I listed some specific concerns and evidence related to possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Steveengel. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You people are insane. I created a space on gab recently. I went to their wikipage. i thought it was crap. Now I'm thinking there must be a conflict of interest for this page to be so slanted. The scary "list" was copypasted from here ::https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Gab_%28social_network%29/

i'm not familiar with wikipedia rules, im a newb. I didnt know i couldn't simply collect research material to my own user page. Steveengel (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We're not insane. Why are you compiling lists of editors? Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm following a lead that that the main editors to the gab page are biased, so I copy/pasted a list of editors that have made the most edits to the gab wiki page, then I went and looked at their user pages to see if there was any indications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And how do you plan to use that information? Acroterion (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As the first editor on your "list", I am enormously creeped out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't take literary genius to go to Gabs wiki page and see why so many people take issue with it & subsequently the editing behind it. Its a crap page. It looks like somebody took a big ol crap on their page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs)

Do what your gonna do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On that page, you appear to be accusing of conflict of interest editors who widely edit the encyclopedia's many topics. On the other hand, WP:SPA is more plausible evidence of WP:COI. You also accuse them of bias, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't be the mouthpiece for companies and organizations and should instead rely on reliable independent sources. It's normal that those sources don't portray it in the light Gab or its users would like. —PaleoNeonate – 21:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Would I be out of order to propose a WP:NOTHERE block? (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Based on their edits since this thread was opened, I'm not sure what this user's goal is unless it's to get blocked.--Jorm (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold Steveengel (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• As it is blatantly obvious, given the above and this, that this user is not here to help build an encyclopedia and accordingly is now indefinitely blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

120.22.81.111 at Talk:Novak Djokovic

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

---

120.22.81.111 (talk · contribs) is practically ranting at Talk:Novak Djokovic about Djokovic.[95] While ranting, they have decided to include attacks toward Novak. I reverted it twice and informed them both times about our talk page guideline. The user has insisted since then to expand more and more these attacks. I also think that there is an enormous difference between what they have said there and "Hey guys. Where's the entry about Djokovic's behaviour". Can someone take a look at this? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a rant, but a reflection on Novak Djokavic's outlandish requests at the behest of himself. It is not a discussion, but a summary of what has happened today with his requests to the Australian Open directors, and it should be met and dealt with in the same fashion with a thorough and logical rebuke of his actions particularly considering the state of the world right now. --120.22.81.111 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for producing an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not a place to discuss or rebuke things that are in the news. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well shall we say, that the ultimate form of rebuke from an academic perspective (I'm assuming Wikipedia actually wants to meet the standards of academics one day rather than being a laughing stock across the world) is to repudiate what was said... I'm not saying I was nice, I don't care about being nice, I did say what I said was the truth of the matter, and further to that point, the real sentiments of many people living in Australia right now. --120.22.81.111 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The real sentiments of many people living in Australia right now are not encyclopedically relevant, except as reliable sources report on them as a reaction to Novak's actions. Nobody cares about your being nice or not (within the bounds of WP:CIVIL), we care about the fact your HONEST statement was against Wikipedia policy, potentially against our most critical policy, and whether or not it was the truth of the matter is not relevant to inclusion in Wikipedia. We deal a lot with editors who come here to promote "The Truth", registered or not, and a large fraction of them go on about Wikipedia being a laughing stock across the world. We're used to those slings and arrows. We want to meet the standards of being verifiable and reliable about notable subjects, regardless of what 'academics' think (and in many cases what they think is, in fact, against policy). No more. No less.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

considering I was making an edit request almost none of this stuff about actually editing is relevant to me. But if you really must have a sourced opinion... Here you go... "Djokovic is a tool" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.81.111 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a case of WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You had better be careful with charging competence unless you like boomerangs... You may not like my tone or my civility but as should already be understood... This is not a competence issue at best it is a civility issue, at worst case the OP has drawn a long bow and gone off half cocked like most people who charge IPs with lack of competence... So charge me with incivility if you want, but that's exactly why I don't have an account here. A lot of editors here on Wikipedia are full of shit about their "knowledge" and are quite openly POV pushers, who abuse rules such as 3RR to filibuster and stifle change, and systems such as AN/I for things like these that have nothing to do what so ever with competence but more so to do with civility. Most of these editors of Wikipedia wouldn't know the first thing about NPOV from a truely academic perspective or how to check your biases at the door when you engage in topics and it is so blatant in relation to the matters of sports such as "whose the best" in tennis that the whole discussion there over recent years already proves my point of view. So, before you charge me with competence, I suggest you check your own civility issues at the door, and then reflect on how to check your biases at the door also. Maybe then you will actually understand the point of what I was actually saying...

On that note I never said I was "nice." I don't profess to follow the etiquette of nicety when I'm charged with such nonsense as incompetence, when it's far from the case either. I did say I was honest in my statement. My HONEST statement about Novak this morning was an honest assessment of the facts... and in this case I don't like it has already been assessed as not being a good enough excuse to be here at the administrators noticeboard so please feel free to shut up.

The point was made that the article should reflect Novak's poor behavior in an already terse situation, and his expectations in a country faced with the fragility of being one of the few countries that is covid free in the community... Moreover, that his behaviour (not mine) is beyond rebuke.

I think we're done here. --120.22.81.111 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the above rant is good enough for a WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Buh bye now. Slywriter (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

if you really must have a sourced opinion... In reference to what I said above... Here you go... "Djokovic is a tool" --120.22.81.111 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you threatening me IP? If so, you're only boring me. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not Cornholio I have no reason to threaten you. I'm just reminding you about incivility and if you're going to throw sticks about competence, some of of those sticks will be boomerangs, and if it's the case that some sticks are boomerangs then at least some of those boomerangs will come back.

You might not like the language of my request, but there was a clear request that even you understood... and that rebuke has been brought to the table by someone else other than me that Djokovic is a tool. So it's not original research either. If you have a problem with what I say, take it up with someone who cares... --120.22.81.111 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well this whole argument is about as dumb as bringing this to AN/I and it is definitely about being HERE. The jester himself that has caused this furore has put out his own statement about his list of demands --120.22.20.47 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you like a tennis court with that statement? . I was trying to save you the ignomy of bringing up the jesters backpedal. --120.22.20.47 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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

Disruptive edits and conduct by @Tammaravon89

• Tammaravon89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

@Tammaravon89 has repeatedly engaged in uncollaborative behavior, disruptive editing, and baseless accusations of bias against editors.

On the page Kaia Gerber. The user first added copyrighted images, which I nominated for deletion on Wikimedia. Tammaravon89 responded with a lengthy ping on each nom page (here, responded with fruitless insults; among them calling me "childish", "immature", and "prejudice[d".]), border-lining on WP:NPA. The user stopped restoring the images onto the page afterward.

Today - user Emir of Wikipedia changed the infobox image on the page to a cropped version of the same photo and added photo to the "Career" section. Tammaravon89 reverted the image to the "consensual edition". I made edits rephrasing & reworking the article, rephrasing the lead, restoring the "Career" image, and reworking the sectioning - as notable sources do not refer to Gerber as an actress, I both her "Career" sections. Tammaravon89 reverted the edits I re-added the image and reworked the lead here {zero information change.) This has been reverted twice. On Talk: Kaia Gerber: Wham2001 started a discussion about the infobox image, stating that the cropped image was better, to which I agreed. Tammaravon89 disagreed and dismissed "haters" for "editing articles" to annoy a public figure. I replied warning them of their conduct. Here, Tammaravon89 stated that "the mere fact" that Wham2001 had added the image here "show[ed] the[ir] bad intentions", calling the photo "undercover online vandalism".

About the "Career" dispute: (I did revert too much before discussing), the user started a section here, again referencing editor bias. The user reiterated claims of my "bias". I commented on the User talk:Tammaravon89 here, saying that their behavior had been uncivil and that further conduct would result in a report. Both here and on my talk page here, they stated that I was the one who showed uncivil behavior, reiterating my "bias" and that "threatening [them] on [their] TALK PAGE is sufficient proof for [them]."

After multiple attempts at collaboration and discussion, Tammaravon89 has continuously carried out disruptive edits/reversions and personal attacks against editors who disagree with them. --Bettydaisies (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what? EEng 06:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That article is awful, as behooves a supermodel. Bettydaisies, TMI--though your opponent is even wordier and can't do paragraphs. Tammaravon has problems with encyclopedic writing as well, and with history. Setting those matters aside, it's pretty clear to me that Tammaravon is a pretty serious disruptor, and has been for a while, including with personal attacks--"bot user", "bot" (that's about Emir of Wikipedia)), false accusations of vandalism with some whataboutism thrown in, use of unreliable sources, another unreliable source, and of course edit warring over the lead. Here is General Ization reverting a rambling and somewhat threatening message from Tammaravon.

In general, I think their understanding of the BLP and of how talk pages work is problematic. Finally, from their recent edits, there's a rant on Talk:Kendall Jenner, with accusations of bias and hate and vandalism--really, the usual kind of stuff from editors with a POV and a lack of dedication to the BLP and to RS. Note the response by Escape Orbit, who got accused of "transphobic bias" by Tammaravon.

I'm interested in hearing from other editors. I left them a BLP DS alert (that should have been done earlier), and am considering blocking them from the Gerber article at the very least, and possibly from BLPs altogether. I would like to know what others think, and if the editor should be blocked from article talk pages also. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the length - I realize it could impede the smoothness of the process and revised it while keeping main links intact. I have noticed their harassment of other users but didn't know if it was my place to bring it here. The user has also blanked warnings on their talk page about assuming bad faith. They've thrown some hefty insults around me and other users, but "transphobic bias" appears to be especially harsh and unacceptable. There's an enormous amount of POV, not just from their own profile, but from repeated attempts to "protect" the reputation of various models and accusations of bias against anyone who disagrees. IMHO, This user would have to show a definite and thorough understanding of BLP, civility, encyplodeic writing, and talk page function to be allowed to continuously edit uninterrupted, which they haven't, as of this entry.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. At the the risk of sounding abrupt, and without the time to back up the opinion with evidence, I don't believe that Tammaravon89 has maturity and sufficient interest in understanding the project and its policies to be permitted to edit at all. Given the amount of other editors' time and energy their edits have already wasted, I do not feel that the project will be diminished at all by the loss of Tammaravon89's potential future contributions. General Ization ^Talk 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lara Trump

Political trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Editors continue to include an intentionally less than flattering image of Lara Trump in the infobox of the article. Originally, This edit substituted a perfectly suitable image with a picture so unflattering it serves only to disparage the subject. For comparison, this is previous photo is the infobox image currently used at commons:Category:Lara Trump. I would go as far as saying this is in violation of the Biographies of Living People policy. Instead of allowing for the perfectly fine image across the platform, this was approved shortly after. I understand that people age, but it certainly looks like editors are attempting to portray the subject in the worst way possible. We all get age lines and wrinkles, it isn't going away. However, there is problem when a 38 year old woman has images that make here look several years older or in some comical sense used in a BLP. There are dozens of more appropriate images to chose, and anyone following neutrality could pick one. I don't believe editors have acted in good faith and am interested in poking about the real issue for a month while they play games. Talk:Lara Trump#Lead Image. When I brought it up at the BLP noticeboard I was told it was not urgent. These are the sort of things that spriral out of control and become urgent when it is a BLP and Wikipedia is at liability. There is zero reason not to eliminate the image and allow discussion... editors are not allowing that since it seems like a game to them. 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Hard to see why admin intervention would be needed. There is a talk page discussion and a BLPN post -- plenty of attention on this content dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) There is no reason to not take action on this other than politics. It is a BLP. Editors are intentionally trying to make the subject look silly or unattractive. You would feel the same if it was your favorite rock star or celerity. A disgusting gross double standard applied against the guidelines this very platform is established on. 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The supposedly BLP violating picture of Lara Trump A content discussion, not a BLP violation by any stretch of the word. A perfectly acceptable image which in no way displays her in a negative light. ANI discussion should be closed, article talk page discussion is sufficient. What you are doing here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Fram (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A: as it says in very large writing at the top, you need to notify Tym2412 that you have raised an ANI topic about his edit. I have done that for you. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Comment - I was unaware of this discussion. To me, the three photos you've linked are of equal merit. I don't see how any one of them is unflattering. (Not that it is Wikipedia's job to flatter.) I suggest you withdraw this complaint. Deb (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Martevenere

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

---

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

Sockpuppet of recently blocked AnatoLion, block evasion, same kind of disruptive editing with personal attacks in summary [96] (this time against @Coderenius:). Given the history of AnatoLion and this one, time to indef both as per WP:NOTHERE (@Ymblanter:). --A.Savin (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Now blocked; I threw in the sock Izmir photos (talk · contribs) for free. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Block review - qanon username

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

---

Please review my block. I blocked WWG1WWA2021 based on their username. WWG1WWA is a QAnon saying, "Where We Go One, We Go All". On the basis of WP:USERNAME, I issued a hard block. Without meaning to imply they are equivalent, we frequently issue blocks around Fourteen Words. I'd appreciate hearing if people believe this block is inappropriate. Note also this discussion is about my block, my specific action, not about that editor, so I have chosen not to notify them. If you think this is in error, I'll be happy to notify them (or you can). --Yamla (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since Special:Contributions/WWG1WWA2021 is about as textbook an example of WP:NOTHERE as it's possible to be, so they're not getting unblocked whatever name they use. (On the specific topic of the name, I wouldn't block for it if any only if they stayed totally away from US politics and stuck to editing the history of pedigree cats or whatever; what one thinks of QAnon is beside the point as we'd block User:Vote_Biden or whatever just as readily.) ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Erm, yep, this is a NOTHERE editor who couldn't really be further from HERE if they tried. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Also the acronym would be WWG1WGA. Another Jenius! —valereee (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, that's too funny 🤣🤣 Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Non-neutral editing at Mediumship by Flowcode

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

Flowcode, a SPA, has been making non-neutral edits at the Mediumship article. The edits mainly involve adding original research to the lead of the article. These are the following edits:

• [97]
• [98]
• [99]
• [100]
• [101]

Regardless of our own personal views of matters relating to spirtualism (for the record I am not an advocate) the edits are clearly non-neutral Several editors have taken Flowcode to task at Talk:Mediumship#Mediumship_is_not_a_"pseudoscience" and the prevailing view is that their edits fall short of Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality standards. This type of article often attracts non-neutral editing although in the past it has mainly been from people advocating for mediumship. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this to be a masqueraded ad hominem attack against me, to simply support a certain viewpoint. Most of the edits referenced here, are moot now. The final edit, which appears to have prompted this accusation towards me, no longer deals with "pseudoscience", which was what the original dispute/edit war revolved around. It seems that any edit from me, which attempts to contribute to the scientific viewpoint, is met with hostility with the argument that it doesn't meet WP:NPOV. I believe I'm respecting WP:NPOV, and I'm doing this in good faith based on the fact that I saw an article which I believed grossly understated the scientific viewpoint by downplaying it to a bare minimum, and referring to the scientific consensus in downplayed phrases. Such as calling it a mere "skepticism". It is very easy to use words to emphasize a certain viewpoint, and this article was (and still is) anything but neutral. I would like to add that I'm also a beginner at Wikipedia and feel like I'm stepping on the toes of senior editors that are overly protective of their articles they involve themselves in.Flowcode (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowcode, you were clearly edit warring to insert your desired changes into the Mediumship article. When your changes are contested and reverted, you should then seek consensus at the article talk page rather than simply repeating your additions multiple times. Any further edit warring will result in a block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, talk. You're saying that I was "edit warring", but the other user, Betty Logan, was not? Didn't the other user revert the revert just as many times? Why is it that Betty Logan can revert, while I may not? Furthermore, you didn't address my statement towards this being moot. The final edit didn't state that mediumship is pseudoscience. So that leaves the obvious question, what was wrong with my final edit? Even if I was "edit warring" in the previous edits, what bearing does that have towards the final edit? Why was the final edit also reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No hard feelings, but my suspicion is that Flowcode is a sock rather than a SPA. Their uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia WP:PAGs does not plead for them being a new user. Other than that, Flowcode does have my sympathy in this dispute, since they work in the spirit of WP:ARBPS. By uncanny knowledge I mean knowing that WP:NPOV boils down to WP:SPOV in scientific matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was presented with the links to the WP policies by the very same user that reverted my edits, and no, I didn't read all of them. In fact, I read very little of them. I read some of them, and respond as best I can to something I consider a blow to the face when I'm trying to correct what I find to be outrageously incorrect. However, I'm fully capable of realizing that this doesn't have anything to do with WP policies, and has everything to do with two things. 1, treating a senior user better than a new user, especially someone as arrogant as I am. And 2: Assigning similar weights to anecdotal pseudoscience as real science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

and no, I didn't read all of them. In fact, I read very little of them And that's the first major problem here... (also I'm struggling to parse what your "1." means there without having to slip on the good-faith front). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler page incorrect/highly biased content

Political content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See title. Parler is currently described as being an alt-right platform. This isn't true, may even fall into defamation while Parker's lawsuit for anti-trust and discriminatory practices is open against Amazon Web Services. Very very VERY unprofessional of Wikipedia to join the political bandwagon. 2601:281:C500:7FE:A891:712F:42F:1EA6 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

repeatedly removing other editors comments

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

This editor User talk:Distelfinck is being super disruptive, repeatedly removing other editors comments, edit warring with it. They repeatedly remove content and claim BLP violation despite none being evident. I think they are WP:NOTHERE and aim simply to disrupt, a vandal and nothing else. Diffs (I might have missed some, they've been busy):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000551734
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000561680
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000574916
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000576252
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001159818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001170211
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001172581
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001174854
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001175479
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001175782

It's really disruptive, completely out of line. I don't see any hope of this editor being able to contribute constructively if this is how they conduct themselves. If you look at their history they are generally disruptive, they don't contribute constructively to articles and I sincerely think they are here to disrupt rather than contribute, the broader pattern is that of a vandal. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was going to say that NOTHERE is often overused when it comes to editors who have been here for 8 years. But wait, you just Googled a guy and think this is good enough to say that he's a white supremacist on Wikipedia? Seriously? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Or you could try taking a proper look at the discussion and the diffs? Being here for a long time they would know that you can't just delete other editors talk comments or editwar this way. Kind of behavior you usually get from IP vandals. The discussion is actually about whether the subject is or is not a white supremacist...And that is all besides the point, edit warring and deleting other editors comments is disruptive and then some, I assume you already know this as an admin? I would have thought the diffs above were blatantly actionable. Bacondrum 01:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You say: "They repeatedly remove content and claim BLP violation despite none being evident." Calling a living person a "white supremacist", without providing reliable sources is a BLP violation. Paul August ☎ 02:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like good-faith removals of uncited and thus BLP-violating claims. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? This is just crazy. Did you actually look? The discussion is about whether or not the subject is a white supremacist, I typed their name into google and every article that came up described them as such, so I addded that observation to the discussion. Distelfinck has been edit warring, I'm not the only one who contested his repeat deletion of other editors comments. So, from here on out I should assume it's okay for me to to remove other editors comments whenever I want, even after others have responded, and edit warring is also totally acceptable now? Noted - Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in the future. You guys are admins, you set the standards. Bacondrum 04:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, in fact I did "actually look". I typed their name into google and every article that came up described them as such, so I addded that observation to the discussion. Without any backup for your claim from these "every article"s you say that you found. "I googled the guy" is not sufficient evidence for this sort of claim to be made. You made an unsupported claim that, being unsupported, violated BLP. That's all there is to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

First articles that come up in google search. And keep in mind that the discussion was about whether or not the subject is a white supremacist, pretty hard to have that conversation if you can't say either way.

• https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2020/12/30/22206292/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-wisconsin
• https://www.npr.org/2020/12/03/942355778/kyle-rittenhouse-the-kenosha-shooting-suspect-ordered-to-stand-trial (calls him a white vigilante, but same difference.)
• https://abc7.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-jacob-blake-shooting/9695338/
• https://7news.com.au/news/crime/teen-charged-in-kenosha-shooting-on-bail-c-1623155
• https://www.ajc.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-hoists-beers-with-proud-boys-at-wisconsin-bar/RQTCZMR4T5G5PIKQHROSIE5G3Q/

All describe him as or connect him to white supremacy. And surely Distelfink should not be edit warring with multipul editors, removing multipul editors comments, without discussion. Bacondrum 21:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, now in the future please, when describing people like that even on talk pages, supply these reliable sources to establish the comments. Distelfink was removing what were indistinguishable from serious BLP violations and therefore isn't likely to be sanctioned. If they start removing sourced comments in discussions, we can return to this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I see now. Sorry if I was being a bit curt. Thanks for your time. Bacondrum 09:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that any of those sources would support calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. The old ones don't all say white supremacist and the ones that do say BLM protesters (or similar) have accused him of such. That is not sufficient for us to say he is. Also the way that discussion was going didn't suggest editors were trying to weigh evidence to support an impartial edit. Anyway, none of those older sources say he is. The newer sources talk about a recent incident but again do not say or quote others saying Rittenhouse is a WS. Springee (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they do warrant that claim being included in the article in wikivoice. That being said nearly every article on the subject mentions him throwing white power signs and being connected to white supremacy, he is accused of murdering leftists - I think we can discuss the fact that he may well be a white supremacist. I don't see how the comments at talk were BLP violations. It's not like articles about him are saying "boy scout accused of murder". Bacondrum 09:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I was concerned about IHA's comments and started a BLPN discussion here. [[102]] Even now with (alleged) I think this is a problem. It also refects a pattern on needlessly hostile talk page comments/behavior. By itself this probably isn't actionable but if it continues a tban should be considered. Springee (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia

• The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:3681:2300:1510:5657:46D4:9E27 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I did want to report the harassment committed by The Banner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Banner). The user was engaged in behavior that goes against the conduct of Wikipedia and was disrupting the working relationships required to cooperatively work together. The user has intentionally committed name-calling and hurtful comments towards me. The following is verbatim what the user wrote:

curprev 21:21, 14 January 2021‎ 87.198.60.169 talk‎ 40,697 bytes −253‎ →‎Passenger: DL and UA don’t operate at SNN and have no intention to resume. Some idiot living in fantasy land has no source, and yet keeps adding these. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Manual revert”

curprev 18:12, 17 January 2021‎ 2a02:8085:3240:c080:2d8c:c876:15a6:5af6 talk‎ 40,556 bytes −290‎ →‎Passenger: AA's route resumption date is irrelevant and DL DOES NOT FLY TO SNN ANYMORE. THE ROUTE IS TERMINATED FOR NOW. WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

This behavior does not contribute towards a safe nor inclusive editing environment required to collaboratively work together. Please take necessary action to help contribute to the welfare of the community that helps make Wikipedia a better place for all. I am urging you to advocate to make this a more inclusive and positive environment for all editors, practitioners, and readers to enjoy. The anger from this user must be eradicated. Thank you for your concern and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3681:2300:1510:5657:46D4:9E27 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, to quote the Hon. Matthew W. Brann: Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling [something] unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. I can't even immediately tell (and am not inclined to search myself) what page/s this is even in reference to. Also, you failed to inform The Banner about this complaint, as is required. I will do this for you. El_C 23:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't even find the links the IP is referring to in either the listed IP address talk page history, Shannon Airport history, or The Banner's contribution history. Unless someone revdel'ed them, I am starting to think someone is trying to get them blocked. spryde | talk 23:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Spryde, even revdeleted edits still show up as something. Same with suppressed ones. I'm not sure there's actually a way to fully purge something from an edit history, save perhaps in some super-dev way. El_C 23:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits in question are on the Shannon Airport article, however not by The Banner. They’ve been made by other IPs: special:Diff/1000379276 special:Diff/1000984810. NJD-DE (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot twist! El_C 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's hard to tell at a glance because of how they were posted and I'm pretty sure that's deliberate, the IP addresses who actually made those edits are right there in the quoted text. I hear a whistling noise - pretty sure it's an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the complex of IPs and one account were in fact removing sourced information. That an airline remove an airport out of his list of current destinations is normal, but that does not mean that a temporary suspended flight is permanently out of the air. Especially when there are sources available that state that the airline will be back in 2021 or 2022. The Banner talk 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IP-hopper changing/adding unsourced content after many warnings

• 182.70.211.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 122.175.223.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 171.61.9.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User keeps making unsourced edits.[103][104][105][106] Has been given many warnings (as evidenced by their talk pages) and has been blocked twice. However, they then just change IPs and continue. These IPs are clearly the same person as they have all written the same phrase in their edit summaries.[107][108][109]

They later somewhat understood their changes need to be sourced, but they then started only doing so by pasting links in edit summaries, primarily leading to Wikidata.org.[110][111] I informed them a few times about their error in doing this and also directed them to read the notices left in their talk page,[112][113] though this seems to have only confused them.[114] I finally posted an edit summary in which I tried to explain myself as clearly as possible and also added multiple helpful links.[115] This has not made any impact and they continue to make the same edits.[116][117][118]
Alivardi (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I see this report after engaging with one of the IPs. Now they are editing warring while changing dates etc without any sources. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Solavirum and Turkic nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide

• Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Solavirum recently claimed that the Armenian Genocide had "happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism". I had first encountered Solavirum when he voted to keep an an article I nominated to delete. The article was an obvious POVFORK that gave genocide denial undue weight, yet Solavirum voted to keep it without any explanation beyond a personal attack: "seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI."

Solavirum mostly edits articles related to conflicts involving Azerbaijan and Turkey, usually related to Armenia. He has frequently been POV pushing in favor of the Azeri/Turkish narrative and often engages in edit wars, for which he was recently temporarily blocked on two separate occasions for 3RR edit warring on July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and later on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.[119][120]

Recently, User:Saotura was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?"

Solavirum has also been previously warned about topic bans for Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts (AA2) on at least three separate occasions, first by @LouisAragon:, then by @Cabayi:, and finally by @Addictedtohistory:. --Steverci (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update I understand most administrators will likely be unfamiliar with this historical topic, so here are some sources to provide some context on why this constitutes genocide denial:

“ One of the key arguments made by genocide deniers is that the deportations, and whatever “unfortunate excesses” occurred during them, were not part of a plan of extermination but rather a response to an Armenian rebellion in the eastern provinces in collaboration with Russia.

This officially distributed educational material reconstructs the history in line with the denial policies of the government portraying the Armenians as backstabbers and betrayers, who are portrayed as a threat to the sovereignty and identity of modern Turkey. The demonization of the Armenians in Turkish education is a prevailing occurrence that is underwritten by the government to reinforce the denial discourse.

The Turkish state and those few historians who reject the notion of genocide have argued that the tragedy was the result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population in time of war and mortal danger to the state’s survival... There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it. They were rebellious, seditious subjects who presented a danger to the empire and got what they deserved... Still—the denialists claim—despite the existential threat posed by the Armenians and their Russian allies to the survival of the empire, there was no intention or effort by the Young Turk regime to eliminate the Armenians as a people.

In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government. A number of authors have worked with Professor M. Hakan Yavuz and published works with the University of Utah Press. While there are differences in emphasis and interpretation among their works, these writers are to a large degree sympathetic to the defensive attitudes of Turkish government and military officials, favor evidence and accounts exculpatory of the Young Turk policies, and emphatically reject the notion of genocidal intention.

”

References

--Steverci (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, this is ridiculous. You're constantly pushing a wrong narrative here. The whole discussion (which Steverci opened in several different pages, and always getting rejected) was that you had no sources for your claims of any relation between Ganja missile strikes and bombardment of Stepanakert. And that's why I presented you the same rhetoric, where, without any sources, I could also present a false viewpoint, relating events with each other and showing a false narrative. Accusing others of pushing a nationalist agenda is a heavy claim, and you need legit grounds for that. Furthermore, I did not voted against it because I denied the genocide. Even if I did, without a doubt, would still have nothing to do with you, or the others. The thing is, the editors' personal opinions are, as given in the name, personal to them, and unless those opinions colides with the editors' published edits, and behavior, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Though, in Saotora's case, it seems that it did, which I realised later. Furthermore, I did not said that Saotora was right on his edits, but I was against his indefinite block, as the user, who had joined Wikipedia in a month or so, probably did not knew the existing guidelines that well. LouisAragon's warnings had came years ago, when I was not quite familiar with the project itself, and citing years old warnings is not relatable to present day and the present situation. For the past blocks in 2020, yet again, I was not familiar with the 3RR rules, and had since grasped them. That's why my last block was several months ago. In the meanwhile, Addictedtohistory's warnings were largely false, as he was constantly, and randomly accusing me of personal attacks. Let me remind you that giving warnings to other users just to make yourself look right, doesn't actually make you right. Unless you have legit grounds of me pushing an agenda, this application is a false flag. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to invite HistoryofIran, who we share topics of interests, to possibly opine here, if I'm pushing a Pan-Turkist agenda here, or not. LouisAragon's thoughts could be useful to, as we had discussed some issues regarding the given topic in the past. In 2018/19, as a young teenager, I had not grasped the WP:RS (as the Azerbaijani historiography provided a whole different narrative, completely stranded from the Western historiography), and had minor conflicts with the two users. But those were three years ago, for Steverci to cite them, it is misusing an editor's rough beginnings. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally, though, as you might have guessed, I don't like things personal to me, including my personal opinions, be exposed on Wikipedia, for the record, I do not deny the genocide. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have interacted with Solavirum on azwiki where we briefly had a dispute. I don't see Solavirum as particularly that nationalist (and has protected the Armenian genocide article in Azeri from denialists).
  I'll further add to what he have responded with this is not a warning. It is explicitly not a warning. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. It's obvious by Solavirum's comments that he does not deny the genocide and what you quoted was him intentionally providing a false view point for comparison. And I'm not sure why so many of you make this mistake, but sanctions alert is not a warn. It's an alert to simply inform users. About that article deletion, it seems to me that he voted to keep it after a large chunk of genocide denial and irrelevant material was already removed from the article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can't speak of SolaVirum's actions in the past because I don't remember/don't know, but I currently don't think he is attempting to push a pan-Turkist agenda, and he has been relatively easy working with, at least with me. Sure, there are some things he hasn't completely learned (as he himself just admitted), but at least he is open to learn and is indeed learning. I'm gonna assume WP:GOOD FAITH and don't think he attempted to justify the Armenian genocide, but I can kinda see why Steverci would see it like that. At the end of the day we have to be very careful when speaking of emotional topics like these. This comment is not directed at anyone, just some food for thought; Even if the main reason (or one of the reasons) for the genocide was because of a revolt (I'm not well-versed in this topic, so I apologize in advance), that's still pretty messed up. Imagine if every power (Soviets, British come to mind) attempted to cull/destroy a civilization because some of them revolted, we wouldn't have anything left. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @HistoryofIran: Attributing the genocide to "revolts" is plain and simple genocide denial. --Steverci (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Justification of Genocide, to be precise, which shares common aspects with Denial of Genocide --Armatura (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is WP:WITCHHUNT in my opinion. Solavirum's activity is not similar to Saotura's nationalistic quest. The provided diffs do not show strong, long-term, or undeniable similarity between the two users. Solavirum should be more cautious and neutral especially when dealing with some topics. We don't want wars/dramas between ethnic groups and nationalities on WP. There is zero point in indef-blocking normal users just because they may have done some mistakes or problematic edits. I supported indef-block for Saotura but I oppose this one. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Solavirum's profile on Azerbaijani language version of Wikipedia explicitly denies Armenian Genocide: (https://archive.is/wip/FmOmj page archived today] with İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı template that says "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim." I think a larger-than-a-specific-user outcome of this discussion would be establishing whether it is allowed to deny established genocides (like Armenian, Jewish, Rwandan, Cambodian, etc) on any Wikipedia / Wikimedia branch. As for the nationalism, there are signs of Turkish nationalism / Panturkism ("This user supports the independence of East Turkestan" "This user demands freedom for South Azerbaijan", "This user is in favor of recognizing the independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and "This user wants Turkish to be the official language in Iran" although understandably "This user does not recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and considers it Azerbaijani territory". Again, if it is okay anywhere in Wikipedia to openly hold such views and take a reverting approach on the related topics, that is fine. If not, then something needs to be done to prevent this phenomenon Wikipedia-wide, rather than in a specific user. I am talking Wikipedia as a worldwide phenomenon, not just English Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone with any view is allowed to edit Wikipedia, and the use of userboxes to express these views (provided they aren't beyond certain lines, and a genocide-denial userbox, if it existed, would be well over one of those lines) is generally allowed, and can even be seen as a declaration of interest/potential bias, which is actually productive (now if they start spreading political opinions outside of their own user page, then it can start to become a problem). The thing is users are required to edit neutrally regardless of their views (or the expression of same on their userpage). If they can, it doesn't matter what their own personal opinions are. If they can't, they're going to wind up getting sanctioned anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for elaborating, The Bushranger. By saying template I meant userbox (a small colored box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user). This is that userbox: https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_erm%C9%99ni_soyq%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1, called "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı", translated as "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim.", and it is placed on Solavirum's page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i:Solavirum/Haqq%C4%B1mda#Siyasi (second from the left on top) . The other thing that causes a concern Solavirum rejects a denial of Armenian Genocide here by writing "for the record, I do not deny the genocide" 04:16, 19 January 2021 higher up in this discussion, whereas he demonstrates Armenian Genocide Denial userbox on his talkpage, the very userbox he apparently work on https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%BCsusi:Tarix%C3%A7%C9%99/%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_erm%C9%99ni_soyq%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1 How to understand this? --Armatura (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, az.wikipedia is its own project, we on en. can't control what goes on there. But, first check and make sure that wasn't placed on their page by some other user (that does happen). Beyond that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too involved, but I just want to note that "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı" translates to "User Armenian Genocide" and not "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim.". Also, the userbox was added to AzWiki 3 years ago, so the user could've well changed their mind about it in that time, so it's not correct to label what he's saying as a "reject a denial" without proof. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger He added it himself. Moreover, he created that userbox. As for the remark of CuriousGolden (who was keen to interact with Solavirum off Wikipedia during 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War), the userbox "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı" says "Bu istifadəçi Erməni soyqırımı iddiasını yalanlayır" which Google page translations defines as "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim" and that userbox is currently featured on his page. There were further worrisome things on Solavirum's talk page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: the userbox Capitalist was previously saying Nationalist, the userbox Classic Liberal was previously saying Gray Wolf - a banned Turkish neo-fascist organization diff, the user apparently "did not recognize recognise Armenia as a state" and viewed it as "territory of Azerbaijan". Moreover, the details of Solavirum's actions on English Wikipedia interestingly appaear with details in a media article named "Aykhan Zayidzadeh prevented Armenian provocation in Wikipedia" by Azerbaijani nationalist "Qarabağ Media" Facebook page. Citing the fragment from that propaganda piece:

"Armenians defeated on the front are also defeated in the media fight. This time their ugly intentions didn't pay off. Aykhan Zayidzadeh, an active user of ′′ EnViki "- addressed to the managers of the English language section of Wikipedia. Aykhan Zayıdzadeh achieved a week of protection of the article."

The user made his details openly available and I can recognize SolaVirum's signature in those screenshots. Blessings addressed to Aykhan Zayıdzadeh follow. My concern is not Azerbaijani Wikipedia in isolation but the fact that the edits of Solavirum on English Wikipedia are far from being neutral. He is apparently a 16 year old teenager (as openly stated on his Azerbaijani Wikipedia user page and as he mentioned himself in discussions) and tolerance is a generally a good thing but I am afraid too much tolerance can be abused and result in paradox of tolerance --Armatura (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to engage any further since you seem to be making off-topic remarks again (which you just got warned for). By the way, contacting people outside of Wikipedia by emails and by other means to exchange resources/material is common practice. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 23:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Wikipedia is a project of its own. I've previously stated that using years-old stuff as an argument/evidence of misbehaving is not okay to say the least. Two-to-three years have passed since then. My contributions on Wikipedia has proven to be neutral and productive, and my personal beliefs have not collided with my edits. Users are allowed to have political opinions. I shall reiterate that I don't deny the genocide, though, I had in the past. Past, is left in the past. I don't think I've actually made any additions or removed information regarding the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, Armatura, you should keep everything on-wiki, we don't need off-wiki stuff. Going deeper into my personal life wouldn't make your points legit, but actually, wrong. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see how Wikipedia can be improved in any way by having Solavirum skewing topics toward a genocide denial viewpoint, and toward a Turkish nationalist viewpoint. His colleague in such opinions was voted off the island one month ago at Archive1054: User:Saotura and Turkish nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide. Solavirum spoke in favor of Saotura who was nonetheless banned by the community. It must have felt very personal for Solavirum to see that Saotura was banned for essentially the same stuff Solavirum has been doing: adding Turkish nationalism and genocide denial, and posting a foul statement on a userpage. The difference between Saotura and Solavirum is that Solavirum lasted longer because of better English language skills which allowed writing with bias hidden more deeply. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"stuff Solavirum has been doing: adding Turkish nationalism and genocide denial, and posting a foul statement on a userpage", provide links where I've been fueling Turkish nationalism and denialism on Wikipedia articles. And your overall rhetoric is worrying at best. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's factually inaccurate to say that the Armenian Genocide was caused by revolts. The only Armenian revolt that existed when the genocide was ordered (most historians agree in February, March or early April 1915, i.e. before the defense of Van) was in the paranoid imagination of the Young Turk leaders (not unlike how Hitler was convinced that "the Jews" declared war on Germany). The revolts happened as a result of the genocide, rather than the cause of it. Reversing the cause and effect and painting Ottoman Armenians as treacherous or rebellious is a major theme of genocide denial. (I can provide references if necessary). That said, I am not familiar enough with Solavirum's editing to know whether in aggregate it is problematic. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please acknowledge the fact that i presented that as an example of an illogical statement that can given out without any sources. I have to reiterate that such thing does not represent my opinion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is a clear interaction issue between Armatura and Solavirum (eg. this edit and the message it is replying to) and other issues regarding discussing contributors not content ([121]). This wp:battleground approach is likely not solely due to Solavirum (AA2 is a fraught area), but the diffs presented in the opening statement above are concerning, have not been explained, and it is difficult to take sincerely the deflective defence of "as you might have guessed, I don't like things personal to me, including my personal opinions, be exposed on Wikipedia" from an editor who has literally uploaded a photo of themselves to Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

AzWiki is a different project. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this statement? CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. I don't deny the genocide. Though I did several years ago, when I added that userbox. It is a simple example of me forgetting to remove it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• My 2 cents worth I had many interactions with Solavirum in the past few months around the 2020 Artsakh-Azerbaijan war. They have been characterised by disrespect, ill humour and bullying. He is unquestionably a pan-Turk advocate. I have no evidence of him being an Armenian holocaust denier. I have plenty of evidence of him attempting to whitewash or erase any wiki detail that would suggest or support that large areas of Nagorno Karabakh, either in the the Republic of Artsakh or wider, are now, or ever were, Armenian. His entire agenda is to portray large swathes of territory as being happily under the benign sway of Azerbaijan since forever. Is history erasure the same as holocaust denial? Comes pretty close in my view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gospel singer Yolanda Adams versus CeCe Winans

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

---

• Yolanda Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CeCe Winans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Texas and pro-Winans 2600:1700:1BD0:9AB0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Texas and pro-Winans 71.139.41.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Florida and pro-Adams 2601:340:8300:1340:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Florida and pro-Adams 2601:344:C300:6540:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Florida and pro-Adams 2600:1006:B164:1F8D:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Florida and pro-Adams 73.104.45.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Pro-Adams Blackandeducated (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Somebody using IPs from Texas has been putting unrealistically high praise and inflated stats into the biography of CeCe Winans while removing the same kind of praise and inflated stats from the Yolanda Adams biography. This IP range isn't the only malefactor in the ongoing edit war, but is definitely the most persistent. The other side of the coin are some Florida IPs, and the registered account Blackandeducated, which have been pumping up the stats of Yolanda Adams, and removing same from Winans.

On December 26, CambridgeBayWeather put the Adams biography into pending changes protection for six months. The Winans biography could use the same protection. That, or a rangeblock in Texas. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I too am concerned. My suggestion would be indefinite ECP for all of the articles. While I would not be opposed to a state-wide IP block for Florida and Texas (for so many reasons) it's not the best option, and even blocks at the ISP level would not be ideal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Came across this as well after getting beaten to the revert by Walter Görlitz and looking into it more. There needs to be ECP to stop first time editors just coming in to make these changes, Yolanda Adams article has pending changes and that doesn't appear to be enough at the moment. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 02:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't go straight to ECP, but both articles have been semi'd for 6 mo. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Jleel appears to be WP:NOTHERE

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

I have moved this from WP:AIV where I reported it previously. Jleel (Special:Contributions/Jleel) appears to be engaging in WP:NOTHERE behavior. Multiple edit summary problems and edit warring at Shooting of David Dorn, with vandalism type edits involving both WP:POVPUSH and removals of significant, sourced information. They also previously vandalized Talk:Parler.

1. "David Dorn was killed by looters who were part of multiple criminal events happening during Black Lives Matter protests." [122]
2. [123]
3. "Black Lives Matter involves looting and violence. These events were happening all over the cities and during the murder of David. Black Lives Matter is heavily associated with his death. Many news outlets and the police have stated this." [124]
4. "Added the police chief statement regarding the scribing in the area of the night David Dorn was savagely murdered" [125]

Talk page and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior:

1. " Stop censoring the truth." [126]
2. [127]
3. WP:CIR issue with policies [128]
4. WP:CIR issue with policies [129]

User page vandalism:

1. [130]

Similar behavior user was warned for previously at Talk:Parler removing talk page informational notices and DS/Talk notice:

1. [131]

I'd appreciate someone taking a look. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• This was obviously inappropriate and against WP:FOC, after being warned of vandalism for partly removing WikiProjects here... Yet another account with intent to whitewash the Parler article in one of their first edits. They then hope for the Shooting of David Dorn article to blame Black Lives Matter using WP:SYNTHesis, eventually proposing two sources that don't mention BLM... —PaleoNeonate – 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Given this edit in the last 10 minutes, it would appear some serious action is needed. FDW777 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I will final-warning and alert the user to AP2 DS. Any further disruption will result in a block and, if related to AP2, a topic ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I just placed a 31-hour-long block on them for the recent unsourced, editorializing edit to Black Lives Matter, which I saw followed plenty of warnings about similar behavior at other articles. In doing so I saw there was a discussion open here. If a longer-term sanction is needed I have no objections to my block being replaced with something longer-term, but I wanted to at least stop the disruptive behavior in the short term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitic vandalism by IP 70.66.136.13

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

---

• 70.66.136.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This diff speaks for itself: [132]. Another editor has already warned this IP about vandalism but I figured it may be worth bringing it here as well. In the past I've been encouraged to bring incidents of clear racism like this to ANI because we are meant to have zero tolerance for this type of behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

TPG question

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

---

Sorry to be a pest, but since it's on the talk page of AN, it may have been missed. I think we need an administrator to weigh in on this question: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TPG. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Doxing

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

---

• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this is the wrong forum to report this, but a recent edit in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department an editor has appeared to have added a SSN# on the page. I do not believe a simple revert is sufficient in this case and a full removal of the edit is necessary. Hope Admin can assist, thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oversighted. Washuotaku, Wikipedia:Oversight is the guidance to follow in these cases. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Winning Jah - seeking advice re my talk page request

Winning Jah has been deleted numerous times, and the last time, I protected it from recreation. I now have a message on my talk page from NOTICE501 to "revert" the article - I think they really mean for me to remove the protection. This is a fairly new editor, and this page has been deleted multiple times, including via this AFD Winning Jah. Need feedback here from other admins. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looks notable to me. If this RS is correct, an album sold 650,000? There are lots of Nigerian sources, and an AllMusic entry. The article that was deleted via AfD was somewhat undersourced but there's certainly enough to write an article here. My thoughts would be to keep the name salted, drop a version into Draft and let it be improved. Black Kite (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE501, I think Black Kite is offering some sound advice here. Creating and editing drafts gives you instructions on how to do that. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 Understood. thanks for your research Black Kite, how do i start writing in draft? i felt our admins have to firstly give a go ahead, to avoid problems, because i saw it was repeatedly created in 2017. NOTICE501 19:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE501 I suggest you use the article wizard, which will help you create your article in Draft space. When the article is ready, you can then submit the draft for review. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE501 I have restored the reasonably-well-sourced version to Draft:Winning Jah. When you think it is suitable for publication in mainspace, drop a note on my talkpage and I'll have a look at it. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this version is four years old so you will need to update it (and it may be worth checking that the references still exist online). Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite I just saw the draft now and controlled the sources also, you are very correct, i will try improve the article by writin g and adding more reliable sources to it , i have seen a lot of media coverages about the subject.NOTICE501 09:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite I think, i have writen only the relevant part of the Winning Jah article, i have selected reliable Newspapers, books, Google Scholar nothing more. — Maile Kindly help me to control the links i got, probably you've seen more suitable ones, before fixing the sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winning_Jah NOTICE501 18:58, 20 January 2021

Constant WP:SYNTH by User:Am7777

• Am7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Am7777 has been adding ginormous amounts of content in single drops with poorly written edit summaries [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]. User has been previously warned about their behavior [139] and [140]. User keeps adding unrelated information but is doing original research to link and promote their caste. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Biased reversion by Archives908

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

---

"The Artsakh Conservative Party is an Armenian political party in Artsakh."

I made a minor wording change by adding the phrase "self-proclaimed". According to Wikipedia: Republic of Artsakh Artsakh, is a BREAKAWAY STATE in the South Caucasus, whose territory is INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS PART OF AZERBAIJAN. I'm simply stating the facts. However, Archives908 reverted my edit, despite the fact that my edit is based from the information on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Artsakh is a self-proclaimed state. Archives908 justified their reversion by stating "poor edit quality". How exactly is this a "poor edit quality"? It's literally just two words! SELF-PROCLAIMED. How exactly is this a "disruptive editing"? How exactly is this a "vandalism"? Is stating the facts is a "disruptive editing? I didn't write anything racist, sexist, homophobic. I didn't insult anyone. I'm merely stating the facts. This seems like a blatant attempt to prevent free expression of ideas. My edit is based from the information on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia contradicting itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDQUD1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello JDQUD1. Attempting to seek consensus for that change at Talk:Artsakh Conservative Party would be the next step, unless you have plausible evidence of disruption or behavioral issues by Archives908 to present. The dispute resolution guide might be helpful, —PaleoNeonate – 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding: you did not notify Archives908 but that is expected when posting here. I'll ping them for you, —PaleoNeonate – 15:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Please note that Wikipedia, in English or any other language, is NOT a WP:Reliable source. We need good external sources for imformation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued vandalism/ multiple accounts

Hi All, user JDQUD1 has been engaging in disruptive editing on several articles. Primarily on LGBT rights in Armenia, where the user has attempted to make unsourced edits (using multiple accounts) since early December. Some of the IP's being used are 212.241.24.198, 212.241.16.220, 185.66.254.162, 185.66.254.20, 185.66.255.15, 185.66.254.138. The user has made practically identical edits each time. I initiated a conversation on the article's talk page on 5 January 2021, asking the user to present their arguments- which the user ignored. I then sent warnings to the user on several of their IP addresses. The user has been warned on their main talk page, as well, by myself and user 331dot. JDQUD1 has attempted to remove the warnings from their talk page. In terms of LGBT rights in Armenia, the article was page protected on 6 January, as a result of disruptive editing. Since the protection was lifted, the user has continued to make disruptive edits, and has since used aggressive language against me on the LGBT rights in Armenia talk page. I initially assumed WP:GF (as seen in the talk page), but now it is clear that the user has an agenda and is not here to build this encyclopedia, in addition to potentially being a WP:SOCK. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"where the user has attempted to make unsourced edits"

The allegation that my edits are "unsourced" is simply untrue. You can check them yourself. Please, check the history of my edits.

"and has since used aggressive language against me"

What exactly? I didn't insult the user. I didn't use any racist, sexist, homophobic etc. slurs against the user. The user is just playing the victim in order to justify their biased reversions. You can check them yourself.

I presented my arguments several times, but Archives908 ignored them, stating "poor edit quality", "the last warning", "You'll be blocked". This seems like a blatant attempt to prevent free expression of ideas. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDQUD1 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for soapboxing and seriously mooning the jury. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Sid.ghodeswars

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

---

Sid.ghodeswars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sid.ghodeswars was blocked and he made a legal threat on his talk page here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1001412256 Vikram Vincent 16:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

DavidCBryant is not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

DavidCBryant (talk · contribs) has admitted to abusing the Wikipedia e-mail system to send a personal-attack-laden hate mail to Newslinger (talk · contribs). When called on it, DavidCBryant declared

the Communists and Socialists who consider themselves "woke" are conspiring to convert Wikipedia, once "the free encyclopedia", into a pinko propaganda tool. A day later, you launched an assault against me. You, who have never made a single edit on Parler since the day it was created (May 28, 2019). How did you even get wind of my insignificant edit? Who gives you your marching orders? "GorillaWarfare", maybe? Do you understand why I suspect a conspiracy?

I submit that this diatribe, combined with the abusive e-mail, is prima facie evidence that DavidCBryant is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia and should be invited to take their talents elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This all happened after a change of DavidCBryant's at Parler was reverted. The change's edit summary is also unacceptable: "Tell the truth. It's not moderation. It's censorship. I bet I'll be reverted in less than a minute. Damned commies." Robby.is.on (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content

• Harbour Porpoise9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has been adding unsourced content/info to different articles for a number of months now, as evident from the warnings on their talk page, first warning (and from me...) is from February 2020. They've rarely been using edit summaries, and have seemingly been ignoring all their warnings, even the 'final' warning given for this edit, of which, none of the sources support the release date the user added. Latest unsourced content has been unsourced characters on The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run (every single character currently listed is sourced). Another recent content addition includes unsourced characters/actors for a different movie. The user was even warned reverted back in July about unsourced/original research content on List of tomboys in fiction. Seems like they're just going to continue ignoring warnings at this point and will continue adding unsourced things.

Just as a note, I originally reported this user at AIV, and was suggested to report here instead. Magitroopa (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rev/deletion needed at Karl Malone

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

---

• Karl Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serious WP:BLP violation. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:AD7A:6DBF:B28:D89C (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Outing and legal threats, again

This guy User talk:180.233.126.86 is at it again: [141] this time making legal threats and edit warring [142]. Two minutes ago they outed me again [143] I asked for a page protection to no avail. [144] I think an indef block on this IP is needed at this point. Bacondrum 07:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikemcroberts seems to be a sock. pandakekok9 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A page protection might be better in this case. Vikram Vincent 07:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

can I please have my legal name removed from the edit summaries as a matter of urgency? Bacondrum 08:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted a couple of outing summaries and requested suppression by the Oversight folk. We almost never indef an IP as they are often reassigned to other people (even technically static IPs), so I've blocked for 3 months - we can extend it if the problemns recur after that. I don't have time to properly examine the article history, so I've just put a short protection on it - anyone else can extend it if needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks heaps! I’m pretty sure this Mikemcroberts is a sock. On top of outing my legal name (again), edit warring, etc. They’ve now started racially abusing other editors “Pino commie, stay away from an Australian article”, I assume Pino means Filipino. Bacondrum 09:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that at Special:Contributions/Mikemcroberts, but if you have any specific edits let me know (on my talk page is probably better, with a smaller audience) and I'll deal with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I may be mistaken there. Thanks again. Bacondrum 09:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That was the IP address with the insults.. Vikram Vincent 10:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was a typo for "pinko commie"- bizarre, but not racist. Curdle (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mikemcroberts does very much look like the same editor as the IP, given their suddenly appearing and joining the edit-war to revert in the IP's edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing a certain information about China Jocson

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

---

This user 122.52.235.102 [[145]] edited only 1 article for 3 months, but all of his/her edits for January 2021 in the article China Jocson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were in a form of a removal of a sourced and verified information. I moved that this IP user be blocked at the meantime. Thank you. Jayjay2020 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Mr. Master of Editor

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

---

• Mr. Master of Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. This editor seems to have massive WP:CIR issues, including edit-warring. A quick glance at their talkpage can see dozens of warning messages from multiple editors. This recent edit, which removed the correct stats from the infobox, is just one of countless bad edits this person has done since day one. I think WP:NOTHERE applies IMO. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - They also removed this section when it was initially created but were reverted. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 09:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And later did this to overwrite/blank the section. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

LTA - Multiple IPs posting personal grievance on various Indian gov articles.

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

---

These are the examples I could find, a couple have already been REVDEL'd but all are same message.

• 20th Jan: Special:Contributions/112.110.11.1
• 19th Jan: Special:Contributions/112.110.24.234
• 18th Jan: Special:Contributions/49.15.73.164
• 14th Jan Special:Contributions/112.110.111.121
• 13th Jan Special:Contributions/49.15.144.1

--Paul ❬talk❭ 10:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Various IPs blocked, multiple revisions deleted, pertinent pages protected. El_C 15:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Green

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

I am being accused by the above user on Talk:Higashi-Ikebukuro runaway car accident (Special:Diff/999281046), without evidence, that I repeatedly attempted to login to their account. Then I tried to ask the user to retract the accusation, which was refused in Special:Diff/1001556013 with "you had better reflect yourself" in the edit summary.

Note: I asked what should I do at the help desk and was directed here (Special:Diff/1001593529). ネイ (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned. El_C 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Dejanmilic

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

The user above keeps removing the content which he doesnt like on the page Predrag Bošković without using the edit summary and justifying the removals. I notified the user on his talk page that Wikipedia does not censor, but I did not get a response and he still removed the content once more. He removed the content 4 times already.

Please check (Special:Diff/1001601138) Elserbio00 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh, do either one of you know that WP:3RR is a thing on Wikipedia? Well, now you do, so please take note. Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WP:ARBEE (Balkans) noted in the protection summary. El_C 15:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've also dropped explanatatory once-and-final-warnings regarding 3RR/edit-warring on the users' talk pages, plus a note about "official" vs. secondary sources that seemed relevant from discussion on one of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Swisswiss

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

I am requesting enforcement of sanctions regarding edits to Ivermectin and articles related to COVID-19.

Diffs.

• [146] [147] [148]

Related discussions. I've requested ECP for Ivermectin because this kind of editing is becoming a persistent waste of time. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ivermectin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't have time to deep-dig into this personally at the moment but I do note that Swisswiss is at WP:3RR on Ivermectin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

For some reason I thought this was under 1RR. This is probably undue then. My apologies. Jdphenix (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Revoke rollback privilege for Mike Novikoff?

Mike Novikoff has used his rollback rights to undo edits that didn't constitute "vandalism". 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Actually, one can say that the user used his rollback privilege to gain advantage in an edit war. Cause Stephen MUFC was mostly just putting back the stress marks that Mike Novikoff had removed earlier (1, 2, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, 12).

P.S. Read this for the background story:

• User talk:Mike Novikoff#Stress marks in Russian
• User talk:Mike Novikoff#WP:Stress marks in Russian words
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Mike Novikoff
• User talk:Mike Novikoff#Stresses in Russian

--Moscow Connection (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another problem with Mike Novikoff is that when reverting other people's edits he keeps referring to his own essay as if it were one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. In my opinion, that's a very dishonest behavior, so something should be done about this user. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any rollback misuse here because in each case he is adding an explanatory edit summary. WP:ROLLBACKUSE says, The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Note that his explanatory edit summaries are highly misleading as I explained above. P.S. Read more here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you for the explanation.
I still hope something can be done to stop the user from removing stress marks from everywhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how they are misleading, he's pointing to his essay to justify his edits. This seems to be a content dispute which should be sorted out at WT:MOS. But I don't think it's grounds for revoking his rollback right, which is what you came here proposing. P-K3 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Does it mean I can write my own essay (which would state exactly the opposite) and then use it as a justification for reverting other people's edits? P.S. I didn't ask to revoke his rollback right; Moscow Connection did. What I'm saying is that the user's behavior is highly dishonest and something should be done about it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You could write your own essay and use it as an explanation for your edits, yes. Any good-faith edit is justified. If they want to write a WP:ALPHABETSOUP to link to explain those edits, then I fail to see the problem with that. (Now if they were challenged on it and they then point to it as if it were a guideline, that would be an entirely different matter.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger Now if they were challenged on it and they then point to it as if it were a guideline, that would be an entirely different matter. – This is exactly what Mike Novikoff has been doing for some time (read the links above), and I find this behavior totally inacceptable. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In the links above, Stephen_MUFC didn't challenge my edits, he was editing with no summaries at all. Neither he did use an undo function, so I've got no notices of his edits. I've found them accidentally, ten days later. And I've never said that WP:RUSTRESS is a guideline, I just asked him to read and discuss it. (Sometimes people think that any shortcut leads to a guideline or a policy, but is that my fault?) — Mike Novikoff 07:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

* Don't know about Stephen_MUFC (I wasn't talking about him), but another user, Moscow Connection, did challenge your edits some time ago, and he specifically asked you not to revert other people's edits. He also had strong objections against your highly biased essay. Nevertheless, you ignored his requests and continued removing stresses and making reference to your essay (maybe not as a guideline, as you say, but you did it all the same, which was kind of misleading in my opinion). Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

* @Mike Novikoff and Moscow Connection: To put an end to this conflict, I suggest a solution: Mike Novikoff moves his essay somewhere else (as suggested by many users) and stops removing the stress marks. Now, since there's obviously nothing wrong in using stress marks in encyclopedias for guidance purposes, if anyone wants to use them (in Cyrillic forms), that will be fine. But it does not mean they should be used on a mandatory basis, so there's no need to add them to every article either. That would be desirable (in my opinion), but not strictly necessary. To sum it up: If you see stress marks in an article, leave them as is; and if you don't see them, you can add them if you want (but you don't have to). Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Many users" who want to destroy my essay are just you and Moscow_Connection. You essentially suggest that I simply surrender and give up on what I've been doing for a couple of years already, just because you don't like it. — Mike Novikoff 08:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Johnuniq also had issues with your essay: read here. "Everyone should work on this essay (since it is in Wikipedia space). It looks like there is a significant disagreement so an RfC will be required. Or, if the essay is considered undesirable, it should be discussed at WP:MFD where one possible result might be "userfy", that is, move to the creator's user space." Really, I tried to propose an amiable settlement, but you continue to act in a highly unconstructive manner (the bad practice so common to Russian forums) and victimize yourself ("You want to destroy [sic] my essay!") Also, you continually misintrepret and ridicule other people's arguments. I have not the slightest desire to discuss with you anymore; we are not on a Russian forum. Hopefully, someone intervenes and stops you. P.S. One more thing: Note that this is not your personal blog, and you can't do something which doesn't enjoy a large consensus. Of course I don't like it. You seem to be on a crusade to remove stress marks from Cyrillic forms in every article (for several years, as you just said), even if using stresses is an old and common practice in Russian encyclopedias, so there's nothing wrong in it. I wonder why nobody stopped you long ago. Have a nice day. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I do actually want to challenge Novikoff's edits but, frankly, recently haven't had the time or managed to summon the energy to do so. Stephen MUFC (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stephen MUFC Moscow Connection You can do it here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In reply to the discussion of "Many users", I think in this case the word “user” should also include readers, not just editors. So, allow me to chime in as a mere user, whose Russian does not exceed the level of a summer course at what was then still called the Ленинградский государственный университет, and who therefore has not enough knowledge to act as editor in such matters. But I appeal to everyone to think of the average reader; you, who may have grown up with Russian, may find those marks annoying. But as a simple reader, I find much use in the stress marks, since with them, Cyrillic gives me all information I need at one glance. (Even if a name is spelled out using IPA, which I am a big fan of, I prefer to read the Cyrillic for a number of reasons, and may skip the IPA because Cyrillic expresses Russian pronunciation consistently enough for me to be understood.) ◅ Sebastian 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MTATransitFan

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• MTATransitFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – See filter log. Possibly compromised account. >2000 edits and vandalizing Donald Trump. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. @Suffusion of Yellow: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Not sure why this wasn't acted on at the time. If repeatedly attempting to a add a vandalism image to a very, very high visibility page isn't AIV-worthy block-first-ask-questions-later behavior, just what is? That would have been very embarrassing for Wikipedia had that edit saved.

In any case, they seem to have stopped now, but I'm not sure who is in control of this account. Not seeing any obvious previous vandalism from this user, so it seems out-of-character behavior. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, the attempted edits never went live and were several hours old by the time I got to the AIV report so an immediate block wasn't necessary at that point to prevent further disruption. Hence referring you here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Ok, sorry if I was a bit snippy. I was a little annoyed at the admins who didn't block in the first few hours, not you. To those admins,  the edit filter is not magic pixie dust. Clever people will work their way around, sooner or later. Please assume that the filter won't stop the next attempt, and act accordingly. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsure what this is about - I made a joke edit at noon when Biden was inagurated which I quickly reverted. If that is cause for blocking, I am sorry! If there's another reason, please let me know, I'd love to fix this! Thanks! Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 21:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You have over 2000 edits, and you attempted a "joke" like that? Really? Oh and you didn't self-revert; you made four attempts, all blocked by the filter. After the third attempt, you didn't stop to consider if that was such a good idea? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MTATransitFan, don't make jokes like that again. If the filter hadn't caught it you'd be even more embarrassed, and HJ Mitchell's words suggest also that if an admin had seen that while you were doing it, you'd have been blocked. I would have blocked you. OK? Now please don't do that again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow:@Drmies: Sorry, I will not do it ever again. I just wanted to celebrate Biden's inauguration, BUT I realize that I shouldn't have done that. I am sorry.

Also, weird that it said that I had edited four times, I made the edit on my computer and phone each once. Then I closed off the publish-preview tool (essentially reverting the preview), and that is what I meant by reverting. Sorry I did this, I am still a somewhat new user of Wikipedia, and have never made joke edits before, and will never do them again (except in my sandbox).Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 22:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Joke edits regarding BLPs are not okay even in your sandbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Right on. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, it was inauguration day, and so that will draw people to those articles, but the sudden spurt of edits to political articles today - and only political articles - by this account is wildly out of character with the rest of their edit history. In addition it's rather preposterous that an editor who has been editing heavily since June, with only a few minor don't-do-this-es on their talk page, would think it was okay to make a "joke edit" on one of our most heavily watched BLPs, attempt to do so four times, and then react (as seen above) in such a "what's-the-big-deal?" manner to boot. Either MTATransitFan's account is compromised or we have a major issue that they don't seem to understand the seriousness of - and apparently they don't understand how the preview and edit filter tools work as well, also, seriously, you "closed off the...tool" four times in a row? Really? Either way at this point we can't assume good faith that further disruption won't occur. I was in the process of blocking when this was edit-conflicted by the few above edits and I'm still not certain I shouldn't go through with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I celebrated a bit--on Instagram. Anyway, with my magic glasses I see no evidence of a compromised account. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Some things are suitable for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. For everything else, there's MasterCardInstagram". Thanks for the look...and that just makes me more concerned about the conduct here. The day was going so well, too! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(Also we don't "celebrate" anyone's inauguration here, or did WP:NPOV escape your notice?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:KH-1 and rollback

• KH-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've asked this editor on two separate occasions (1, 2) to start warning editors they use rollback on. I've received no answer both times and they're still performing rollback reverts without notifying editors (aside from leaving the very infrequent warning). Per Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights: "The requester is also expected to have properly warned users after reverting their edits" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure why that standard should be any different after receiving the right. I'd like to see resolution by either a) a promise from User:KH-1 to start warning every editor they revert from now on, or b) removal of rollback rights from this editor. -FASTILY 23:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback is not so simple any more. Without trying, I see dozens of cases a week where an IP makes a small number of junk edits and who never does anything else. That is particularly true for IPv6 who easily, and possibly unintentionally, change their IP frequently. For example, KH-1 (talk · contribs) recently reverted this edit ("lick my pizza of Native American") from a single-edit IP. Insisting that KH-1 either undo the edit with a crafted edit summary or leave a pointless decoration on the IP's talk doesn't seem useful. I do agree that rollback should never be used against what might be good-faith edits, and that a warning should be left if the contributor is likely to see it. I only looked at that one edit (the most recent) and just want to raise the point that there is a lot more vandalism from drive-by IPs these days. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

With Johnuniq on this one. If it's a new editor, they get a personal message with directions to the Teahouse. If it's a user editor with only vandalism, depends on the time frame. One day of vandals get a warning, week of vandalism go straight to AIV. If it's an IP, revert and move along, very little reason to waste time. In sum, perhaps it's the policy that needs to be updated, rather than the editor. Slywriter (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's reasonable, but the real problem IMO is that Fastily's messages are being ignored by the user for no apparent reason. 78.28.44.204 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's absurd. If no warnings are left, how are we supposed to track long-term abuse? AIV is already understaffed as-is, and a lack of warnings makes those few admins' jobs harder, not easier. And any chance of encouraging would-be vandals in the right direction involves engaging with them and leaving a message; silent reverts effectively squander these opportunities. -FASTILY 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I rarely leave first warnings anymore for IPs with no other edits. As mentioned by Johnuniq, it's pointless to warn someone who will never be back. They know they are vandals and they know they will never return to this IP, much less see the warning.

If an IP persists and makes more vandalism then I follow up with a level 2 warning and start watching what they do. Those are the only ones worth expending energy on. Elizium23 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

At present, IP mobile users are not even being notified that they have a message. In other words, they will not even know they have received a warning or message unless they specifically go hunting for their talk page. See phab:T240889. Nobody appears to be working on this ticket. — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kings Indian Defense disrupting Ali Alexander article

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

---

• Kings Indian Defense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ali Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was going to put this at WP:AN/EW but there are also BLP and copyright considerations, so I figured I'd come here for a broader venue. Please see the edit war that Kings Indian Defense has begun at Ali Alexander. They have so far added a huge chunk of copyrighted content from a Salon article (which I revision-deleted per RD1), tried to insert "committing fraud" in the "known for" portion of the infobox based on poor sourcing, and have added a "notable quotables" section with a quote calling him "noxious". There has been past discussion about adding Alexander's criminal history to the lead (see Talk:Ali Alexander#Describing Alexander as a felon in lede), and editors have generally agreed it is inappropriate.

I've also got a request open at RfPP about this page, as disruption has resumed basically immediately after the previous page protection expired. If anyone feels like knocking that out while handling this it would also be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

+1. Really getting tiresome. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The page was updated by me to the source on the infoxbox to use already referenced citations in the rest of the page. The infobox vs lede are two different areas, and there's multiple citations referencing his convictions. What's the minimum required citation reference before it becomes a precedent? 0? 1,000? 5? The additional information with 'notable quotables' was removed, as was the Salon citations to acquiesce to your requests/recommended changes. I'm sorry if it was burdensome. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It was not a Salon citation, it was a copyright violation in which you copy-pasted much of the article. If you would like to discuss whether the infobox at ought to describe Alexander as known for "committing fraud" we can do so at Talk:Ali Alexander; this is not the venue. This is, however, the venue to address your refusal to discuss your changes until dragged to ANI, and your edit warring over your desired version. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The site was cached in my browser, so it appears. As soon as I returned to it I noticed the requested changes, the inbox notices, and addressed the concerns accordingly. It was certainly not intentional or an endeavor out of stubbornness, you have my assurance, GorillaWarfare. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating that your browser managed to load the reverted version of the article without any other portions of the page, such as your notifications, updating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Kings Indian Defense (talk · contribs) is essentially an WP:SPA (all edits since October 2019 relate to Ali Alexander, and very few edits before then). Their edits do not appear helpful and I would be inclined to issue an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban if disruption continues—they received the discretionary sanctions notice at 01:58, 21 January 2021. Kings might not be aware that articles here avoid overdoing negativity. The subject's problems are plainly listed in the short article and there is no need to shove them in the lead or the infobox (unless the aim is to persuade Google to display all the problems in their summary). Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Kings Indian Defense has been quite open with their intentions in adding "committing fraud" to the infobox: There is a duty to inform the public that they should heed caution before financially contributing to his endeavors, and after January 6, 2021, reasonable minds can conclude putting forth this warning is important. ([149]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Partial block from Ali Alexander and Talk:Ali Alexander. Not sure what sense is there to approach WP:BLP violations in this case from the angle of WP:ARBBLP, with WP:AWARE and everything. Anyway, hopefully that will be that. El_C 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post reported on accepting contributions without a registered organization. They stated, "his (Ali Alexander) “Stop the Steal” website solicits contributions that aren’t bound by nonprofit rules or constraints and which, at least in its initial iteration, went straight to him (which is illegal, without reporting it for political campaigns or electioneering).

The Post article also draws the correlation that suspicion of his motives as a result of his convictions do play a role in his efficacy. Stating that, "A decade ago, he was flitting around on the fringes of the conservative movement where his past legal troubles contributed to scrutiny of his efforts to raise funds for an online publishing venture." The Salon article also states that "Conservatives had grown increasingly wary of Akbar's felony fraud convictions and other allegations of improper conduct, such as asking donors for personal information." they go on later in the same article, "Notably, Akbar also created a since-deleted donations landing page "paid for by the committee to elect Curtis Bostic," which was quite likely illegal, since the campaign denied ever officially hiring the convicted felon. After Bostic's primary defeat, the campaign dismissed Akbar in the press as an overzealous volunteer."

There is a clear pattern established of this individual misrepresenting himself or his initiatives for a financial benefit/gain, as well as reputable sources referencing it in their reporting. GorillaWarfare: RE:browser: it's hardly fascinating if the problem was resolved after shutting off Brave content blocking and refreshing the cache resolved the issue. Clearly I was aware there were issues if I triaged the problems. Should I probably have done so prior to? In hindsight, absolutely. I appreciate your well-intentioned criticism, though. If I'm not perfect by now, it's definitely not your fault. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Take a break. It's worth it. I personally think this was a misunderstanding and chilling for a few minutes is a worthwhile exercise. 🙂 Jdphenix (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This noticeboard isn't really for getting into the content weeds of it all, although I guess it's pretty much the only place left for you to do so (oh well). But regardless of that, your comment above sidesteps the "noxious political activist" (admins only) defamation, ostensibly, as the only quote in a "Notable Quotables" section (what?). And you didn't even attribute it properly, to begin with — it was said by Jared Holt, not by Roger Sollenberger. What is going on here? This level of incompetence is totally unacceptable when editing articles about living persons. El_C 03:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C: I removed those quotes and phrases, but to your point about attributing properly, I input the article details from which that quote derived, not the specific individual making the quote in the citation. The article was written by Roger Sollenberger. To your concern about "noxious political activist", it would be apparent that his involvement in scheming (Ali's words not mine) what took place on Jan. 6, would prove the definition of 'noxious' as synonymously accurate, rather than the assumption it's used in a defamatory way. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kings Indian Defense, to me, it constitutes editorializing of a defamatory nature. Also, do I even need to point out that that isn't how quotes work? Again, competence is required, especially for anything to do with WP:BLP. I'm sorry to say, but the manner in which you are coming across does not inspire confidence. El_C 03:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed competence is required, and found it interesting they directly state:

• "It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process." (I'm certainly new to the editing process, explained the issues that occured and how I was going to correct them and did, and followed the correct procedure as directed of me.)
• "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person." (Violated by a previous comment here, "This level of incompetence is totally unacceptable when editing articles about living persons.", and "the manner in which you are coming across does not inspire confidence".) I'd be happy to concede I'm uninspiring, though it appears to violate competence is required. El_C Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kings Indian Defense, but violating WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP is a serious matter, as is quoting the wrong person and not even acknowledging that this is an issue (even now!). So yes, I'm being firm. As seemingly a single-purpose account, you should be extra careful about your single-purpose here. Or maybe go edit some other pages until you get the hang of things...? Not sure what that "uninspiring" bit is about (a joke, maybe?). Anyway, good luck. El_C 04:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C yes, it was meant jokingly. For reference, though.. is violating WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP more or less serious than incompetence? Are they equal in value, or is there a hierarchy? Is there also consideration made with respect to unintentional violations compared to being knowingly versed yet committing an offense? I'm still very new to this, so I'm trying to understand the lay-of-the-land.(talk) 04:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kings Indian Defense, there is no hierarchy. Each case is evaluated according to its own merits. Anyway, since we're already speaking on your talk page, I'm closing this report. El_C 04:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Northern Trains article

Hey all. Quick heads up about the Northern Trains article. Seems to have attracted a feisty and F-bomb heavy IP editor. I'm not an admin so I have very limited ways to deal with them, I'm just wary of 3RR, CIVIL and all the rest. Could this article be bookmarked and kept an eye on please? Ta. doktorb _words^deeds 07:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Trains....why they engender such passion is beyond me. And don't get me wrong, I love trains, but this on a whole other level. Doktorbuk, Page protected. In the future, you can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers CaptainEek, I knew of a few pages to go to but not RFPP so I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your swift response. I've barely had my first cup of tea of the morning, it's too early for IP address drama! Thanks again. doktorb _words^deeds 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have placed a notice at the editor 124.187.21.179 following disruptive and blanking editing with F-bomb edit summaries at Northern Trains and Liverpool Lime Street railway station. I suspect the editor is WP:NOTHERE for constructive purposes. I am not an admin so have limited tools available to deal with them. I was at 2 reverts on the Northern Trains article and they just kept on going! doktorb _words^deeds 08:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to block the IP too, my B. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by an Editor

Recently I have decided to create a page on the British Actor Jordan Nash. There was an existing redirect created by the User:Cardei012597 so I decided to create a page about him as he seemed enough notable. I just have seen the page has been vandalized by User:GSS and he is making offensive comments about my taking money or getting 'hired' which is nothing but a result of his imagination. I have already put the page in AFD to decide if the page has its place in Wikipedia. Lastly, I want some justice to be done for GSS baselessly casting aspersion on me and vandalizing the pages created by me. Jinahpol (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have shared the details of undisclosed paid editing and socking with paid-en queue and @MER-C and GeneralNotability:. Also, I have speedy closed the AfD since it wasn't nominated for deletion and they are trying to get through their undisclosed paid work. GSS ^💬 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Vanjagenije has handled their most recent sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harryishere/Archive. @Vanjagenije, It's the same freelancer. GSS ^💬 14:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User obstructing implementation of consensus reached on talk page

Czello is being deliberately obstructive on the Conservative Party (UK) page by reverting any attempt to implement the best fit consensus reached on the talk page. Not sure what to do about this. Could an admin please assist? Crunchynotsmooth (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)