Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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. [7] 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/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994482550
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994038201

On Marxist-Leninism, Various reasons mostly POV pushing sections

(Diffs of the user's reverts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll deal with these one by one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6- Not backed by source after verification

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

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

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

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

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

• Topic ban from politics or block indefinitely. Bunnyyhop is an WP:SPA who engages in tendentious editing. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to advocate for the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist POV (compare WP:NONAZIS to see how I and many other editors feel about pushers of another totalitarian ideology). TFD/The Four Deuces, who downplays the problem above, has been heavily active for a long time at Talk:Marxism–Leninism and is not an unbiased observer. I have only stepped into the topic very recently and saw right off the problem of Bunnyyhop's editing. That Des Vallee's report is not perfect does not matter (and getting the length of these right is very hard anyway - too short and people say there's not enough evidence to take action). I will add this diff [8] 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 [9] 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.[10] 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 [11] 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 [12] 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

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

---

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 [13], [14], [15], 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 [16]. 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.[17] 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 [18] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE." [19][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 [20] and the follow up here [21], 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 [22] 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 [23] 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 [24], 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 [25] and this edit [26] 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 [27], 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 [28].

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 [29], 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)

• Oppose without prejudice to the sockpuppet question below. BunnyHop is --that possibility aside-- a good faith editor, and so is Des Valee. They are not the first people to disagree on the evaluation and interpretation of sources in this area; good modern sources can be found for almost any POV. Where the balance in our presentation should lie is emphatically not a matter for AN/I. (I should mention that my own political view are not the same as either of them, in a direction that has not been discussed above, but I am very much aware of the issues, so much so that I prefer not to directly edit in this area. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I have seen this editor(BunnyyHop) edit-war and get blocked for it many times. If this is the only solution, this I'm afraid I have to say yes. Steve M (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have only been blocked once for «continued warring», that is, edit warring outside of the WP:3RR (which I didn't know was possible at that time), log. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

A different angle

• Has BunnyyHop ever been looked at as a potential sock of User talk:Trust Is All You Need? I was going through their edit history to put together an argument for that when I noticed all the edits to this section. To my eyes this looks like exactly the sort of behavior Trust Is All You Need was banned for and the topic overlap is significant[30]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and 331dot: I believe you both have experience with Trust Is All You Need as well as their early ad-hoc socks. Am I barking up the right tree here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not thoroughly examined this discussion, only glanced, but it seems at least a possibility to me. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Nothing immediately comes to memory (though it is an old and leaky memory), and I'm afraid I don't have time to get involved in this (rather lengthy) discussion, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Horse Eye's Back, I heavily suggest you to open a WP:SPI case. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Check this diff from earlier regarding socking.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   20:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Taking everyone's counsel into account a new case has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trust Is All You Need. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It is relevant to note that the checkuser result shows that AxderWraith Crimson and BunnyyHop are editing from different continents. So much for good faith. admins can we please close this thread and requests warring editors to go to WP:DRN to sort out this content dispute. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 19:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The sock puppet allegations have left an extremely bad taste and any fig leaf of good faith has gone down the drain. I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be in order. Vikram Vincent 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Des Vallee had nothing to do with that, suggesting sockpuppetry at a forum like this is not an offense anyway, a CheckUser negative for one particular account is not an an exoneration, and even if the user is cleared from socking, this topic ban proposal is a separate matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Once something turns into a witch-hunt it is best stopped. The nature of ANI is to correct a situation in as positive way as possible and not to burn a person at the stake, which is what this thread now appears. Vikram Vincent 08:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, This is not a witch hunt, it is a serious POV editing problem that is being obscured by people wanting to portray it as a content dispute.  // Timothy :: talk  10:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Vikram Vincent seems to foster the role of the attorney of the reported user, and this "campaign" should be stopped, already reached a level which is far from being neutral (I even did not vote for a possible outcome, despite distantly I was involved some of the discussions, by courtesy - my stance would be not hard to predict -, just shortly expressed how I see the situation.) Nevertheless, I reinforce, there is a serious issue, and enough evidence has been presented. As well, I seriously do not understand why an admin does not summarize the votes, evidence, evaluate, judge and close this.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC))

Crossroads, KIENGIR and TimothyBlue I do appreciate your points of view and I do function by certain principles :-) An admin has closed the "proposal" section and I hope BunnyyHop takes the advice that was given and changes approach positively. Hoping to work with all of you productively. Best! Vikram Vincent 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

(Sandstein, I am assuming your close of just the proposal and not the entire discussion was intentional; I'm not commenting further until you clarify.  // Timothy :: talk  06:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

TimothyBlue, yes, because I am not certain whether there are other outstanding issues except for the proposed topic ban. If not, this whole thread can be closed. Sandstein 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The proposal above was closed as no consensus, but I believe the community has not but should come to a consensus on how to handle Bunnyyhop's editing on communism related articles. I will list the three I believe are the worst examples, but others are in the discussion above:

1. The discussion at Talk:Marxism–Leninism#BunnyyHop's edits
2. The discussion at Talk:Deportation of the Crimean Tatars#Cultural Genocide
3. The discussion at Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union, Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour

The details are above and I will not repeat them. If there is a consensus to close the discussion without action, it should be closed.  // Timothy :: talk  10:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed the OP @Des Vallee: may this time decide whether he would take other choice Sandstein offered in his closure, which is even up to anyone in the community, as if there is something else to be presented here, by the way I concur with TimothyBlue.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

BunnyyHop is extremely clearly here to soapbox, deny genocides (as he does as provided in the diffs), post POV text ("The success of the Soviet Comrades and Russia's independence from clandestine monetary systems"). He will invariably have his actions catch up to him. He is an extreme waste of time, almost all of BunnyyHop's edits have been reverted by numerous editors as he simply pushes his POV. Users have tried so hard to get BunnyyHop to stop but he clearly isn't going to. We should bring this to other places to have his edits reviewed, as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that, users have tried with BunnyyHop. Des Vallee (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR and Des Vallee, note the DS notice that TimothyBlue gave the user here: [31] If Bunnyyhop does any further POV edits regarding Eastern Europe (obviously including their historical Communist governments and ideology) after this ANI, that should be kept track of and once there are enough, he can be reported at WP:AE. Include Sandstein's closure here in any such report - it is very unlikely the user would escape without sanction next time if the same behavior continues. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:29, 25 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)

Call for action

It is now two days since I reopened the case, and one day since I asked to be recused, but no admin has stepped in yet. So, I'm calling on other admins to either close the case correctly or let me know what I can change so that it can be closed correctly. I'm aware that the way I structured this case is unusual, but I had reasons for that, and I'm happy to discuss them in the General comments section below or my talk page. ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 22 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 General comments section below.

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 the 29 October 2020 case against Armatura, omitted the fact that CuriousGolden, themself, was a defendant 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)

Thank you for the compliment. I can see why it's usually not done this way: All they give us is a mop, and this was just so much mud that it took several days. Nobody, not even the nicest unpaid janitor, enjoys searching through buckets full of mud to find offensive material. I started with this because it reminded me of some mediations I completed many years ago. In those days, I could find some bricks in the mud with which we could build an article, but this time all I found that might be useful for content work was finding #2, for which it isn't even decided whether it can be used at all. ◅ Sebastian 15:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I reopened the case two days ago, nobody has contributed in any way except for you, who unfortunately had recused yourself. While involved editors presumably are just following my request for them to not add opinions, for the question why uninvolved editors or in particular admins are not contributing there is no easy answer. Is the reason really what I wrote yesterday here, or were my findings TL;DR? Neither would be an entirely satisfactory explanation; the former should be even more of a reason for a conscientious admin to step in, and the latter should be ruled out by the fact that much longer threads are being closed, when, as Primefac writes at Closing discussions at AN, “As a closer, you're expected to read through the arguments, and (if necessary) any tangential or related discussions that might affect the outcome of the discussion.” (their emphasis). Since I already did the work of summarizing all arguments, that should be much easier here than in those other cases. ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think people are just not interested to jump into an area which is known for its high antagonism and for the habits of users on both sides to follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest I did originally have a long comment, but I feel it may not be appropiaten now. I think Sebastian has made some good comments, and his recomandations are sutiable. Regretably, these topic matters will always be controversial, and I am very sure a similar incident will come to this board soon. As Sebastian said, ANI is designed for quick fixes, an IBAN, etc, not having an sysop analyse long discussions and note multiple points in order to help reach a consensus on the action that should be taken. However, this is a very good analysis, and I commend Sebastian for what he has taken the time to write here. Hopefully this issue can be brought to a close, and both parties can settle without conflict. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this topic under discretionary sanctions? Sebastian, doesn't that mean that you don't need anyone to close this, or any discussion at all? If you believe your recommendations above are necessary to reduce disruption, then you're authorized to implement all of them yourself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian said above that he considers himself involved.

The report could go to WP:AE where an uninvolved admin can review the evidence and enact discretionary sanctions as required. It is generally a more stable venue than ANI, in my experience, for these kinds of cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, I somehow missed that. Sorry for the useless comment. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Drmies, thank-you for looking into this. I'm commenting since I was mentioned above and have had some interaction with Tammaravon at Kaia Gerber. My experience suggests that Tammaravon cares passionately about the subjects of the articles that they edit, but don't really have the skills to make edits that improve the encyclopedia. Their English is idiosyncratic at best, and almost incomprehensible at worst: the edit summary here is a particularly bad example of their style. They tend to react very aggressively to disagreement from other editors: see e.g. the discussion that we had over the lede image in the Gerber article. Unless they can engage here and offer some credible ideas of how they might improve their editing I unfortunately have to agree with General Ization that they don't seem to be mature enough to edit usefully at the moment. Wham2001 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I concur with other editors and agree that almost none of Tammaravon's edits have been encyclopedically beneficial or constructive, and, in line with their continued harassment of other editors, support suggestions for a block.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:42, 24 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.[32][33]

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)

• • • You both take that quote out of context when I've clarified why I've published such a comment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:41, 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 ([34]). 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)

Proposing a ban: topic or site?

This isn't going to happen. Solavirum is encouraged to email the Oversight team. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, a lot of folks here are concerned about Solavirum's non-neutral editing behavior. It's time to suggest a ban of some sort, for instance a topic ban from Turkey/Azerbaijan-related articles, or a site ban on English Wikipedia. If we go with a topic ban, it will affect about 99% of Solavirum's editing pattern. So the difference between a site ban and topic ban is small. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I've thoroughly explained my position above, though I will make an abstract version of it. I do not deny the genocide. That quote was taken out of context and a simple look at the issue on hand will give the colleague a view of the whole picture. In the meanwhile, yes, I did deny it in the past, about two-to-three years ago. Opinions and views change overtime. I've not even edited the Armenian Genocide article. The off-wiki links provided by the others users are worrying. I've been editing on Wikipedia for about half a decade now, and I've actively participated in attracting other users to the platform, thus, having an off-wiki activity about Wikimedia. I don't choose the headlines either, most of my off-wiki work is concentrated on notifying the public about how the encyclopedia works, such as explaining reliable sources and neutrality. The general "non-neutral behavior" must be proven with diffs. The topic is controversial, and editors with different backgrounds, especially ones from the conflicting parties have different positions. It is best for Rosguill, who was a meditator during most of the war's active phase, to comment on the issue, if my behavior is bannable, or not. Several other editors have opposed my ban above. It is basically a witchhunt to go over and ban an editor just because he/she has a different position than you over a particular issue, which is a daily part of building the encyclopedia, and is delt with achieving a consensus. I've done my part during the said time period, and have been collaborative. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Solavirum, I noticed that you have published articles in several Azerbaijani language journals. Please explain who submited the screenshots of diffs of your edits on English Wikipedia together with your photo and real name to Qarabagh Media - a known anti Armenian / Anti-Artsakh online resource with the hateful text describing "ugly intentions of Armenians" and then Solavirum's "achievement" - 1 week protection of a WP article by admin Woody Regards, --Armatura (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: Could you please link to the "Qarabagh Media" post/article you have mentioned? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden already provided above but providing again https://www.facebook.com/1645797089031224/posts/2825555651055356 --Armatura (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Evidently you're still a genocide denier as of three days ago. Also, I wanted to assume good faith, but if you're going to make baseless witch hunt accusations despite obvious evidence of misconduct, I will point out that at least 2/3 of the "several other editors [that] have opposed my ban" are users you're known to have contact with off-Wikipedia,[35][36] so it's more likely you're WP:Canvassing. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Steverci: Let me get this right. You're saying both me and HistoryofIran have been canvassed into this discussion? And your reason for that is that we have contacted the user outside of Wikipedia 4 months and a month ago respectively? Want to make sure I understood this right, if I didn't, please feel free to elaborate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) How else would you describe Solavirum openly pinging HistoryofIran above? In your case, given that you're both apparently Facebook friends and also frequently collaborate on talk page discussions,[37][38][39][40] it's certainly a strong possibility. --Steverci (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) User:HistoryofIran is known to be a neutral voice on these topics, so it's not hard to figure out. And especially, it's not WP:CANVASSING. I'd suggest reading WP:ASPERSIONS as from what I can understand of your comments, you seem to be accusing me of coordinating with Solavirum outside of Wikipedia without any proper proof other than assumptions, which breaks the aforementioned policy. Your permanent topic ban has only recently been lifted, so I advise to be extra cautious with such accusations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I doubt Solavirum would've pinged an unrelated user if he didn't think it would benefit him. The policy asks says unless there is evidence. I have not made any accusations, but I've provided proof that Solavirum is canvassing in this discussion, that you both have contact outside Wikipedia, and that you both frequently push for the same resolution on talk pages. All of this is important to be aware of. --Steverci (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I don't think we have same understanding of what "evidence" means. It would be evidence if you had clear proof (e.g. log of chats, going to talk page to request specific comment to be made and etc.) of a canvassing case. What you've said, unfortunately, is only a personal opinion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support site ban per WP:BMB: The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. As @Binksternet: pointed out, Solavirum's genocide denial, which he considers "personal views", prevents being able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) (Note: Voter is same person who opened the report) I said I don't deny it couple times by now. A: "You deny the genocide"; B: "No, I don't"; A: "You deny the genocide". Do you want me to deny it at this point? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose site ban: I have my own differences with Solavirum and despise most of his political opinions, but I still strongly believe that banning someone on account of their personal views is an extreme overstep. This is particularly true regarding political articles where it's near-impossible to find people without an opinion on said issue (and those that do are often those with limited knowledge/understanding of it). I believe any sort of long-term/permanent ban would set a very bad precedent for the Wikipedia community, as it will undoubtedly lead to future (subjective) bans of so-called "biased users". The fact that the user filing this report also seems to have his own personal biases on most Armenian-Azerbaijani articles as well leads me to believe such a ban is less about improving Wikipedia and more about removing the "competition". --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I want to note that I didn't try to make any insults, and I don't support Armenian Genocide nor any independence claims while respecting to the countries' right of independence, neither any other wrong behavior. I just tried to make analyze and find a solution. I'm trying to be neutral as soon as possible as an uninvolved person on this event (maybe except the same interest on topics, or edited 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War). I tried to understand what is the exact problem. First of all, as far as I see, the first argument was the user voted as "Keep" on a discussion. However, at the same time; another user who is I know with their neutrality (Mccapra), said the same: "All seems fine to me." Again, another person (Peterkingiron), said "Keep": "Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue. That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed)." And again, the user who opened deletion discussion, and the user who reported to ANI is same, as a point. A second argument was the user's genocide userbox (which is an understandable concern due to Saotura's userboxes, and these are insultive). As the users said, the user included such unacceptable userboxes (which also I don't accept personally), as "This user denies Armenian Genocide". But that event was months ago (nearly eight months ago), and the user changed his mind. Plus, I and everyone in here should accept that everyone did mistakes in the life and returned from their own mistakes as soon as possible. (like Steverci's sockpuppets, or my 72-hour block due to POV pushing and edit warring.) If someone says "No, the user did a lot disruptions for preventing edits from genocide articles"; then please show evidence with diffs. However, the other claims such as the user supported other areas' independence and therefore should be banned is absurd, that's a personal opinion like "This user supports Kurdistan independence" or "This user supports Catalonian independence"; or "this user supports Armenian nationalism". About wolves, I wish to say that it's generally seen a symbol for nationalism (see Banknotes of Turkey, Grey wolf (mythology) and Asena), and the organization that mentioned only adopted the name (which is Grey Wolves (organization), and has links to MHP, plus even banned in Azerbaijan after 1995, and defined as a terrorist organization). Not every Turkish nationalist (like the similar situations in other countries) does support MHP, or is far-right, or approve their actions; see CHP as an example. About the Facebook coverage, I wish to say that this is that Facebook page's opinion, and does not involve the user's acts. Also, the user never declared his support for that page. Please try to not make personal attacks. About Saotura event, which is I also watched closely due to an article discussion, I agree that the user refused Armenian Genocide and I also accept and support their ban per WP:NOTHERE after looked to their contribs while the discussion is ongoing. Especially after everyone saw the evidences, a lot of people supported this ban or didn't make discussion after evidences. Again, Solavirum claimed that the user is newbie (joined one month ago at that time according to Solavirum), and didn't get enough warnings; and therefore opposed. As my opinion, everyone knows that the people in Turkey and Azerbaijan looks frowned towards Armenians, and vice versa, the people in Armenia looks frowned towards to the people that identify themselves as Turks. (again, I'm against these opinions, - because everyone is human, and nobody deserves being killed (including Hrant Dink and Uğur Mumcu) -, and I thought that's related to mass media, teaching, and propaganda in the countries.) That's my opinions and analyses. I wish to remain as an oppose per WP:AGF, and I wish to say that I couldn't be able to find a strong evidence for banning among conversations. If I missed out something, I'm sorry; because I wrote this in one or two hours. Also sorry if I wasn't able to clarify correctly. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support Site ban as per WP:NATIONALIST, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BADIDEA The editor, a 16 year old teenager, is just damaged by ethnic hatred to the point of no return, saying this with regret. His social media pages, full of voluminous ultranationalist militarist hateful stuff, are really worrisome, enough for safeguarding team and social services to be involved, if they exist Azerbaijan. This is the user who claims "past is past" and whom his comrades justify saying "it was just a few months ago". Instead of introspection and using the chance for atonement, there is complete denial and attacking those who criticized him. This 'gem' was posted on Solavirum's Twitter page just 10 days ago: [REDACTED] Now, one thing that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia is nacizm, fascism and the likes of those anti-human views. Citing from Wikipedia:No Nazis mentioned above: It is a common perception – based on our claim of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit – that Wikipedia welcomes all editors. There is also a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist upon learning of their public self-identification. Because of this, many neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities[a] – hereafter referred to collectively as racists – believe they are welcome to edit Wikipedia, or that they can use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies. This is not true. Racists are not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia, they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki. There is direct evidence that the editor publicly denied Armenian Genocide, supported banned Turkish group Grey Wolves, posted hateful speech against Armenians and so on, being careless on his social media and Azerbaijani Wikipedia and being slightly more careful on English Wikipedia, but remaining the same person. Saying "everything was in the past" is an excuse to stay here for longer, just sticking tighter to the letter of WP policies. The best proof of that is that no regret was seen and no apology was offered for that unacceptable behaviour. Unless he has a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, when one identity cannot control the other one, he should be banned. He may be given a chance for ban removal in the future, when he becomes an adult, but editing Wikipedia with this much racial hatred in mind is just unacceptable. WP guidelines for junior editors (1, 2) have been grossly ignored. Tolerance should not result in Paradox of tolerance. --Armatura (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I have removed the link you posted to external social media. That is completely inappropriate. Nor is it appropriate to wield age like a cudgel, please refrain from doing this. CMD (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Some editors here were worried that the presented evidence so far was mainly about off-EnWiki activities. Here goes the proof that Solavirum is part of a larger nationalist organization that targets English Wikipedia to skew Nagorno Karabakh Related articles. He even received an award from Azerbaijani government for fighting Armenians on English Wikipedia. Open your eyes, my friends, this is a larger issue that you and I thought. --Armatura (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Diaspor Komitəsi və "Karabakh is Azerbaijan" “Vikipediya”da ermənilərə qarşı mübarizə aparan 16 yaşlı Ayxan Zayıdzadəni təltif etdi. Azərbaycan Respublikası Diasporla İş üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi Tovuz hadisələrində və Vətən müharibəsində “Vikipediya”nın ingilis dil bölməsində ermənilərə qarşı mübarizə aparan “Qorqud” Vikipediya Metodik Klubunun eksperti Ayxan Zayıdzadəni "Karabakh iz Azerbaijan” Milli Platforması çərçivəsində informasiya mübarizəsinə verdiyi töhfəyə görə Azərbaycan Respublikası Diasporla İş üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi və “Karabakh iz Azerbaijan” Milli Platformasının rəhbərliyi tərəfindən "Təşəkkürnamə" ilə təltif edilib. Təbrik edirik. The Diaspora Committee and Karabakh is Azerbaijan have awarded 16-year-old Aykhan Zayidzade, who is fighting against Armenians on Wikipedia. The State Committee for Work with the Diaspora of the Republic of Azerbaijan awarded Aykhan Zayidzadeh, an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club, who fought against Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the Tovuz events and the Patriotic War, for his contribution to the information struggle within the Karabakh iz Azerbaijan National Platform. He was awarded a letter of appreciation by the State Committee and the leadership of the Karabakh iz Azerbaijan National Platform. Congratulations. This is that group https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/ that coordinates the actions of Azerbaijani editors on Wikipedia Elnur Eltürk is Elnut Elturk, head of the Free Encyclopedic Resources department at the Central Scientific Library of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences and the mentor of Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum, the author of Qarabagh media article about heroical action of Solavirum against "ugly intentions of Armenians" in English Wikipedia, posting "Wikipedia is on agenda" TV show featuring Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1830678457099406/ and wishing good luck to Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum, ′′ Qorqud ′′ Wikipedia Methodical Club expert, in an interview about that Anti-Armenian history-skewing club (Great successes, thanks to children, the selection raised by precious mothers) https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1829163770584208/ . Elnur is an known Azerbaijani lobyyst and denier of Armenian Genocide, published books such as "my heart stayed in Yerevan" https://salamnews.org/az/news/read/171373 where "the tragedies caused by the Armenians to the Turks and their policy of genocide are conveyed to the reader in an artistic form" and contributed to the book "Armenian Psychology" https://musavat.com/news/son-xeber/ermeni-psixologiyasi-kitabi-ishiq-uzu-gordu_230791.html that aimed to "introduce the true identity of Armenians to the world before the 100th anniversary of the so-called "Armenian genocide", to learn the true identity of the Armenians who hated the Turkish community " Solavirums FaceBook page has off-wiki coordination calls. For example, https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1742957742538145/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1652395918260995/ Hello young people. I have created an article about the bombing of Ganja in English Wikipedia. However, vandalism cases are expected to be many already. That's why it would be nice if others besides me could control this. Only I control the article of Tovuz fights in English Wikipedia as an Azerbaijani. I know it's a volunteer thing, but why not support it? I've been tearing myself up since the 12th, I can say I'm not sleeping. Believe me how many disinformation attempts are. I don't write this for you to thank, it really needs to focus on such things. So far, about 10 thousand readers of the article in Enviki. --Armatura (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Armatura, your tone, rhetoric, and everything else is wrong and gruesome. Everyone here had explained you several times that off-wiki stays off-wiki. Your involvement in my life is worrying, we are here for Wikipedia, not my Facebook, my Twitter, my age, or anything else. a 16 year old teenager, is just damaged by ethnic hatred to the point of no return, saying this with regret, you might as well look at my passport to devalue my contributions on Wikipedia. Your personal level attacks on me shall not go unnoticed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose bans per Qahramani44, a site ban is a gross overreaction. So would be a ban from all Turkic-related articles. The problematic diffs above relate only to the Armenian genocide (there has been some mentioned problems with the wider topic of Armenians, but not that many diffs). Per my statement above on wp:battleground issues, my preferred remedy would be a commitment to tone down personal insults and battleground mentality. Other potential paths might be interaction bans (which would go both ways) or much smaller topic restrictions (as opposed to full bans). CMD (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CMD Solavirum aka Aykhan Zayidzadeh is apparently an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club fighting Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and receiving an award for the State for that. It is against the very definition of battleground principle. See my expalnded vote comment. Regards --Armatura (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose bans per Qahramani44 and CMD. This report has taken a dangerous turn and has turned into a competition to find things User:Solavirum has done in their private life or social media to use them against the user in this report. This is unacceptable and breaks WP:HARASSMENT, specifically WP:OUTING. None of the people who support a ban has provided any real reason for this other than the claim that the user denies the genocide, which Solavirum has denied at least 3 times in this report by now. None of the aforementioned users who added that he "promoted Turkish nationalism" have also been able to provide sources for this, amounting to baseless accusations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Strong Oppose site-ban, weak support IBAN I've been watching this trainwreck for a bit and am surprised at how bad it has got. CMD rightfully notes this is steering into (if not already) becoming a battleground. The almost detective like investigations into an editor in their off-wiki, personal life, is really unacceptable, and disgusts me. I cannot believe anyone would even step as far as to do that. This whole topic area is extremely sensitive and full of conflict; that will never change. However, when looking over these diffs, I, similar to CMD, can only find information relating mainly to the Armenian Genocide. Even suggesting a siteban is stupid, at most this would warrant an IBAN. I weakly support a temporary IBAN (perhaps 3 months or more), but would prefer to find a solution to the broader problem of Armenian-Azerbajani conflicts, to prevent this sort of situation occuring in the future. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Berrely Are you not disgusted by Solavirum aka Aykhan Zayidzadeh being an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club fighting against Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and receiving an award for the State for that? That a child is used for state propaganda? It is against the very definition of battleground principle, and many other principles that you would know better than me. See my expanded comment in my vote. --Armatura (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Armatura, apologies if I missed that in the clusterfuck of other clutter that seemed irrelevant. My point stands, however, after looking through a few more of the posts you have linked, and mostly relying on Google Translate, I may be convinced to support a temporary IBAN, however, I need to look over this a bit more. I will also note that you really are bringing irrelevancy into this. Age does not matter, there are 13 year old editors who have brought articles to GA status. Please stop repeatedly using it as an argument. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Berrely you did not miss it, I just expanded my vote comment, to keep my findings in one place. The age, which you think I am using against the editor, is actually a softening factor for the editor in question and can be used in his defence if anything, as in real-life law. But I am really worried about any editor, especially juveniles, being involved in organized racial propaganda to the extent of becoming experts in that fields and being awarded by the State for that, about Wikipedia being skewed and abused for propaganda purposes in a coordinated manner. There is an established "club" for that, publicised and encouraged on Azeri TV and media and even by State, apparently... --Armatura (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: I recommend giving links whenever you're starting a new thing as it's hard for others to do their own research without it. Could you please give the link to the "Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club" you've mentioned above, I wasn't able to find it on Google. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden It is provided already in my vote comment, and as you read Azerbaijani it must be comprehensible to you better then to others here: Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club and Solavirum's award as its expert fighting against Armenians in English Wikipedia https://www.facebook.com/azxeber1/photos/a.639575122745531/3684374598265553/ --Armatura (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Has Solavirum declared onsite their age? If no, that should be redacted as well. And in any case, I don't see what age has to do with anything here. Multiple times above a real name for this editor has been mentioned, has the editor declared their name onwiki, as well as alleged pictures of them and Facebook/Twitter? I'm very suspicious that they have, given some comments have already had to be revdelled here. If no, that should all be removed and private evidence sent to ArbCom directly, not discussed here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader his age, photo, name, life story, all details clearly publicised by the editor in question himself, as you can see im my initial comment and ban vote comment. I dont know what ArbCom is and how to send things to it, can you help with that please? Many thanks. --Armatura (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: has the editor provided all of these things onwiki themselves, or did you find them by Googling the name that they provided? If the former, please provide diffs of the editor releasing this info themselves. Otherwise this is considered WP:OUTING. Offwiki evidence should be sent to WP:ArbCom by emailing arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. I can't say whether they will consider any of this actionable, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the email address, ProcrastinatingReader. How do I formulate the email itself though, is there a proforma for emails to ArmCom or something? (what the email is about, what the provided personal details for, what is the suggested outcome, ect). Aykhan Zayedzadeh aka Oyuncu Aykha aka Solavirum did not deny adding those details himself. See the details provided on his Wikimedia commons page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aykhan_Zayedzadeh and please see the diff of providing these personal details himself on Az Wikipedia: https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i:Solavirum/Haqq%C4%B1mda&diff=5735949&oldid=3973689 and on En Wikipedia too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Solavirum&oldid=771847647 Regards, --Armatura (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks. At that diff, on the revision prior from 2017, I do see a link to a Facebook but not the Facebooks linked above. Were those linked onwiki, also, as well as their membership in this group? Though note 2017 diff was when the editor was 12/13 years old so I'd say treat that as "not disclosed onwiki" for all practical purposes. My understanding is private info can be sent to ArbCom or any functionary, but whether they deal with this kind of stuff or only in relation to COI I'm not sure. Someone more knowledgeable than I, perhaps an oversighter, could come along and clarify what to do with this info if it's deemed too inappropriate for a public venue (which, imho, technically disclosed or not it is, or at least tows the line quite closely). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

Placing this here in case people have comments related to Solavirum's onwiki conduct at the English Wikipedia. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that I’ve placed Armatura under a one-way IBAN from Solavirum as a DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• The rationale for doing nothing was what? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Swisswiss

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

---

• 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.

• [41] [42] [43]

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)

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

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)

A fundamental question is whether the correct spelling should be sacrificed to a pronunciation hints. Most of casual readers won't even realize the latter, they'll think it's a part of the Russian orthography, much like in Czech or Spanish. They really do: I often see Russian words with unnecessary stresses in various discussions across the Internet, and each time it turns out that the words are simply copied from Wikipedia. — Mike Novikoff 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you should put this question to the Russian linguists as well, since they use accents in all major encyclopedias and dictionaries (have been doing so for like 200 years and still do: see the Great Russian Encyclopedia, published only recently, between 2004 and 2017, by the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences), as well as in books for Russian children and in those for foreigners. Just imagine: small Russian children are made to believe that using accents in Russian is OK, and so do foreign students that learn Russian! Horrible. I still have nightmares with the books I used to read as a little kid in the kindergarten: they all had stress marks in them! Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's really a nightmare, and exactly a kindergarten one. "Ма́-ма мы́-ла О-мо́-на Ра́". I have this nightmare every time I try to read ruwiki, so I've almost ceased looking there. (The ruwikian nightmare is accompanied with wikilinked dates and so-called "flagification" in most of the articles, to make sure that no article will go without an annoyance.) In my 45, I don't want to be in kindergarten anymore. — Mike Novikoff 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we both (especially you) suffer from the Post-Stressed Disorder (PSD), and something should be done about it before it's too late. Do you know if there is some medical institution that treats this condition? Or maybe they have a mutual aid fellowship, like Alcoholics Anonymous? Let me know if you find one, I'll truly appreciate it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff has used a link to his essay to attack his opponents in the Russian Wikipedia (or maybe even Russian Wikipedia editors as a whole): [44]. (The edit summary says: "And look at WP:RUSTRESS, dedicated to you, my dears.") --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous. Mike Novikoff is acting as if Wikipedia (both English and Russian) were his personal blog or something, as I already pointed out above. How long are we supposed to tolerate this behavior? Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ruwiki has to do with this topic. If anything, I had abandoned it two years ago and I'm almost inactive there ever since. But while we are at it, doesn't this comment constitute an incivility and a personal attack against me? Note that Taurus Littrow is already indeffed in two wikis, both indefs being for incivility and aggression, and he continues it here even after my warning. — Mike Novikoff 13:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Affairs of other Wikis" are not en.wiki's concern, either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff has said today [45] that he is not going to stop and will go on with removing stress marks when the discussions are over and everything is quiet again. I told him it would be disruptive and he would then be blocked for disruptive editing. But I must be honest and say that I don't really know what the admins would do. It seems to me that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS covers this situation ("[an editor] continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors"), doesn't it?
I'm really tired of all this and I want to proceed with other things, such as writing an article. So I think I should just forget about this for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conclude", as seen in a dictionary, does not only mean "be over", but also "come to the conclusion". And you either present some convincing arguments that persuade people in the discussion, or you don't. On that will depend what the conclusion will be. Trying to frighten me one more time, and doing so in advance, instead of speaking to the point, is not constructive and not convincing at all.

I also tend to agree with those who say that we might need an even broader discussion than the current one. Maybe an RfC or the like. WT:MOS is a good place too. And it's up to you whether you will participate. Just please stop inventing the pretexts to {get me punished, the essay deleted and be done with it}.

Please also read carefully what WP:DISRUPTSIGNS starts with: This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. See also point four: [an editor] repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits – does it remind you of anything? — Mike Novikoff 08:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

At last, I've followed the popular request and opened a topic at WT:MOS. — Mike Novikoff 13:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff is now edit warring at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian over a link to his essay. ([46], [47], [48]). (He put a link to his essay there and was reverted. But he wants to put it back.) This is really annoying. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A very unconstructive behavior. Novikoff is clearly asking for a block. This is an encyclopedia, not his personal blog. Taurus Littrow (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

How much value is mobile editing to us, anyway? Has anyone done an analysis of the signal-to-noise ratio there? I'm under the imporession that there's a hell of a lot of vandalism which comes in via mobile editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the "canned edit summaries" provided so that edits may be more informative, have only proven useful to vandals who wish to cloak their disruptive edits with "Fixed typo" or "Added information". Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I stopped leaving warnings for obvious bad-faith vandals a loong time ago. I was tired of wasting my time and they never seemed to listen anyway. If it's clear it's a long-term pattern, then yes, we should rollback and warn. But the vast majority of vandalism on Wikipedia nowadays are one-off/short burst vandal sessions originating from IP's/throwaway accounts. In those cases it's fine to simply rollback and ignore; if we actually took the time to add talk page warnings for every single little vandal edit made, we would be spending all day doing something that most likely accomplishes very little in the long run. I haven't looked closely into it, but from what I've seen KH-1 has not been using rollback inappropriately (as in edit wars or rollbacking good faith edits). By the way, at the time the user was granted rollback the sentence "The requester is also expected to have properly warned users after reverting their edits" was nowhere to be found on the guideline, so it's possible KH-1 wasn't even aware of that (in fact, that was added only a few months ago). So I would be opposed to any restrictions or removal of rights. Sro23 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that recently added line from the "request rollback" page, as it doesn't seem to have consensus or describe common practice. Fram (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern Trains article

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

---

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)

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

• Question - why were the edit summaries removed? Other than for extremely egregious abusive material and legal issues like BLP violations and outings and such, shouldn't records of the vast majority of bad behaviour be kept? As examples, and also for transparency reasons &c...? The descriptions above don't seem to me to suggest anything reaching the magnitude that would warrant suppression of this information. Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by an Editor

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

---

• Jordan Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

What is this about? "they are trying to get through their undisclosed paid work"? Are you in sane state GSS? What are you talking about? Paid work? What evidence you ware talking about? If you are doing it right then what is ceasing you from showing me it and asking for rather than repeating same thing again and again?

You can simply check your Upwork account as I'm not allowed to disclose your real name here per WP:OUTING. GSS ^💬 15:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To Admin, Can you please check that why and how this editor is warning me with 3RR while violating the same on his own in the next moment? Jinahpol (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the article, and the merits (or lack thereof) of the sockpuppetry accusation, you're both edit warring now and I would gently suggest you both cease and desist that approach. KillerChihuahua 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1. Redirect locked for a week. 2. It doesn't matter if it was bad faith, GSS, NAC-ing an AfD by an editor you're edit-warring with for the page you're edit-warring on is not on. 3. You really shouldn't roar past 3RR even if you believe WP:3RRNO #3 applies, especially if you haven't shared the evidence. Since it's been ~12 hours I'm not blocking either of you for 3RR but if you start edit-warring again there will be immediate blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Well since the advert on Upwork has been protected post my revert and warning on their talk page I can now share it here. This advert was posted on Upwork on December 19, 2020, and a freelancer was hired to create a page for Jordan A Nash. The advert has been protected but I have the screenshots which I can share with anyone interested. During my investigation, I also found another advertisement on the same Upwork profile that was posted to remove maintenance tags from a page. That advert was posted on November 12th and reads: "Wikipedia Page Tag Removal - Needs to be removed from an existing Wikipedia Page. Need to be done within today." Jinahpol edited Marc P. Bernegger the same day and removed the tags which further confirm their involvement in undisclosed paid editing. GSS ^💬 07:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Before someone continues with their imagination and desperation, let me point out some facts.

I don't have a lot of time I believe like lot of others over here. I am involved in our family timber business. It will be the last thing in my life that I will have to earn something as a freelancer by writing Wikipedia articles. My esteemed cultural values taught me dignity and honour matters a lot. I see what the editor have shown and is showing - utter disrespect and casting baseless aspersions which I do not deserve in any situation. For the record, I am taking this very seriously and I am now much invested in this and everyone else must concur that this is a cyber bully taking place which should be stopped RIGHT NOW. Firstly, this editor showed extreme bad faith without any proof. It is obvious they are desperate with something but nothing gives him licence to exercise bad faith in this length in Wikipedia whoever he is. per WP:PA "personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration." Such an editor by rule should face serious consequences for continuing their persistent hostile personal attacks. Personal attacks can be seen [49] they said me 'get lost', [50] they accused me of being involved in disgraceful acts without any evidence, [51] again here for spurious block evasion accusation without any proof. Regarding the 'evidence' that they are talking about, I am certain that it is fabricated and manufactured (that's why possibly it took more than 12 hours for them to come up with the specific claim of the 'evidence') as I have apprehended before. Further, to their own admission what they are calling 'evidence' is not verifiable publicly. This makes it clear that there is actually no evidence available to the editor. What is claimed to be an 'evidence' is definitely a manufactured one. I request admins to be very vigilant and scrupulous while evaluating the authenticity of the 'evidence'. Since I am facing obvious false accusations from someone in unjust manner, I have the right to see what they are calling as 'evidence'. I request the concerned admins who have the 'evidence' to kindly share me the same via mail. They violated WP:AFD norms by removing the content of the page when the page was nominated for AFD (as the nomination was right to resolve the content dispute) and also closed the AFD without any consensus, which is illegal. They should have waited for the community to decide. Their action shows lack of trust on our community. They definitely posit themselves above the community. When that is the case, we don't need such an editor undermining the heart of Wikipedia and such editors should be banned immediately.

They not only used abusive words ('get lost') against me but also removed 3RR warning from their talk page and violated 3RR by reverting my edits four times with defiance. This surmounts to Disrupting editing and When an admin warned them about their actions they tried to mislead the admin by quoting inapplicable rules and gaming the system. This action sequence demand grave consequence. The editor moved back my created page Mirko Baschetti with citing abusive reasons and when asked they failed to give any answer. This surmounts to vandalism per WP:MOVEVANDAL. They have persistently tried to make me connect with 'someone he knows' which is very unwarranted and to be reckoned as cyber crime when I have denied the same repeatedly. This violates Wikimedia's privacy policy and WP:PRIVACY and Wikipedia:Outing (essay). If this doesn't settle here, I certainly hope that everything will be revealed at right places. They also referred me as a sockpuppet without any evidence and this surmounts to egregious personal attack per WP:SOCK. Since the editor is freely conjuring up several imaginary stories let me conclude a very compelling situation with obvious facts and common sense. It is abundantly clear that someone else here is actually associated with Undisclosed Paid Editing and familiar with the market place where these UPE take place. It is pretty obvious that they are themselves freelancers. I don't want to say any further about these because it seems distasteful to me. With this, the sockpuppet investigation the editor referred, it appears they are desperately trying to link accounts to some blocked editor who was blocked for UPE (whom this editor supposedly knows off wiki) but they failed. They are now trying to knot me with that blocked account without any evidence and he failed again. It is possibly a case of off wiki beef may be for 'professional' rivalry for which someone is choosing Wikipedia to settle the personal score. Now, We all know Wikipedia is not a place to settle personal grievances and existent of such editors are causing disturbances and disruption in Wikipedia. The off wiki feud should be settled off wiki. For such spill of off wiki dispute into in-wiki, good faith editors like me are falling victim. The foe of some editor was already banned, now the disruptive editor should also be banned to save Wikipedia in light of the stated transgressions. Jinahpol (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Broad-based spam adding non-notable people

Starting this morning there has been a very broad effort to add non-notables to articles for places (see this edit, here, here and here, among many others for examples). Not sure what's driving this but the number of articles and editors is very widespread. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a bunch of schoolkids doing what schoolkids traditionally do on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The addition of non-notable people to articles is quite common, especially on DAB pages for names and 'notable people' sections. Edit filters can't solve the problem, so just revert on sight and leave a nice note on the user's TP. Pahunkat (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Very often it's schoolkids, but not always. Pahunkat (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This one is huge. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Magnolia677. We are well aware of how to revert and we've been editing long enough to know that this isn't a handful of kids in a classroom. Treating this as a non-issue will perpetuate the problem, even if there is no systematic / automated way to solve it. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The only real way to solve this is what is essentially WP:RBI. They hit and run, and almost certainly won't see any message sent their way. So revert on sight and deny recognition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I know why this is happening. You might want to keep an eye on this comment section. Don't draw too much attention their way though, that would almost certainly make the situation worse. Perhaps a new edit filter that detects new additions to "Notable people" sections is the way to go. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 22:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cortex128, what is it that you're seeing there? By not saying it, the only way to find out is by clicking the link, which will counter your “Don't draw too much attention their way” notice. Or, given the update below, it might be best to strike your message. ◅ Sebastian 00:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The video has since been privated. It's probably best to just strike it --C o r t e x ^💬talk 02:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right. That's the reason.

Tons and tons of these on the place articles on my watchlist today; just caught some more. Antandrus (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[

Yup, this is way beyond the normal level of such edits. There's definitely something driving it. Meters (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are referencing TikTok, so -- yes. Antandrus (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I noticed when looking over the comment section that someone has brought this issue up with the video creator, and they appear to have privated the video. These edits are probably going to slow down a bit, but still keep an eye out, as the damage has already been done, and I doubt these edits will be stopping entirely. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 23:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Update 2: Someone's already uploaded another version of the video. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortex128 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, there's a flood of these right now. Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For those of use that wouldn't touch Tiktok with a fifty foot pole, could some-one please fill us in on what we're supposed to be looking for? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter recent changes for anon-only (and/or new accounts) and article space only, and look for additions of non-notable people to articles on places, often to the "notable people" section. This edit is typical. They're coming in a couple per minute. Earlier there were more, but it's still kind of a flood. Antandrus (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cortex128, In future requested edit filters should go to WP:EF/R. I've tried requesting one before but there's nothing we can do in terms of looking for no-notable entries through redlinks. However, in this case an edit filter might be able to catch references to tiktok, albeit with probable a few false positives, providing a short-term solution. Would that work? Pahunkat (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, While this would definitely catch some of these edits, not all of them specifically reference tiktok. It's better than nothing, though. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 11:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) *Sigh*. I can't think of an easy solution. Serious editors pay attention to templates like {{alumni}} and {{cleanup list}}, but vanity posters don't. The only crumb I can offer is that me-me-me links to DAB pages are unlikely to survive more than about two months before being booted into Row Z of the stands (often, accompanied by redlinks and bad bluelinks on the same page). Monitoring WP:TDD#Today's highlights for new links to {{hndis}} pages would be unutterably tedious; most such links are failures to WP:TESTLINK or technical WP:INTDAB errors. Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See filter 1111 (hist · log). Just a log of redlinks added by non-confirmed editors. Not sure if that will be useful here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That will catch a bunch of them.

It's started up again tonight, unsurprisingly, in kind of a big way (Friday night, winter, kids can't go out because pandemic, etc. etc.) Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also 1112 (hist · log). --C o r t e x ^💬talk 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So a filter was possible in the end, thanks Suffusion of Yellow. Pahunkat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lots of false positives though, but it seems to be picking up all of these edits. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Antandrus, Cortex128, and Pahunkat: 1112 should be more refined now. Leaving 1111 on for now to see what 1112 is missing, but it might be a bit expensive to leave on forever. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Suffusion of Yellow -- appreciate it. At its peak that was pretty crazy. Reminds me a little of the "Stephen Colbert Elephants" scene of many years ago. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice some seem to be (in their minds, at least) getting "smarter" - one had a corporate-sounding username and others are making edits that look like run-of-the-mill vandalism before hitting the tiktok stuff. EDIT: And they've started making Draftspace "articles" for the names they're trying to stick into the pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Antandrus, Cortex128, Pahunkat, and The Bushranger: I'm tired of posting in two places, but see latest updates at WP:EFN § Filter to detect new additions to "Notable people" sections. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Attention all children

Can someone point to me exactly what TikTok users are seeing before they try this crap? Is it just the video linked above ([52])? Or is there something more going on? I'd like to create a custom message for the filter, but it would help to know what they think they are trying to do first. Thanks! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The original video was essentially just the same as the one I linked in update 2, but with a different person standing under the text. You're not missing much by it being deleted. The last time I checked before it got deleted I think the original had about 110,000 views. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the ideas behind such videos may also be shared by social media, rather than only through that video. I'd therefore recommend having a message which also encompasses this as opposed to a message which focuses on the video. Pahunkat (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Clear legal threat from a static IP

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

---

• 120.89.81.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• NZSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#NZSA ( New Zealand Space Agency Limited ) Cease and Desist.

IP 120.89.81.4 has been blocked at least twice for disruptions about the use of NZRA and is now threatening legal action. -Arch dude (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I notified Ferret. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this is NZSA (no surprise) who has been making these same edits, from the same IP, since 2017. Since barring one single edit in June there has been nothing else from this IP but this nonsense since then, I've blocked the IP per WP:NLT and WP:BE for three years. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Good block, beat me to it. The edit in June is also him. That's another of his pet topics that you'd find on his socks and other IPs I've blocked in the past. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit comments of IP 116.93.64.30

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

---

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

Hi. I don't know if this is the right forum to discuss this but can someone hide the edit comments made by this IP user (116.93.64.30)? The IP got blocked on January 3 and their edits for the Xian Lim article were reverted, but the comments that are full of the devil emoji are still there. -WayKurat (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@WayKurat: The best way to request revision deletion is to ask on IRC, on the server #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

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

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [53], edit summaries at [54], [55], [56], [57], and generally at [58] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

 // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the sanction is still relevant, see these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also in addition to its overlength it appears HW still has that WP:POLEMIC-violating signature line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
  • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes

• And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.

About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [59]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [60]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [61].

Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.

Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:

• Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
• Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
• Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
• Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
• Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
• Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
• Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.

Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.

So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.

I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

• The diffs in the original post
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
• Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).

Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

 // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
  I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A fate worse than death...

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nitesh Surya Vanapalli

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

---

• Nitesh Surya Vanapalli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued disruptive editing after final warning.

• Final warning: [62]
• disruptive editing after final warning: [63]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GA-RT-22, please explain why in your view that edit is disruptive. ◅ Sebastian 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(As someone that has also had dealings with this editor) The addition of mumble rap violates WP:V, something this editor repeatedly does as can be seen from all the warnings, including 2 final ones on their talk page. They also have not, to date, bothered to communicate with editors raising concerns on their talk page regarding their disruptive edits, something that is required to edit here. Robvanvee 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my first time reporting here. This user has a history of adding or changing material without providing a source, and getting reverted for it. Here are some examples: [64][65][66][67][68][69][70] If you look at the tags you'll see these have all been reverted. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Review requested: Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

This is a request to review the closing of Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

El_C closed the ANI with the comment that I have not made any edits in 10 days and a warning to not make unsubstantiated allegations. I reached out to El_C on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User%3A_Britishfinance

My complaint about accusations of sockpuppetting by BritishFinance and Alexbrn seems to have been lost in the POV war between both sides in the 'lab leak' discussion started by Hemiauchenia within my ANI complaint. I raised this concern as I thought it was a distraction from the issue at hand - the personal attack and discrediting of my account in open Talk discussion made through allegations of sockpuppeting.

To review my complaint.

My very first edit on either topic was met with this response from Alexbrn

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=998678306&oldid=998658838

"huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)"

I then made four comments Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=998843174

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=999017959

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=999056735

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=999182886

Does anyone want to argue that any of these comments violate ANY rules or that I am POV pushing? Am I not trying to be helpful and facilitate consensus, as you are supposed to do here?

But then I notice that BritishFinance has popped up with another allegation of sockpuppeting and POV Pushing in the very next thread right after Alexbrn instigated the first allegation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=999086842&oldid=999084407

"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website 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). Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)"

I have done absolutely nothing wrong, yet two experienced editors are going off the reservation in making claims that they are concerned about me being a sockpuppet and pushing POV. Where? How? Why?

I am sorry to take up time here but what choice do I have but to defend my reputation against multiple sockpuppeting accusations? That's the insidiousness of making those types of allegations in discussion. They are dirty tactics and the rules against them need to be enforced, especially when used by experienced editors who should know better. Both BritishFinance and Alexbrn responded to my complaint with the same justification. They were only bringing up their concerns about sockpuppeting in the form of a question. Does bringing up their concerns in the form of a question in an open Talk discussion somehow absolve them from the my complaint because it is more of an implied accusation than outright accusation?

No, this is not okay. This is called casting aspersions. There is a procedure for making allegations of sockpuppetting if there is a concern. There is a reason for this procedure, correct? What kind of collaboration can occur if editors are allowed to throw around unsupported accusations implying someone might be a sockpuppet? Did either of these experienced editors take my complaint to heart, offer an apology? No, in fact they expanded the attack on my reputation. My ANI complaint became the battleground for a ban proposal for user SS and debate on POV pushing from both sides of the 'lab leak' scenario and with zero evidence BritishFinance went so far as to push for my account to be included in the ban as retribution for my complaint.

After the complaint I tried to engage Alexbrn in good faith discussion, pointing to MEDRS sources he said were needed. He couldn't even do that and seemed to have some sort of mental breakdown, once again responding to my comment with allegations of sockpuppeting in open talk discussion with a link back to my complaint...after being warned by my complaint!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWuhan_Institute_of_Virology&type=revision&diff=999346748&oldid=999345702 "Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[7] 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)"

I voiced my concerns about my complaint being turned into a distracting sideshow. The Bushranger and Tenryuu said WP:Boomerang applies to ANI but I don't see how the summary closure of my complaint by El_C does anything but validate my original concern. What did I do wrong? How am I supposed defend my reputation against unfounded and wrong accusations of sockpuppeting by editors who have shown in their responses complete disregard for the WP:5P? These editors are experienced, they should know better, and they should be held to high standards, especially on pages with sanctions in place.

My account has been discredited and smeared by BritishFinance and Alexbrn, accusations and casting aspersions of sockpuppeting are a personal attack. Their stated defense is further accusations of POV pushing and frankly bullying behavior in the form of POV railroading (false narrative & Brand, discredit and ban). I think their are some serious questions that should be asked about the POV pile-on in my complaint as it was used to further discredit my account through additional unsupported sockpuppeting and unsupported POV pushing allegations.

"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)"

"agree with Novem_Linguae on their extension to all COVID topics, and include Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 10 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)"

I understand that BritishFinance and Alexbrn are high volume editors and probably have admins they are friendly with. But that does not excuse their behavior, in fact I think it makes it worse, it is toxic. I would have settled for a simple apology but both Britishfinance and Alexbrn choose to victim blame and double down in their attacks. Is there any doubt they think their behavior is justified and will continue? Where is the WP:Boomerang?

Wikipedia Violations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe."

WP:PA

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying

"Point of View (POV) railroading refers to the use of bullying tactics to discredit an editor with an opposing viewpoint or eliminate them from a discussion."

"False accusations are a common form of bullying on Wikipedia, although people do sometimes make honest mistakes. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_railroad

"A false narrative is a fabrication of a "story" about another editor in an attempt to discredit them, damage their reputation within the community, frustrate, or bait them. Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing or conflict of interest, labeling an editor as a point-of-view pusher, or accusing them of being a sock puppet or meat puppet of a banned user are common false narratives. Editors may also misrepresent actual edits (including their own) or take diffs out of context to support a skewed version of events that supports their false narrative."

"False narratives and canvassing can be used to recruit multiple editors who "pile-in" to support a viewpoint or editor, resulting in the opposing editor being outnumbered, and feeling intimidated, helpless or under attack. A group of editors with a similar viewpoint may create a clique in which they rely on each other to support a point-of-view and act together to eliminate editors who do not share their POV."

WP:SMEAR

"POV railroading may be performed in attempts to malign or destroy the reputation of targeted editors by labeling, shaming, branding and discrediting them in a progressively more prejudiced and misleading manner, until the targeted editor leaves a topical or discussion area out of frustration or tiredness, or is potentially blocked or banned."

PS Not sure who I am supposed to notify as this is a review request, I'd appreciate help if I did this wrong. I will respond to admins but no further goading and baiting by Britishfinance and Alexbrn. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Has an SPI been opened up for this?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WaltCip I just opened an SPI. [71] –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet again - you HAVE to notify editors who you start discussions about - I have done so now.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is way too long for any reasonable person to actually read. Can you summarize what exactly the problem is? CUPIDICAE💕 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish that's why I asked, thank you.

CUPIDICAE💕 My original complaint was short and sweet. El_C complained it didn't have enough diffs or wasn't clear enough, not really sure what he was looking for as he preferred that I ask for review. Sorry. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• While WP:SPI may still be worthwhile, I suggest a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. Please see the above closed ANI thread, where I warned them about making baseless accusations. Other than POV pushing at COVID-19 related articles, there very few contributions. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sleeping socks and WP:MEATPUPPETs are a common problem on Wikipedia and any expressed suspicion was warranted using the editing history and behavioral evidence, although SPI would indeed be a better process to use. Editors try to assume good faith and treat apparent new editors as independent people editing in good faith, yet evidence shows that this editor is mostly here fo feud. —PaleoNeonate – 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  That was my reaction, too. Sock or not, they are not bringing much of value that outweighs this nonsense. Grandpallama (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Holly wall of text! What is happening here? El_C 15:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm breaking out some steam exploded corn kernels for this one. Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm curious if WP:TIMESINK is a bluelink or not. Huh. Well, that's a surprise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyway, the level of investment in protesting over "reputation" (about grievances from weeks ago, anyway) by a user with less than 100 edits (I think, I haven't counted) is totally suspect. You'd think they'd take the hint from User_talk:El_C#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User:_Britishfinance, but I guess they think that doubling-down is the way to go. What a weird timesinke. El_C 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, made it blue. El_C 16:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Dropthestick and back away from the horse. Seriously, nearly everyone forgot about this over the last 2 weeks and moved on with their edits. Your name forgotten as just another new user who passed through ANI. Withdraw this and go on to have a productive editing life on wikipedia. Don't look back. Don't hold a grudge. Or triple-down and risk the community settling this and not likely in your favor. Slywriter (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Do you think I might get lucky and this thread will be closed before anybody even notifies me about it? Must say, it's a classic of its kind, complaining about personal attacks while making an accusation that I had "some sort of mental breakdown". Perhaps it's performance art of some kind? On the substance, at the last AIN I said I was happy to accept that Dinglelingy was not a sockmaster of ScrupulousScribe. But as two admins have now observed, this does not look like a new account. I suspect it's a question of WP:SCRUTINY evasion, possibly by a user with a grudge. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, well, respect (I guess...?) for actually reading Dinglelingy's treaties in full. That is more than can be said for me, the person actually facing the review.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As an aside, I'm always amazed whenever users just dump a ton of text and expect everyone to stand at attention. Usually, it stems from their lack of appreciation that this is a volunteer project. El_C 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Close, since this circumvents the admin closure of the lengthy debate above. And I'd encourage admins to take some kind of action against Dinglelingy. WP:BLUDGEON is a major issue with this editor. I have also opened a sockpuppet investigation into Dinglelingy and ScrupulousScribe if anybody would like to add evidence. [72] Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think this wall of text that repeats baseless accusations demonstrates that Dinglelingy is not a good fit for this project and ought be invited to find another hobby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry my complaint, unaddressed in the previous ANI, has now strained the eyes of a few unpaid admins here who think that my reputation is unworthy of defense and that severe policy violations should be overlooked. I expected better responses to a well articulated complaint, especially after my first complaint was hijacked and then sumarily dismissed because it was not specific enough.

I see I have now also been warned to withdrawl my complaint if I don't want to risk continuing with wikipedia. Thanks!!

I have a different idea.

I will withdrawl my complaint if both Britishfinance and Alexbrn admit that they did not follow policy by bringing up their concerns about sockpuppeting in open Talk discussion. That the reason you don't make/imply/allege/accuse/cast aspertions like this is because it looks like a personal attack to discredit another user and that they are sorry for this as it was not their intention to discredit my account. I would like this genuine apology with no weasel words to be in the comments directly under the three accusatory comments that I identified above (two by Alexbrn and one by Britishfinance) or I would like the apology here and the three accusatory comments deleted.

I don't care if this happens before or after completion of the SPI. I see both Britishfinance and Alexbrn are pivoting off the original complaint that never held water to new accusations that I must be some alt-account that requires scrutiny. Like this is rocket science not common sense. Whatever floats their boat.

Barring this apology, my complaint stands and is appropriately documented for escalation. You don't want to deal with this, that's my proposal. Doesn't seem hardly unfair. Dinglelingy (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to master the art of writing reports that are both succinct and which include sufficient evidence by way of diffs. You'll get more action, or at least more serious consideration of action, and fewer complaints that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and as I already said two weeks ago I was "happy to accept" that Dinglelingy was not a sock of ScrupulousScribe, following my initial question about that. It's true that, based on the observations of admins, I have thoughtfully "pivoted" to thinking that Dingle is another kind of sock. But that is a separate matter. So far as I'm aware there is no way to launch an SPI in such cases, as it would require a Checkuser trawl, and that doesn't (officially) happen. Alexbrn (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Per my statement in the earlier ANI at Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance, I proved that I did not call you a sockpuppet, but you chose WP:IDNHT, and doubled-trebled down on your baseless allegation against me. Now, instead of heeding El_C's warning, you start a whole new ANI repeating the same falsehoods. It is clear that you are a returning user, so you should know better that "walls of text" combined with a hard WP:IDNHT approach, gets you nowhere on Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy, to be blunt, I think you place far too much importance on whether your report stands or is withdrawn, or whether you "escalate" (whatever that means to you, concretely), but my sense is that those are all of little consequence to anyone else here, except perhaps to you, in so far as a WP:BOOMERANG is concerned. Don't say I didn't warn you. El_C 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy - can I ask, what do you consider to be "escalation" here? Also, I would ask - please don't use double spaces at the beginning of a new sentence, as this impairs readability for editors reading the Teahouse with screenreader technology. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, this is ANI, not the Teahouse. To reiterate, whatever Dinglelingy sees that escalation as being, I highly doubt it's gonna go their way. They have already strained the patience of pretty much everyone else here. Their WP:IDHT levels are pretty off the charts for them not to pick up on this. Unless they have and the entire thing is some sort of a social experiment. Honestly, who can tell anymore. El_C 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

terribly sorry! one board blends into another if I'm not paying attention, my apologies --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, it's okay, that's pretty much been the theme of the day for me, so at least I'm not alone there — in Hebrew we have a saying: צרת רבים חצי נחמה (which basically means welcome to the club!). El_C 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, with respect, as I know you are a volunteer; I feel this matter is deserving of your time, or another uninvolved admin's time. An accusation was leveled against me and Dinglelingy or being socks (among other things) by editors who were pushing a POV contrary to ours on the issue of Covid-19's possible lab origins (due to an accidental leak). The accusation of sockpuppetry was made to discredit us, and Dinglelingy has made the time to carefully outline the exact nature of the complaint (upon your request), so that it should get the attention he (and I) feel it deserves (we are new users and deserve to be treated with good faith, and certainly not to be "bitten"). I feel the last ANI was closed too quick, and I am currently appealing the topic ban with Boing! said Zebedee, as I was not accused of disruptive editing, and the issue of contention has gained further attention in the popular press, such as this BBC article from last night, which calls it the "biggest scientific controversies of our time" (here is another article the BBC published on the issue just a couple of weeks ago), so it is clearly not a "conspiracy theory" in the same sense that other lab origin theories are (such as those who claim it was created as a bioweapon and deliberately released). This issue will only become more and more contentious, and we as Wikipedians will have to learn to communicate with each other in a more congenial manner, so as to be able to cover it in a neutral way. Britishfinance and Alexbrn's accusations/questions of us being sockpuppets who are on Wikipedia only to promote "fringe" theories, and "casting around" to find sources to support our POV, were not affable, and their indignant comments above are highly disingenuous, so I would like to ask that you treat this matter seriously. Another Hebrew phrase that comes to mind is כולם מדברים על שלום אף אחד לא מדבר על צדק. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, I feel I have spared this entire thing more than enough time. This is suspect. This is a timesink. That is my evaluation. That view seems like it's pretty much universally shared by everyone else who has commented here. Also, I'm not sacrificing justice for peace or whatever, I just think going on further about this is a waste of everyone's collective time. I'm more than entitled to hold that viewpoint, just like Dinglelingy is entitled to seek review of my close, which I don't actually have any control over. Finally, sorry, I'm not really interested to get into the content weeds of the dispute in question at this time. El_C 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I too was quite impressed as to the detail Dinglelingy went into for his complaint, and its been a long time since I read up on the those rules myself, but "POV railroading" very accurately describes Alexbrn's conduct in how he accused of us socking, casting around, and what not. Evidently, Novem Linguae too was so impressed with Dinglelingy's knowledge of the rules, he filed an investigation into him (God forbid that new editors or lurkers should figure out how the rules work around here and seek for them to be implemented fairly). Clearly, Alexbrn isn't going to apologize to Dinglelingy, or acknowledge my own request to him, so it would probably just be better for us to close this ANI and have uninvolved admin make the necessary reprimand to the subjects of this complaint as per WP:BITE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, if wishes were horses... I would be petting a lot of horses! El_C 03:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, you say: I too was quite impressed as to the detail Dinglelingy went into for his complaint — if you mean positively impressed, then... wow, just wow. It is obviously long-winded and unfocused, not to mention arrives at flawed conclusions. Suspect. Timesink. Full stop. El_C 03:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, whether you agree with the complaint or not, you have to understand how upsetting it can be for new users to face animosity, particularly in areas of controversy. Both I and Dinglelingy were involved in a topic that the BBC just yesterday called the "biggest scientific controversies of our time", and neither of us were afforded the assumption of good faith, but were instead branded as conspiracy theorists. In our discussion, contrarian editors employed the "casting of aspirations" and "POV railroading" tactics that Dinglelingy described above, which made it impossible to agree on content changes. Much has been written on why Wikipedia is losing contributors, and the burden placed upon new users to conform to policy, and I think it can make a big difference if good faith is assumed. As it stands now, other users have stepped in and made content changes, and as new information comes to light, more content will be added. I feel I have accomplished something in deciding to create this Wikipedia account and correct the error, an I will go on to contribute a lot more. I don't feel any need to continue with this ANI, but for the administrator who does preside over it, they should understand the issue at hand and take it seriously. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, yet again, it's suspect and it's a timesink. I'm sorry that, like Dinglelingy, you seem to lack the capacity to read the room. Oh well. Doesn't really bother me too much, though I do hope you figure it all out (both of you) sooner rather than later. Good luck! El_C 04:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy, ScrupulousScribe, we did with the accusation what we generally do, which is check it and found it was extremely unlikely. This is how things should work. I do not know the motives of other people at Wikipedia, but I cannot see why Dinglelingy thought he was helping by opening this complaint here, or why ScrupulousScribe thought it would be helpful to comment. There is a technique sometimes used around here by people trying to win an argument, by provoking their adversaries into doing something that will get them banned. Both of you are well into the process of becoming victims. The way to avoid losing an unfair game is to stop playing. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

SS, thank you for the kind words. At first I was a little perturbed at the back & forth between SS and El_C. Another distraction just like what happened to my original complaint. I have no desire to be associated with SS's actions. From my first post on this topic I have been tagged with whatever real or imagined sins he has. Stop please. I am not SS. As per the SPI report, there is basically no chance we are sockpuppet accounts and I not some Alt-account. But then I remembered that SS was the other victim of the same abuse. There are two victims here. SS also has a right to say his piece here, whether you agree with his take or not. But just as Alexbrn's atrocious behavior is far more consistent than Britishfinance, SS and I are different too. I am making my own case.

DGG, I understand what you are saying and I respect that you feel this way. I think that is the wrong approach. I would suggest that if you are aware of these types of editors, and especially if you think that myself or any others are victims of this type of behavior, then you might entertain the idea that you should probably try to put a stop to it. I get letting it ride if no one is complaining, everyone is busy. But this is a legitimate complaint, and it's well documented. I have not been goaded into bad behavior, I have followed policy & procedure, and I have taken my complaint to the only forum where multiple sockpuppet accusations can be countered. It took this review request just to get someone to even begin to follow procedure and ask for an SPI. That's wrong.

You want a better wikipedia, you have to put the breaks on this type of behavior, it really is toxic. Neither Britishfiance nor Alexbrn are willing to even acknowledge that they should not have raised concerns about sockpuppeting in the middle of talk discussions, much less multiple times. Neither acknowledge that they should have followed policy and procedures intended to prevent the type of defective environment that these type of accusations create. Neither are remorseful or even conciliatory, and have had multiple chances to apologize. All they have done is press on the gas, when one personal attack fails, try another. These were pages with sanctions. If you just want to give them a slap on the wrist, that's your call, I'm not going to complain about penalties.

Ineffablebookkeeper, thanks for the heads up on the double line break, sorry. I was trying to avoid 'wall of text' complaints by breaking it into digestible sections with diffs, but what looks better on a monitor obviously doesn't translate well to a device or to others with time constraints, sorry about that. Review/escalate, whatever the process, Britishfinance and Alexbrn won't acknowledge or apologize for their severe and documented policy violations.Dinglelingy (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy, you were advised to let it go, on multiple occasions. First, with my original ANI close. Then, on my talk page where you challenged that close. Then, further yet, here in this (lengthy) review of that close. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here at this point, but it still isn't going anywhere good. We get it, you feel like you were bitten. But maybe it's time to move on now...? Because your endless complaints have become a drain on volunteer resources. El_C 15:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion at Talk:Alexander the Great

• Talk:Alexander the Great (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

A blocked sock is very likely using IPs for block-evasion and trying to push POV-nonsense. I don't know if there's an effective range-block. Anyway, in chronological order:

• 116.58.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 116.58.201.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.67.157.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The latest IP also pinged User:Toddy1, although it is rather apparent there's no connection between them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sure the IP is a blocked sock.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The ranges are too busy for a rangeblock, would just excluding them from Alexander the Great (and perhaps Toddy's talkpage) work OK? Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It probably would solve this particular problem for the time being; although the sock was also engaged in other things so we'd probably still have to deal with them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Heads up - this is a mobile provider, and the changes of IP are likely involuntary. They seem to own quite a few ranges, you might be able to get it with 4 ranges. SQL^{Query me!} 18:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GDPR non compliance. Bullying innocent users.

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

---

Could someone sort this mess out, I don’t have time.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/711097/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-1-0.pdf

https://gdpr.eu/compliance-checklist-us-companies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.182 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_Emanuel

User appears to have a legitimate legal case. What’s the problem?

Entire edit history needs suppressed and undelete protected till legal can deal with it properly.

Also looks like user is getting bullied, just getting blocked for trying to fight her corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.38 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Admins: no action required (unless its on the IP), per the linked talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(EC) The user, you, ain't getting bullied. You were given an answer and you don't like it. Stop pretending that all the IP numbers are different user. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Subtle vandalism and a possibly more serious issue of conduct by User:Thucydides411

• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user made a series of edits today on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, which I consider subtle vandalism, because they were reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of the article. While they disagreed this was the case [73] [74], I tend to think that it may actually be more serious than subtle vandalism.

Their first edit started with the removal of a paragraph [75], with the edit summary This is still only primarily sourced, days after I asked for a secondary source. A simple Google search gives a dozen secondary sources, such as this RS, yet instead of quickly fixing the issue WP:PRESERVE, they chose to wait a few days to remove an entire, properly sourced paragraph.

Their next edit introduced two pieces of information [76] in a way that contained errors, with the edit summary Restoring well sourced, due material that was removed without explanation. Regarding the content they added citing the NYT, they omitted the attribution to US officials, which could just be an innocuous error in normal circumstances. However, as I will elaborate below, their omission cannot be seen as unintentional. Regarding the content citing CNBC, they added that German intelligence indicated there was "misinformation" in the Trump administration's claims, which I did not find in the source. I have since corrected these errors [77] [78].

Their next edit [79] removed the following:

While it is a known fact that scientists at a lab in Wuhan have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, a U.S. official said that the results of the investigation were "inconclusive".

which is a direct summary of these two sentences from the RS:

But scientists at a military and a civilian lab in Wuhan, where the virus originated, are known to have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, officials say.

Asked about the intelligence on NBC's "TODAY" show, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said, "this is something we've been watching closely now for some time," adding that the results of the investigation are thus far "inconclusive."

with the edit summary Remove POV statement that promotes conspiracy theory. On the talk page, they further stated that the reason for the removal was that it did not take into account the fact The RS attributes those statements to US officials [80]. Now, if one examines Thucydides411's previous edit, they themselves precisely did that when they were summarizing the NYT article. I have since restored the sentence and corrected the attribution problem [81] [82]. These two improvements would not have been possible should the original sentence be removed, as Thucydides411 did in their edits, which fits the description of subtle vandalism.

Their next edit [83] removed the following:

The hypothesis was one of several possibilities being pursued by the investigators.

which is a direct summary of this sentence in the RS that they also removed:

The theory is one of multiple being pursued by investigators as they attempt to determine the origin of the coronavirus that has resulted in a pandemic and killed hundreds of thousands.

with the edit summary Replace first sentence to more fully explain that these investigations were ordered by the Trump administration. Clearly, this is an important piece of information not shown elsewhere in the article, so how could the removal of it help more fully explain...? On the other hand, the "ordered by the Trump administration" viewpoint has already been reflected in the paragraph that focuses on Matthew Pottinger, a senior official of the Trump administration, as well as in the content that Thucydides411 added in their second edit.

Their next edit [84] removed the following:

The official highlighted the lack of an independent team inside China.

which is a direct summary of this sentence in the RS:

"No one's able to stay one way or the other," the official said, highlighting -- as American officials have -- the lack of an independent team on the ground. "We just don't know enough," the official added.

with the edit summary The official highlighted the lack of an American team, not an independent team. Again, this is an important piece of information not shown elsewhere in the article. Note that the RS specifically stated that the above-mentioned official is not American, but a foreign official:

The US evidence shared with the allied intelligence-sharing group known as Five Eyes doesn't rule one theory in or out, according to a foreign official in regular contact with the Trump administration.

Even if Thucydides411's understanding of the original sentence was correct, they could have simply changed "independent" to "American". But once again, they chose to delete the content completely.

Despite my previous lengthy conversation with Thucydides411 on their talk page [85] with my warning Please reach consensus first before removing any well-sourced content regarding—Their repeated removal of legitimate edits (well-sources content and reference) has clearly shown that there is an intent to hinder the improvement of the article, and I would like to bring this matter to the broader community and urge others to further scrutinize the conduct of this user.

Normchou ^💬 19:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC); edited 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Holy WP:MWOT! Not quite sure what "subtle vandalism" is but per WP:NOTVAND accusations of vandalism which aren't, are a WP:PA, which would be an issue for this noticeboard too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: see WP:SNEAKY, subtle vandalism is one of the common types of vandalism encountered on wikipedia. Whether the above is subtle vandalism or not is above my pay grade, but the argument presented is a plausible one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Horse Eye's Back, for making it clear the specific type of vandalism I am referring to. For one thing, this is definitely sneaky disruptive editing behavior. The reason I determine this to be sneaky or subtle vandalism is based on the intent deduced from Thucydides411's conduct today in combination with my previous interlocution with them [86]. Normchou ^💬 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Normchou: WP:SNEAKY covers behaviors such as, including adding plausible misinformation to articles, simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize and Impersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address. It does not describe good-faith differences of opinion between editors. Nobody could plausibly construe these sorts of edits as "vandalism": [87][88]. Accusing another editor of vandalism over a content dispute is a personal attack, and a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that WP:SNEAKY covers the behavior reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages, which somehow has been sneakily avoided in Thucydides411's enumeration above. Also, Acting in bad faith is much worse than stating that someone is acting in bad faith WP:ACBF. I don't think it is a violation of WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL for pointing out blatantly ill-intentioned behavior. Normchou ^💬 22:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The WP:NPA page does not call misuse of the word "vandalism" a personal attack. That kind of misrepresentation on this ANI only lends credibility to OP's concern. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Straight from WP:VANDAL: Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. (emphasis added). I really shouldn't have to explain that calling a long-time editor a "vandal" over a content dispute is an obvious personal attack. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you on content isn't the same as having intent of hindering the improvement of pages. You've been here for 10+ years. You must know what vandalism is, and that you can't just accuse people of vandalism because you don't agree with their edits. You said in this edit that you were reverting vandalism: [89]. You can't possibly look at the edits you reverted and say that they're vandalism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In the diff that Thucydides411 showed above, my edit summary was Unexplained removal of content; subtle vandalism. Once again, subtle vandalism has been sneakily replaced by only vandalism in their comment. Normchou ^💬 23:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't agree with all of the edits listed above, but they are clearly not vandalism. This looks like a content dispute that should be resolved on the article's talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger, I agree with you. I have been wondering whether the problem is that some wikitext diffs, including the one that Normchou described as obfuscated, are hard for inexperienced people to figure out. This could result in him feeling like something sneaky or underhanded is happening, even though nothing sneaky or underhanded is actually happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into the details of the content dispute here, but Normchou is an editor of more than 10 years who is making baseless accusations against me of vandalism. I've repeatedly asked Normchou to stop calling my good-faith edits vandalism ([90][91]), but they keep repeating the accusation ([92][93][94]), now escalating to this ridiculous ANI request. If Normchou were a new editor, I would simply explain to them again what vandalism is and is not. But Normchou clearly knows better, so I propose a boomerang or a heavy trouting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is not a ridiculous ANI request. The lengthy conversation Thucydides411 had with me on their talk page [95] clearly shows that they have seen my previous warning Please reach consensus first before removing any well-sourced content regarding this article, and that they fully understand the potential ramifications of their conduct, so the series of edits they made today with complete disregard for this fact cannot plausibly be seen as a simple, innocuous content dispute that occured in good faith. Normchou ^💬 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC); edited 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As PaleoNeonate has pointed out, after I made my first edits to the page two days ago, you appeared at my page to give a me stern warning. You used RedWarn to place an anti-vandalism template on my talk page: [96]. The template you added, uw-delete, is supposed to be used for violations of this policy: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking,_illegitimate. My edits could not possibly be construed as vandalism, and RedWarn specifically instructs users not to abuse the tool: WP:RW/A. I made a few more edits today, after which you again accused me of vandalism (as I documented above). In reverting me, you again used RedWarn to flag my edits as vandalism: [97]. This is unacceptable behavior.

As I said, I'm not going to get into the content dispute in detail here, because this is not the right forum. The article's talk page is the right place for that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace clearly states that for Blatant vandalism, use uw-vandalism; for Page blanking, use uw-blank; and for Removal of content without adequate explanation, use uw-delete. The usage page of the template I used a few days ago, Template:Uw-delete2, has zero mention of vandalism. I did not use uw-delete1 because I was unable to assume good or bad faith at the time given the highly obfuscating edits as described in ScrupulousScribe's comment below. The template I used today, Template:Uw-subtle3, is for Subtle vandalism, which is exactly what I am saying here. It is truly inconceivable that even in this ANI report where Thucydides411 is the subject of scrutiny, they are still coming up with stuff that is either unverified or patently false. Normchou ^💬 23:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You have just such a massive failure to assume good faith. You can't accuse long-time editors of vandalism for things that are clearly not vandalism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me make this clear one more time: I'm accusing Thucydides411 of a specific type of vandalism known as sneaky or subtle vandalism, for reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. As can be seen above, this accusation has been sneakily and repeatedly distorted in their comments by suggesting that my accusation is about general vandalism. Normchou ^💬 23:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SNEAKY is a subsection of WP:VANDALISM. You can't just repeatedly accuse someone of "sneaky vandalism" and "subtle vandalism" and then say you're not accusing them of "vandalism". Anyways, you've been here for 10+ years, and you know that you're not supposed to make blatantly false accusations of vandalism like this, and doing so at ANI, of all places, is extremely unwise. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you didn't afford me much good faith when you told Normchoi here that I only created the page to push my own POV, when in fact I started the page as a skeleton, referencing only statements that could be attributed to organisations to start off with. There was no intention on my part to create this page to present only my own POV, and I expected you and other editors to add content to improve its NPOV, not delete content and skew its NPOV. As you should now be able to understand, it's really not fun to be the receiving end of WP:NOFAITH accusations. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Only noting that when I first noticed Normchou it was because of stern warnings on Thucydides's talk page for what appeared to be Thucydides' first edits at the COVID-19 origins investigations article. I didn't have the time to look at today's activity there yet. —PaleoNeonate – 20:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please note that Thucydides411's first "contribution" to the page Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was to replace the section "US government investigations" with "US government claims", deleting three paragraphs of well-sourced statements by US government officials (on actual investigation activities being conducted by the US government), with conjecture in the media about Trump's policy positions and the typical shenanigans his administration was known for (but very little about any actual investigations). I first created the page to document investigations into the origins of Covid-19, fully expecting users to expand and improve the page, but not to delete entire sections and replace them fully with contents to tell us all what we already know about the Trump administration. Though Thucydides411's changes were reverted, the paragraph he added on "US government claims" remains in the page, as the lead paragraph of the US government investigations section (though it should probably be removed too). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please block the above account for violation of their topic ban, thanks. Valeince (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My topic ban is very specific and I am not in contravention of it. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

BS. Just today on your talk page the sanctioning admin advised for you stay aware from anything that could be constuted to be involved with the lab leak theory, including the page you're talking about above. Valeince (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but we are not in lab leak territory here. I also noted to the admin that I am concerned with Thucydides411's conduct, and this ANI draws attention to that concern. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd urge you to be careful about what you consider "lab leak territory". The dispute here is about edits to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, including the removal of a webpage that advertised the lab leak idea. It's not up to me to judge these things, but plenty of people probably would call that "lab leak territory", which you shouldn't be involved in. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been given the right to defend myself. Thucydides411 accused me of creating the entry only to espouse my own POV, in an apparent assumption of ill-faith. In truth, I created the entry to cover all aspects of investigations into the origins of Covid-19, based on whatever is considered WP:DUE, with WP:RS. I started off the entry with a basic structure of content, and he deleted some content from the section on US Invesgitatoins, replacing it with content that wasn't even about US investigations (which remains in the lead of that section), which is odd. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have no significant concerns about Thucydides411's recent edits to that page. The article is new, it needs some serious work, and there are discussions on its talk page about what needs to be done, including whether this is meant to be an article about which organizations took which actions, or if it's supposed to be a collection of claims about where the virus came from. I do, however, have some significant concerns about Normchou's contributions. I think that my concerns might be most easily understood in this series of diffs:
  • Normchou adds a claim.
  • Thucydides411 removes it, with the edit summary "Remove false balance between scientific and conspiracy theories"
  • Normchou restores it, with an edit summary of "Unexplained removal of content"
  • Normchou expands the claim to say that (according to CNET, which is a consumer electronics magazine) "The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence"
  • XOR'easter removes the claim, citing WP:MEDRS
  • Normchou restores it (17 minutes later), asking whether MEDRS actually applies to figuring out where a virus came from
  • I tag the claim
  • PaleoNeonate removes it, with (at the time) unanimous agreement in this discussion on the talk page, and currently with unanimous agreement from everyone except Normchou, who complains that "no one is really discussing the actual CNET source: the content, the viewpoints, the links to research papers and other reliable sources". He is correct; we primarily discussed whether it was a good idea to source any scientific claims to an article "from people whose latest story is "HBO subscribers: Watch Wonder Woman 1984 for free with HBO Max before it leaves Jan. 24"." Everyone except Normchou thought the correct answer was "No".
• If I've done the math right, all of these edits happened in the space of about 20 hours. I think that it does not technically qualify as a 3RR violation, but it does IMO constitute garden-variety edit warring against consensus, and we really don't need that on COVID-related articles, and most especially on articles that are dealing with conspiracy-adjacent content. So maybe this is a WP:BOOMERANG situation, and maybe it's not, but if Normchou is going to continue editing, then I think we might need a little extra supervision at the article.
  Also, I request that an admin please drop by Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Scope and subject of this article in a few days, and see if there's a consensus. At the moment, it appears that we are forming a very rough consensus about what the subject of the article is in broad outline. We may need an uninvolved admin to write a summary of that consensus, so that editors can't keep edit-warring back in claims that it's "increasingly difficult to ignore" that the pandemic might have been caused by a hapless lab worker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is serious distortion in User:WhatamIdoing's presentation above, and I wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG is due here. Let me make these clear, and I encourage others to click on the diffs to see where the misrepresentation lies:
  • Normchou adds a claim—Only partial truth. I added a relevant claim, together with RS from which the claim is derived.
  • Thucydides411 removes it, with the edit summary "Remove false balance between scientific and conspiracy theories"—No dispute.Only partial truth. This was part of a series of edits made by Thucydides411 after their first highly obfuscating edit [98], where they removed large chunks of well-sourced paragraphs. Also, between my edit above (01:06, January 20, 2021) and this edit (09:42, January 20, 2021), there were many more edits that WhatamIdoing has seemingly avoided to mention.
  • Normchou restores it, with an edit summary of "Unexplained removal of content"—Incorrect. The edit summary was Reverted to revision 1001544274 by Normchou (talk): Unexplained removal of content. This edit restored the version before Thucydides411's first highly obfuscating edit, where they removed large chunks of well-sourced paragraphs. For more information, see here [99] and here [100]
  • Normchou expands the claim to say that (according to CNET, which is a consumer electronics magazine) "The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence"—Incorrect. The content I added was Many scientists still consider that the most likely starting point is natural origin. The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate, even though the theory has also helped foster baseless conspiracies, which was a direct summary of the RS [101] published by CNET. I encourage editors to click on the link and read the article to evaluate its quality, instead of passively accepting the CNET, which is a consumer electronics magazine cliche. This edit was also intended to address Thucydides411's complaint of false balance between scientific and conspiracy theories
  • XOR'easter removes the claim, citing WP:MEDRS—Incorrect. The edit summary was Undid revision 1001657071 by Normchou (talk): WP:SYNTH not actually supported by RS, in particular WP:MEDRS. The main purported reason for XOR'easter's revert was "original research by synthesis".
  • Normchou restores it (17 minutes later), asking whether MEDRS actually applies to figuring out where a virus came from—Incorrect. The edit summary for my restore was This is direct summarization of the cited source (please read it first), not original research by synthesis. Also, to what extent is WP:MEDRS related to this summary? WP:MEDRS supports the general sourcing policy while giving special attention to medical content. Is source tracing of a virus "medical" in nature? And only after that, I raised the issue about MEDRS on the talk page [102], where I questioned the abusive use of MEDRS. WhatamIdoing objected and taught me their extensive "tenure" and "experience" (and presumably, "authority") on Wikipedia.
  • I tag the claim—No dispute.
  • PaleoNeonate removes it, with (at the time) unanimous agreement in this discussion on the talk page, and currently with unanimous agreement from everyone except Normchou, who complains that "no one is really discussing the actual CNET source: the content, the viewpoints, the links to research papers and other reliable sources". He is correct; we primarily discussed whether it was a good idea to source any scientific claims to an article "from people whose latest story is "HBO subscribers: Watch Wonder Woman 1984 for free with HBO Max before it leaves Jan. 24"." Everyone except Normchou thought the correct answer was "No".—Only partial truth. I also addressed the specific concern regarding the content citing the CNET article in another section [103], where I did elaborate on the content, the viewpoints, and the links to research papers and other reliable sources. No one, except WhatamIdoing, replied to me. Unsurprisingly, WhatamIdoing objected to everything I said: None of this is from "reliable sources on a topic", and none of this represents "significant views" about the science. Normchou ^💬 13:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC); edited 14:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would first suggest an uninvolved admin to look at the gross misrepresentation that User talk:WhatamIdoing made against me above and decide if a WP:BOOMERANG is due. I also encourage others to go to Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and look at all the discussions that have been made there. Normchou ^💬 13:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support a TBAN for Normchou from COVID based on the above. Despite the age of the account, Normchou has been regularly editing for only about two months. They need to learn to edit elsewhere. Not understanding MEDRS and other sourcing nuance, plus kinda pushing the lab origin conspiracy theory, plus starting this ANI thread... it all adds up to too much timesink. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support a TBAN for Normchou from COVID based on the above What evidence (diffs) supports your proposal? Not understanding MEDRS and other sourcing nuance What evidence (diffs) supports your accusation? plus kinda pushing the lab origin conspiracy theory What evidence (diffs) supports the purported POV push? plus starting this ANI thread Why should I get a TBAN for pointing out blatant disruption and defending my own enjoyment of editing in line with community policies and guidelines? It should be pretty evident that the editor above, Levivich, who did not provide any evidence for their reason for a serious sanction against me, is not at all serious about this matter. Normchou ^💬 12:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich, a TBAN from COVID in general might be the simplest and cleanest approach, but I haven't investigated Normchou's edits outside this one article, so I don't know if this is a pattern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the editor has 1,000 edits in two months, it's not worth anyone taking the time to perform such an investigation to determine the exact boundaries of a sanction. I'd feel differently if it was an established editor, but in this case, I'm in favor of the quickest way to end disruption (proving the point of WP:CAPITULATE), whether that's a tban, iban, siteban, block of any duration... doesn't matter to me. What's important is minimizing the amount of time other editors spend "handling" a new editor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Don't see any need for a boomerang here. We should not conflate WP:VANDAL with WP:SNEAKY. Additionally, arguments that User:Normchou does not understand WP:MEDRS are curious in light of the fact that WP:MEDRS says it applies to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and the latter page says that history is not biomedical information. The origin of a virus is obviously history. Furthermore, the purpose of WP:MEDRS is to prevent bad medical advice from appearing on wiki. Hard to see how the origin theory runs afoul of that. So User:Normchou is editing in a way that is consistent with the policy as it is written. If users think that the policy should be written in a broader way, the solution is to try to change the policy, not to go after users who are following what is currently there. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Biomedical information is not policy, or even a guideline, and since WAID wrote most of it their explanation of what it means is informative. The origin of the virus is not "history", but an open question which has relevance today. By this WP:WLish definition of "history" all medical research would be history since it based on experiments that happened in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn, I agree with you: The origin of a virus is not what we mean by "history". The actions that a group of people take (e.g., this government sends those scientists to that country on those dates to do these things) is history. Whether a virus was magicked out of the air by radiation from cell phone towers is never history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We should not conflate WP:VANDAL with WP:SNEAKY: WP:SNEAKY is a subsection of WP:VANDAL, listed under "Types of Vandalism". Accusing another editor of vandalism ("sneaky" or otherwise) over a content disagreement, and then going to ANI to repeat those accusations, is absolutely worthy of a boomerang. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Adoring nanny, for pointing out that there are editors going after me. Actually, I sense there is a "tribe" or "coalition" of editors "going after" me (some explicitly, some in a more covert way) in this report, which in my opinion should really raise the alarm to anyone who would like to see Wikipedia and the community prosper. It would be truly disappointing if an uninvolved admin cannot see the issue after reviewing the diffs of the article, its talk page, as well as this ANI. Normchou ^💬 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that tends to be a pretty strong sign that you are not going to win whatever dispute you are in. Even if it seems clear to you. Sad, as the minority is frequently in the right around here. But it's a fact, and life rewards one for adjusting. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I find WhatamIdoing's analysis suggestive of a topic area which needs better admin shepherding - but Normchou's response, claiming "serious distortion", "gross misrepresentation" and that WAID's diffs are "incorrect", when a simple spot-check and click shows otherwise, suggests such a ferociously distorting WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that I think a boomerang is in order and that a TBAN for Normchou from COVID-19 would be to the benefit of the topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. Pointing out facts supported by evidence—subtle vandalism by Thucydides411 and gross misrepresentation by WhatamIdoing—has nothing to do with WP:BATTLEGROUND, which, by the way, is more relevant to those who "civilly" abuse MEDRS and other policies to push viewpoints they like and censor viewpoints they dislike. Alexbrn, you seem to know a lot about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, yet you seem to have totally forgotten that most editors are here to enjoy the editing experience. There is nothing wrong with defending myself when disruptive and ill-intentioned behavior prevents me from my enjoyment of editing. Normchou ^💬 14:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Re Alexbrn's a simple spot-check and click shows otherwise: Please, any uninvolved admin, I urge you to do this and click on all the diffs as they have suggested. Also, once that is done, please also consider if a WP:BOOMERANG is due for Alexbrn. Normchou ^💬 14:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I also urge everyone to click on the diffs I provided. I think the problem will be clear enough to anyone who knows how to read a wikitext diff, and it should take less than two minutes to see what's going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Click on the diffs that WhatamIdoing provided, but not just their "interpretation" of the diffs. At the same time, refer to my comment above starting with There is serious distortion in User:WhatamIdoing's presentation above. It will be clear enough whether they have grossly misrepresented my edits. Normchou ^💬 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Also, less than two minutes would NOT be enough to fully understand what is going on, so please take your time. Normchou ^💬 19:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the extensive bludgeoning by Normchou is making this discussion very difficult to follow for uninvolved editors. Perhaps this is unintentional, but still. I think the editor should throttle their contributions to this discussion, so other editors can analyse the evidence already presented. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• In this edit of your own [104] you movedadjusted my accidentally misplaced comment to another position, a pretty harmless error, but gave a very long edit summary criticizing my mistake: moving comment. one should not start a reply in the middle of another editor's comment. totally confusing to follow. I really hope I can just shut up if there are truly as many "uninvolved editors" commenting and analyzing the issue here as you have suggested. Normchou ^💬 19:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC); edited 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  What does this have to do with anything? Yes, I moved a comment of yours in violation of TPO and gave the reason for doing so in the edit summary...? Your response is another example of a comment of yours which unnecessarily adds words and makes the dispute harder to follow or join for uninvolved editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh nothing, it just happened to be the longest edit summary you've ever made on this page [105]. Normchou ^💬 20:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm still very confused. Is something being implied here, or is this just a fun fact? Most of my edits on this page are comments for which "reply" suffices as an edit summary, but for the modification of another editor's comment (which stands by itself) it would typically be good practice to provide an explanation, rather than simply "modify another editor's comment". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Friendly advice to Normchou...seriously, stop digging. You're a new editor in an argument with seasoned editors. Granted, that isn't supposed to make a difference, but consider this, you stated your case, now let it go. I was hoping things were going to settle down after the close of the SPI so I don't quite understand why things are ramping up instead - but please don't explain it to me - for me, ignorance is bliss...I don't want to know. One new editor is already serving time with a t-ban, and I'd rather not see another newbie fall into that same quicksand. I tend to agree with SPECIFICO, Granger and WhatamIdoing. Please - take a break, enjoy the weekend, and come back refreshed on Monday with a new outlook. You will gain far more in the longterm. There are no deadlines on WP. Take your time, and when you find yourself in a personality clash, be the better editor and walk away. There are alot of good editors who are willing to help new editors, and get them through the first year or so relatively unscathed, but you have to be a team player. It's not about who is right or wrong - it's about how you behave. I didn't make the rules, but I do enjoy helping new editors. Atsme 💬 📧 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify, Normchou is not a new editor and has been with Wiki for over 10 years per his profile and clearly knows the rules and various templates/procedures. I have no views on the actual dispute. Albertaont (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Albertaont, almost all of Normchou's ~1,000 edits have been made in the last 60 days. Until very recently, he made about 10 edits a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• There has been no vandalism, subtle or otherwise, by Thucydides411. This is a content dispute. The bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith by Normchou are not acceptable. Atsme gave some friendly advice to Normchou which I endorse. I also support a 90 day topic ban for Normchou on coronavirus and COVID-19, broadly construed, based on this thread and reading all the diffs provided by WhatamIdoing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Disagreeing on the underlying facts (ie. on what the sources say or how best to cover them) makes for a content dispute, not vandalism. You are an experienced enough editor to know this. If editors could accuse each other of vandalism every time they thought someone else's summary of the sources was absurd, controversial topic areas would be impossible to participate in. Subtle vandalism requires not just that you think an editor is wrong, but that they are intentionally, maliciously wrong. Nothing in your diffs remotely comes close to showing that. Just going each of these:

• For the first edit, WP:PRESERVE is an encouragement, not a requirement; and you are the one required to find sources for the things you add. Someone removing your edits for sourcing concerns, even if sources that you feel are usable can easily be found, is not vandalism.
• For their next edit, even if reverting something did introduce errors (as you claim it did in this case), you are required to WP:AGF; note that for it to be subtle vandalism, they must believe that what they're introducing is incorrect, ie. as long as they coherently argue their position and that position is not transparently absurd, you have a content dispute, not vandalism. Most editors are going to assume that existing text is acceptable unless something directly indicates otherwise, so it would require more than this to argue that reverting to it is intentionally introducing an error. Additionally, disagreements over whether, when, and how to attribute a statement are common focuses in disputes and don't rise to the level of being vandalism; at a glance, [106] seems to still contain attribution for every aspect stated there - that edit seems to me to be a reasonable content dispute over how to phrase something, and not a situation where one side of the dispute is so obviously wrong that Thucydides411's disagreement with you over how to word the attribution constitutes vandalism.
• The next two edits are a flat content dispute; just because something can be in the article doesn't mean that it must; and just because you feel their concerns could be addressed with a smaller change rather than removal doesn't mean reverting your edit wholesale was vandalism. (Again, WP:PRESERVE merely says to consider what it suggests.) Whether it is important information, as you say, is something that needs to be hashed out on talk.

I can understand how frustrating it is to see your edits reverted with edit summaries that you don't feel are satisfying, or to see something removed as poorly-sourced when you feel proper sources for it can easily be found. But it's not vandalism, subtle or otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to expand on Atsme's advice and say: Everyone, stop digging. Newcomers may not know the conventions of civil discussion here, but equally ,well-established editors can sometimes forget them. It's even possible for well-established editors to deliberately ignore, because they rely on knowing just how close to the limits they can safely go. I think trying unusual sanctions is a dangerous precedent, so I will just very strongly advise everyone here to limit their edits to any one article or discussion to 2 or 3 a day--even if it means the article may for a while become what they think inaccurate. The genius of WP is in collective editing--this does not involve disputes back and forth over specific points between individuals. If something in a article that is getting a lot of editorial attention from multiple people is not expressed right, or a source is used (or rejected) when it should not be, someone else will fix it. There are probably a few people here who might be capable on their own of writing an adequate balanced article on a topic like this, and they in particular are likely to feel extremely frustrated by the way the discussion and editing develops. They have a choice: write the article elsewhere, or limit their participation here a little and not try too hard to get it the way they would like it. In this connection, see Cromwell's rule. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• User:Normchou is continuing his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at a related article[107]. I think the 90-day topic ban suggested above may be appropriate, to reduce disruption and encourage Normchou to gain some experience on Wikipedia before returning to this relatively challenging topic area. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean, look at this nonsense [108]. -Darouet (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIR, opening erroneous SPIs and persistent restoration of unsourced content

• DarkMatterMan4500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Zangoose&SeviperMan4055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DarkMatterMan4500 (talk · contribs) opened an inappropriate SPI on me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoshifanboy90, and had second thoughts only after Ohnoitsjamie confirmed that they were mistaken. In the meantime, they were so convinced that I was Yoshifanboy90 (talk · contribs), whose vandalism I reverted, that they undid my reversions of another vandal, 173.23.11.193 (talk · contribs). Ergo, [109]; [110]; [111]; [112]; [113]; [114]; [115]. In so doing, they not only continued to restore unsourced content from a blocked account, but did so at WP:BLPs; this edit summary suggests a lack of familiarity with those guidelines [116]. Also this apology, with the gender assumption [117]. They previously opened a mistaken SPI several days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VVAV Kitchen/Archive. A little research reveals the same problems months ago at their previous account [118].

This was a twenty minute (now half hour) waste of my time while I was attempting to clean up after vandals, and they've still left behind several misbegotten reversions. So, yeah, WP:CIR. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was mistaken, so all I can say is that I might've misread what you wrote, so I thought you were vandalizing, explaining my constant reverts. Now I understand what you were trying to do. You were only trying to stop those vandals, I have made the mistake of getting myself involved in something that was already cleared up. Thank you for clarifying what you did there. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I abandoned that other account so I'm not going to use it anymore. In other words, what I did was kind of hasty and I didn't really look at it close enough except for when you just explained your story right here. Hopefully, this will not occur again, as I have business elsewhere: DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, DarkMatterMan4500 seems to be thoroughly abashed right now, so my recommendation is to write this off as "inexperienced editor jumping in too quickly into the deep end" and let them off with a warning. My recommendation with most cases like this is to focus on article space (content creation, gnoming) for a while and leave the anti-vandalism and the "behind the scenes" areas of Wikipedia alone until they have more experience. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, if this was a one-off, sure. This has been recurring for months, and they don't seem to understand that there are multiple events. Maybe not actionable, but they've been wading into water that's a bit too deep since at least last October (I didn't plumb further back on either of their accounts). I suggest a more thorough look into both accounts' edit history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

....Speaking to competence, I don't know how a user who knows their way around here well enough to start an SPI could infer that Yoshifanboy90 (talk · contribs) and 2601:188:180:B8E0:A138:DD39:2B64:7F79 (talk · contribs) were the same editor. My contention is that DarkMatterMan has a penchant for seeing socks where they don't exist. Hijinks ensue. I'm all for abashed. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. Like I stated previously, I've switched to this account so it makes life easier for me. This report seems to be a bit too too BITE-y towards a user (such as me), as I have a habit of making mistakes like this. My edit history goes down the road back to October, and like that, I was MORE MISTAKEN than I was yesterday, which was ironically back on October 16th, 2020. I think we should drop the stick before it gets out of hand. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, penchant seems to be the correct definition for what I did here during an SPI. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not a newbie. Between your two accounts you've been here for 3 years with 702 edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to sound rude or anything, but I never said anything about me being a newbie anyway. I've been on here for nearly 3 years from my old account, and nearly 2 years on this account. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Right--you do "have a habit of making mistakes like this." The errors are not confined to inappropriate SPIs. Recent edits include this deletion without explanation, for which you warned the user for vandalism [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]; [123]; [124]; [125]; [126]; [127]; [128]; [129]. Some of these are simply errors of reacting too quickly, others are unexplained reversals of sourced content. You make a lot of constructive edits, but there appears to be a history of carelessness that is not confined to a couple of ill-considered SPIs. These are from your current account. I haven't looked yet at your recent alternate. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The same thing happened on my previous account when I last used it, as most of them are constructive edits, while some are just floating mistakes in which I bit multiple users without explanation. I was already previously warned not to do so. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

So, am I in any type of trouble here? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Ryancoke2020

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

---

• Ryancoke2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The above user is not compatible with Wikipedia. Outside of placing three or four retaliatory tags on articles I had started, they appear to be only interested in the subject of Tomos Roberts. They have contributed 2300 or so edits on the subject of Tomos Roberts over the past six months, mostly while it was in draft.

I came into contact with them when I decided to rescue the draft of Tomos Roberts, who I thought was notable. Here is one version, where Ryancoke202's edits brought the draft to 97kb. After some wrangling, I managed to get it through AFC. The editor started building it back up to its previous promotional size. I looked at the article again and decided that I had been taken in by the exaggeration of the sources, and that the subject was not notable. Sent to AfD, where five or six editors have agreed about the borderline notability and not-voted delete. Ryancoke2020 has also disrupted the AfD.

There is also the issue of multiple accounts. There are two SPIs open on this: 1 and 2.

Rather than provide diffs for each and every violation of a behavioural guideline or policy, Here is a collapsed smattering of talk page posts by the user starting in July 2020:

Other users who have come into contact with Ruyancoke2020 include @Netherzone, Blablubbs, Theroadislong, and Berchanhimez:. I would ask that Ryancoke2020 be indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE, making personal attacks, disruption, and being overall not compatible to our processes. Possibly (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ryancoke2020 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Netherzone here - I first became aware of Ryancoke2020 after noticing interactions regarding a promotional new article for Tomos Roberts. Possibly and Theroadislong patiently offered advice and mentorship to Ryancoke2020, and assisted in developing the article draft so that it could pass AfC. Later, User:Possibly left me a message on my talk page about a completely unrelated matter, and I (perhaps foolishly?) mentioned to Possibly that I admired their patience with the Tomas Roberts draft. Out of the blue, Ryancoke2020 appeared on my talk; I have no idea why my talk was on their watchlist, but now wonder if they were tracking Possibly's interactions. It seemed a little strange but I gave Ryancoke2020 the benefit of the doubt, and tried to offer helpful information.

Later, I saw a perplexing series of interactions on the AfD for the Tomas Roberts article. Ryancoke2020's inappropriate comments towards Possibly, and later Thisroadislong include these personal attacks: they accused Possibly, a long-time good faith editor of: contempt, malfeasance, bias, pettiness, animus, harassment, bullying, gaslighting, vandalism, vindictiveness, cruelty, “pulling rank”, “offering up a death penalty”, injustice, and unfairness; and accused Theroadislong, another long-time good faith editor with muzzling, censorship and threatening behavior.

In fact the opposite was occurring. Possibly, Thisroadislong, other editors and myself have been trying to direct Ryancoke2020 toward WP policies, guidelines and standards for behavior. Ryancoke2020 then went after some of Possibly's stub articles on notable women and indigenous artists.

After giving it a lot of thought, I believe that Ryancoke2020 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It seems that not only do they refuse to engage civilly with good faith editors; and with the process of consensus, they are solely here to promote the career Tomos Roberts. Equally problematic are the use of multiple accounts. Because of their disturbingly disruptive behavior since they began editing, I feel that a ban or indef block is appropriate. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted the above before seeing that they were blocked for sockpuppetry. Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Nicole738

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

---

• Nicole738 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nicole738 has, subsequent to a dispute at the article Maddie Ziegler, copied my entire user page onto their user page (this was deleted by an admin). They also seem to have created a number of sockpuppets to aid in their dispute and edit warring on the Maddie Ziegler page especially in the section headed "LSD", which has been collapsed by an admin. Nicole738 has been edit warring over various issues at the Maddie Ziegler article since December, but especially during the past two days. I have tried to discuss this with them, but they deleted the discussion from their Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's ridiculous. Partial blocked from the Ziegler article for 6 months, all sockpuppets blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course you would say that you are all old people who are losers and this is your only form of life. I was right about the article and I was right here. The edits will continue from people who agree with me. I hope you all get lives so this isnt the closest you will ever get to authority. Nicole738 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are bullies who make this your whole life so when you are wrong you have a meltdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole738 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nicole738 has now vandalized my user page and the user page of User:Tim riley (the vandalism has been reverted). -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have extended the block to the whole project due to personal attacks and vandalism. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good grief! Thank you, Black Kite, 331dot and Ssilvers. The things conscientious Wikipedia editors and admins have to deal with! Tim riley talk 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Since The edits will continue from people who agree with me. I have semi-protected the article for three months. It had only just come off a previous protection. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Does this mean that Dance Moms now enters the rarified world of wrestling, MMA, UFC and beauty queens that people are willing to lay down their lives for? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Dabaqabad

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

---

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

Hi,

The page in question is Somalia

User in question is : User:Dabaqabad

Reason : I have been trying to put in references and sources for Somalia's border and surrounding countries but Dabaqabad seems to be removing my source(Britannica) and I have tried raising the issue in the talk page but they have not responded. I have also noticed that they have been previously reported for being a sockpuppet. I have tried engaging and will leave open a discussion on their talk page after this but I would like an admin to kindly review this issue. They keep removing the source and adding a note with no backing.

After further inspection of their talk page, it seems they have been previously warned for deleting sources and was given multiple warnings

Hurbad (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hurbad, per policy written at the top of this page and when you created this report, you must inform them of this report on their talk page; a ping is insufficient. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Tenryuu I have done the notice and added extra clarification. Hopefully they try to engage.

I have also had the same issue with these users and i suspect that they're the same person :

Jacob300 Lakmi00 Kangdomkome

But I am not here to report them now as i do not have enough evidence. but I would like User:Dabaqabad to be reviewed as she/he constantly removes references and reverts location maps without leaving any information as to why she/he keeps deleting reliable sources i.e. Britannica Hurbad (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See to be quite a few problems associated with Dabaqabad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Needs further investigation as to whether its CIR, RGW, POV or whatever, but definitely an issue to look into. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing a strong anti-Somaliland agenda, heading towards not here territory.Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hurbad You seem to have a problem with mentions of Somaliland. This is shown by the fact that you have accused several good editors of being sockpuppets, which [130] Checkuser confirmed they were not.

You have also been editing several pages to advance your political view as showed here:

[131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]

Judging by wording used like "violating sovereignty", your extensive history of editing Somaliland-related articles (ongoing since 2015), your lack of constructive contributions, your wording and dedication to pushing your agenda, it is clear that you have an editorial bias and therefore breaking NPOV as per [139]. It is also clear that you're [140] not here to build an encyclopedia as you have rarely added encyclopedic content.

Then is the fact that you left a message on my talk page minutes before you filed this report, not even giving me a chance to try to solve this issue with you. This just proves that you, along with SultanSanaag ([141] who has refered to Somaliland as a 'radical de-facto state') are waging a witch hunt in order to suppress opposing views rather than come to the table to form a consensus.

Dabaqabad (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is with you removing my Britannica source about Somalia border. You reverted my changes without consulting and I have made a discussion on the Somalia talk page weeks ago discussing this same issue with another user and asked for consensus. But nobody has looked you, Siirski and Jacob300 have all reverted without consulting the other editors and discussing why you removed the source. I have also asked Deepfriedokra to inspect this and even asked him on his talk page weeks ago but nothing was done. He asked to be pinged about anything that to do with source/referencing.

You can have your view and i am fully supportive of that but deleting a source and replacing it with a note is what we're discussing. I haven't accused anybody as I do not have enough evidence. Just suspecting. All that I am asking is to stop removing sources and replacing them with notes without discussing.

You are bringing in unnecessary things which do not relate to the discussion here. Please explain why you deleted the source in the border reference without using the talk page discussion previously made.

I made the note on your talk page as that was a formal requirement, I made a discussion on the Somalia talk page weeks ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somalia

I have also seen that you've been changing the official map location without any consensus which effects every single page relating to Somalia. Kindly build consensus as this effects thousands of page. That is all I ask and require an explanation. I am not responsible for what other users say, I am responsible for myself. Please stick to the reason we are here and explain.

Why you deleted the source Why you've changed the map location file without consulting the editors of the thousands of pages relating to Somalia. You've reverted the page just now without discussion

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Somalia_location_map_(2).svg

^

This doesn't not show Somalia's territorial landmass as you've Grey'd out areas which are partially controlled but internationally part of Somalia. I agree that Somalia does not control certain regions but this doesn't equate to Somalia being two countries as per UN sources, CIA fact book and many more. As the Somaliland page describes it "Internationally recognised as a Federal State".

My issue is the map being changed and sources being removed without consultation. You have previously been accused of the same thing.

00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurbad (talk • contribs)

I would also like to further elaborate that the changes made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Location_map/data/Somalia

Have effected every single page related to Somalia/Somaliland and this has not been consulted but rather Dabaqabad and the others users I've mentioned have been changing and reverting without any consensus and discussion. Could you kindly have a look and see, you will see the same group reverting and changing without any formal discussion to decisions that effect hundreds of editors Mjroots . This is not bias but unfair that these users have made decisions that effects hundreds of users without consulting anyone. Could you please look into this. Thank you

00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You made changes to several pages without building consensus, bearing in mind that many editors have reverted vandalism edits from users with similar content to yours. I have proven already that you have editorial bias and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but rather turn this encyclopedia into a mouthpiece of your opinions.

As for the map: a long-standing concensus (which Jacob300 can confirm) was reached earlier where the territory under the control of Somaliland is greyed out due to it being disputed in line with areas in similar situations like Taiwan. You have, however, and without any sort of discussion, decided to tamper with it, along with the pushpin map of Somaliland. Also, you telling me to consult editors of thousands of pages just because that map is present in them is just ridiculous and is the same questions I can ask you since you started vandalizing it first.

As for your claim that Somaliland is supposedly recognized as a "federal member state" of Somalia, as shown by the fact that:

• [142] The recently held Somalian Inter-State Tournament didn't include Somaliland
• Somalia already has autonomous regions within the framework of its federal system (e.g. Galmudug, Puntland, Jubaland, etc.) of which Somaliland is not part of
• Heads of Somalia and Somaliland have met multiple times, [143] once in 2012 and [144] recently in 2020, and what is worth noting that both were accorded presidential welcomes.
• Somalia has no jurisdiction, control or so much as influence on Somaliland soil, as shown by the fact that [145] Somaliland rejected a proposed visit by Ethiopia's Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed accompanied by Somalia's President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo to Somaliland.

No one is denying that Somaliland is an unrecognized state, however you are denying that it even exists, which again confirms that you have an editorial bias and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

I'd also like that Hurbad recently broke the 3RR rule as shown here.

Dabaqabad (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are covering yourself in smoke.

Why did you remove my source regarding the border

Why did you change a page which effects thousands of pages and editors.

Somaliland is not in question here.

Hurbad (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - the accusation that Hurbad broke 3RR refers to events at Commons, which is outside en-Wiki's jurisdiction. If a Commons admin chooses to look into what both editors have been doing at Commons, then that is their choice. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood Mjroots, I was not aware of that.

As for Hurbad, it is quite ironic that you accuse me of removing sourced material, when you yourself have been removing sourced material with no good reason as shown here: [146].

I have reverted the map as it was against the long-standing consensus that several editors had reached earlier. Somaliland is a claimed territory that is not controlled nor is it under Somalia's jurisdiction, your edits are therefore misleading. The burden is on you to form a new consensus as you were the one that initiated these changes however you haven't even so much as tried.

Dabaqabad (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mjroots my current issue here was the Somalia borders being changed without reference. All that User:dabaqabad and others have done is remove sources and replace them with a note. I have checked the talk page and there was no discussion, I then subsequently made a discussion and mentioned all the users and asked for consensus. Nobody has replied and reverting continued. Could you kindly explain why you removed the source.

Also you are entitled to your opinion of course but lets stick to the facts and things that are being discussed. I have not initiated any changes but added source to an already known fact. This was subsequently removed and a note was added with no explanation.

I hope the admins can see this and draw their own conclusions. This is not about politics or opinions but basic geography. Hurbad (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

With regards to the meterial i removed on the Tigray war. We built consensus later and it was agreed to use only certain sources as others were deemed unreliable. Please check the talkpage and notes left inside the page which indicate a void. You are bringing up things that are not in question in and again covering yourself with smoke.

You have still not answered my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurbad (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If this isn't about politics or opinions as you said, how come you're so hell-bent on editing maps and articles to fit your narrative?

You weren't even part of the consensus as you weren't even on the talk page to begin with, as shown [147] here. You removed the referenced part mentioning Somalia as a belligerent in the main text, only for it to be reverted by another editor.

Define 'an already known fact'. Somalia having no jurisdiction, influence or control over Somaliland, a disputed territory, is also an already known fact that you don't seem to grasp. It is very clear that you have an anti-Somaliland agenda and therefore don't belong on here.

Dabaqabad (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Again I repeat the question, why did you remove the source and continued to do so even after I opened a talk page.

Regarding your comment about changing maps or being hell-bent on something

I have reverted your changes made in - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Location_map/data/Somalia

This map was originally made and posted in 2009. Since then there has been no change in the status of the country and this correlates with the UN, CIA fact book and Britannica sources. Yet you have gone and edited the map and effected hundreds of pages.

You are covering yourself in smoke. Could you kindly answer the questions.

Thank you Hurbad (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User Durdyfiv1 talk page behavior

• Durdyfiv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion at The Holocaust talk page about rewording the opening sentence; some (including me) find it a little clunky and awkward. Unfortunately, Durdyfiv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bludgeoning the process and launching cruel personal attacks. They have accused me of trivializing the genocide and being too incompetent to understand basic grammar, calling Watchlonly a "Jew-hating troll or incredibly ignorant" and accusing them of believing that "those who perished in the Holocaust shouldn't be considered united in their collective suffering". I told them to behave more civilly and stop using personal attacks, to which they then again insulted my competence, and justified their attacking me by saying "Don't worry, I attacked him too". I responded that their behavior is unacceptable, noted that attacks aren't justified by even more attacks, and tried to redirect the conversation to rewording the opening sentence. They again accused me of POV pushing, which I had earlier called them out for.

I understand that major historical events, especially ones as horrific as The Holocaust, are very personal and important for a lot of people (including me), but that is still no excuse for this user's behavior. Through their multiple responses they've demonstrated they're not interested in having a productive conversation. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only concern with the current version of the Holocaust article is that it makes an unnecessary WP:SEAOFBLUE between links in the lede, which is what I intended to change. Of course I didn't want to minimize this genocide, in which two of my grandmother's sisters perished when the Nazis invaded Rovno. I honestly don't understand where that ridiculous accusation came from.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Watchlonly: thank you for responding! I did not mean to misrepresent your argument for rewording the sentence, my apologies if it seemed that way. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Is there an admin available to look into this? Thanks. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotional and otherwise questionable material and problem editor

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

---

I've just done a bit of a radical change to Skyline High School (Michigan) and I'm also having to deal with a new (?) user who seems unaware of WP content policies. A second set of eyes (to judge if I've been too rash, though I hope I wasn't) would be appreciated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Two quick things. The first graduating class line is factual in that if they started in '08, it would be 2011. Now whether that's relevant is a different question or if No OR says we can't do basic math. And in the highlights section, you removed reliably sourced material while leaving material that's sourced to a google site. With that out of the way, everything else is promotional and does not belong IMHO. Though I do wonder If this question should be on VP as doesn't appear to be a behavioral issue with other editor Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If the class started as freshmen in 08, they would have graduated in 2012 unless I'm missing something. 08-09 freshmen, 09-10 sophomores, 10-11 juniors and 11-12 seniors. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

OR is fine with simple aritmethics, see WP:CALC. The issue is more whether that's a relevant detail. Some high school FAs seem to include it, ex. Amador Valley High School, but I am obviously not convinced (anyway, anybody who is interested in that detail can probably do basic math such as adding four to the opening year...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

BulgeUwU and mass POV changes

• BulgeUwU (talk · contribs)

I don't think BulgeUwU is an unpleasant editor at all, nor do I object to covering interesting Cold War era topics like the Information Research Department. However, when one editor is revamping Wikipedia's coverage of British Cold War topics POV-wise on a mass scale, extra eyes would be good.

I noticed BulgeUwU on my watchlist last year after he described Stanford historian Robert Conquest as an "IRD propagandist"[148] and English geographer Halford Mackinder as a "serial killer"[149]. In April 2020, I dropped some constructive criticism on his talkpage and he reacted quite positively in my opinion: User talk:BulgeUwU#Neutral point of view.

A while ago he again edited Robert Conquest to say that his work is controversial in the historiography of the USSR due to the discovery that he had worked as an agent for the secret British Cold War propaganda agency, the Information Research Department (IRD), and that he had committed plagiarism by publishing unattributed IRD material as though it were his own independent research[150]. I contested the material on the talkpage and reverted. He also modified The Great Terror to say that much of the material used to create The Great Terror had been plagiarised from documents belonging to the IRD, a secret British Cold War propaganda department of which Conquest had been an agent[151]. Conquest's book was published by the Oxford University Press so these are quite heavy claims. I downloaded the book used as a source for this claim, and the only part about Conquest reads: "More IRD books followed in the 1950s and 1960s, including Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, which drew heavily from IRD files." Nothing about plagiarism, controversy or agents. It seems like distortion to me.

Now, the reason I'm posting this to AN/I is because BulgeUwU has posted these IRD "health warnings" to dozens of articles, which seems like tendentious POV-pushing to me. He only has edited the lead sections to say, almost verbatim, that the people or works have been sponsored by the IRD which published disinformation, pro colonial, and anti-communist propaganda. Examples: Darkness at Noon[152], Orwell's list[153], Richard Crossman[154], Denis Healey[155], Victor Kravchenko [156], Douglas Hyde[157], I Chose Freedom[158], Vic Feather[159], Carlton House Terrace[160], Fredric Warburg[161], Guy Burgess[162], Sonia Orwell[163],Will Lawther[164], Brian Crozier[165].

I don't know what "pro colonial propaganda" and "misinformation" has to do with an Ukrainian defector writing about the Holodomor, other than that the edit is supposed to discredit to author for whatever reason. I don't like that this is done semi-automatic style and mass-scale in lead sections. I'm not going to revert something like this in 25 articles, so I would appreciate if someone could review this and tell me if I'm only seeing ghosts. --Pudeo (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is not what I expected to see from a user called BulgeUwU.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pudeo - you're right, this is ridiculously blatant POV-pushing. I don't think you're seeing ghosts here at all. MJL - seems like there really is a place for everyone on the internet, including the weird, weird intersection between furries and Cold War history POV-pushers...--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to me Pudeo (talk · contribs). You aren't seeing ghosts and I have been making large edits to British Cold War wiki pages, but I can very easily explain your questions.

The Wiki page for the Information Research Department(IRD)was in a very sorry state when I found it, so I spent the last month building it up. For one of the most culturally influential propaganda departments in British history, it was very bizarre that it received such little attention from any other editors. I can confidently say that 80% of the IRD page's content was created by me, I beefed up the summary and all the headings, tripled the citations and used only the highest quality academic works I could find, notably from the works of Rana Mitter, John Jenks, Andrew Defty, Paul Lashmar, and other specialists. I have never made this big a change to any wiki before, but I'm very proud of what it has become. Once I had finished the bulk of the work, I then spread out into the wiki pages of people, places, and events related to the IRD and started adding information about the department into these pages, using my knowledge and the sources I had already accumulated to benefit similar pages. The wiki pages featuring topics heavily featured in the historiography of the IRD such as Brian Crozier, Darkness at Noon, Robert Conquest, and Sonia Orwell, despite being heavily represented in the literature surrounding the IRD, had little to zero mention of the department's involvement. Sonia Orwell, for example, collaborated very closely with the IRD, and it was her involvement and sale of the foreign distribution and translation rights to Orwell's works which allowed the creation of books, distribution, cartoons, the animated film Animal Farm (1954 film), and the translation of Orwell's works into at least 16 languages by the IRD. She is a very important figure in the study of culture during the Cold War, yet before I edited her page there was only a single sentence mentioning her involvement in these important events. It was the same for many other people, some of which owe their careers to the IRD and worked within the department for many years, even publishing their works through IRD fronts (Ampersand, Background Books, etc), yet their wiki pages contained almost zero mention of their involvement with the department. I then went through many of these pages and made edits mentioning their importance to the historiography of the IRD and Cold War propaganda.

The edits are very similar because on most of these pages I am using the same sources and citing historians whose works I am already familiar with. I rarely stray from topics I'm not already strongly familiar with, which is why most of my activity on Wikipedia is centred around the British Empire, the Cold War, and colonialism.

You also said in reference to my edits in I Chose Freedom that I don't know what "pro colonial propaganda" and "misinformation" has to do with an Ukrainian defector writing about the Holodomor, other than that the edit is supposed to discredit to author for whatever reason, so let me explain my reasoning. Thalidomide was developed as an HIV treatment, yet much of its wiki is dedicated to the birth defects it caused and the following political fallout. Similarly, Zyklon B was developed as a pesticide, yet the wiki page is entirely dedicated to its use by the Nazis in concentration camps. The use and history of any specific subject is relevant and it belongs on Wikipedia. Similarly, I Chose Freedom by Viktor Kravchenko, was originally intended solely as an exposure of Soviet crimes, yet it was taken and used by the IRD which specialises in using propaganda to counter pro-colonial uprisings in countries such as Kenya, Cyprus, Malaya, and others. The main targets of IRD propaganda/material were the middle-classes of third world countries which the British Empire had an interest in, and the books they distributed were intended to act as propaganda weapons to achieve whichever geopolitical goal the IRD wished. For example, works critical of the communism were distributed by the IRD in India to intensify the fight against China during the Sino-Indian War, and works by Soviet defectors were republished throughout Asia and Africa for a number of geopolitical goals including defeating communists during the Malayan Emergency, dissuading nationalists from seeking Soviet support during the Mau Mau Uprising, and in the case of the Cyprus Emergency and many other conflicts to garner American support for Britain's counterinsurgencies. Maybe I should have emphasised that my edits weren't intended to rubbish the author, but rather to highlight the IRD's role in its distribution, republication, translation, and promotion, because the IRD played an important and central role in all of these factors. Some of the books whose pages I have edited have been translated by the IRD into over a dozen languages, and their distribution can be tracked through British embassies, all of which are facts I believe are strongly relevant for an encyclopedia.

As for Halford Mackinder and Robert Conquest. I named Mackinder as a serial killer because of his direct involvement in the murder of several African porters. I didn't think this was controversial, but some people disagreed with this because even though historians agree that he was party to the killings, there is no 100% definitive proof he pulled the triggers of the guns which shot the porters, and he may have instead ordered somebody else to do so. I would still describe him as a serial killer, but I haven't touched that page in over 10 months and I left the decision to more experienced editors. It's the same issue on the Robert Conquest wiki, he took IRD material which somebody else created and included them within his own published works without acknowledging the source. He falsely presented somebody else's work as though it was his own independent research. Even though the word plagiarism is not used, I don't know how else to accurately describe his actions. There are many more researchers who have also said this of Conquest, including History Professor Ronald Grigor Suny, an authority on Soviet history who said of Conquest:"Conquest edited seven volumes of material from IRD on Soviet politics, without acknowledgement that the books' source was a secret government agency" Next time I will do a better job of including better sources and also linking to google books so that you don't have to go hunting for the source material. Robert Conquest was a highly influential figure within the inner-circle of a secret government propaganda department which practised weaponised disinformation against pro-independence movements in the British Empire (Malaya, Cyprus, Ireland, Kenya and others), a job he held for nearly a decade. With this in mind, I do not think it is an overstatement to call him a propagandist, and I find it extremely bizarre that such a long and influential career in propaganda only warranted two sentences on his wiki page, so I made multiple edits to further highlight his IRD career. The fact that Conquest's work was published by Oxford University Press isn't much of a defence to his works, because the same propaganda department he worked for also infiltrated that particular publisher and used their influence to make Oxford University Press publish works friendly to the department's goals. As great as Oxford University Press is in terms of quality and reputation, a man with a long career in a secret government propaganda department choosing to publish his work within an organisation the IRD was known to use for publishing propaganda, is not a defence of Conquest.

Because these topics are so niche I rarely get any feedback, so it's a relief to see somebody paying my edits attention and giving constructive criticism. I only recently passed my 500th edit, so I'm still not as experienced as many of the regular editors and I need the occasional help. What I will try to do to remedy this is I will become more active in the talk pages of larger pages such as Robert Conquest, and do more to invite fellow editors to review my work. Also for -MJL-, my name "BulgeUwU" was a reference to the Battle of the Bulge. BulgeUwU (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

BulgeUwU's statement indicates that he believes it is appropriate to label individuals as "propagandists," "serial killers," and "plagiarists" based on his own original research, even if there are no sources to support such labels (although he is willing to deceptively cite sources that fail verification in order to push his edits through). Furthermore, his style of almost exclusively making mass edits to the ledes of various articles that he has not otherwise contributed to in order to "tar" the individuals in question by way of an "association" with British intelligence is symptomatic of POV editing. Like many single-purpose accounts, BulgeUwU sees everything through a distorted prism (in this case, of the IRD) and that causes him to lose all sense of encyclopedic perspective. Given that the lede of any article is merely supposed to summarize the body, it's doubtful that such mass lede edits have merit, although I would hope that the dedicated watchers of each page would be vigilant enough to resist blatant POV-pushing. Certainly, every accusation of "plagiarism" that is unsourced or fails verification needs to be removed as soon as possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I labelled an agent of a secret government propaganda department a "propagandist", a man who murdered 8 people as a "serial killer", and an academic who committed plagiarism as a "plagiarist". These facts aren't contested by any of the historians I cited, it's simply just an issue of semantics. I did not think this would be so controversial when I made my edits but I have always responded to any criticism people have made and been happy to change my behaviour accordingly, just see for proof. If you don't think I do enough to communicate to my fellow editors before I make major changes then take a look here. I do however object to you calling my style "exclusively making mass edits to the ledes of various articles". Not only am I active in creating new pages such as Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial and I Did a Thing, but I'm also the primary editor of the Information Research Department and the Malayan Emergency, and a contributor to wikimedia, whose edits includes subjects as varied from landmarks to youtubers. If you still think my edits are original research then I don't believe you have seen the edits that Pudeo refers to, nor have you properly read the above paragraphs. I also don't think it's fair of you to judge me as a single-purpose account based solely on my edits in the past week, and not on my contributions as a whole.

Finally I'd like to point out that no fellow editors of any of the pages I made changes to in the past week have expressed any concerns about my inclusion of IRD activity summaries, with one exception which was removed without explanation.

BulgeUwU (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I should also point out that labelling IRD agents such Robert Conquest and the people they worked with as "propagandists", is not only an acceptable term used in the historiography of the department, but even members of other branches of the Foreign Office referred to the IRD as "propagandists". In this instance, I have not used any language that wasn't already accepted by professional historians, and it's certainly not original research. BulgeUwU (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: I liked your reply, but don't you see that it is inappropriate to use the word "plagiarism" if it's not mentioned by the source? You are doing WP:SYNTHESIS by reading something and then saying it is plagiarism because you think it fits the definition. Plagiarism is serious academic misconduct and it would require action from the publisher too. Simply using Foreign Office material is not necessarily plagiarism. We have to stick to what the sources directly say, of course without close-paraphrasing. Conquest + plagiarism yields zero results elsewhere, but you would plant that in the article's lede here -- is that due weight? The other fact is that Conquest worked for the IRD in the late 1940s, but he was primarily an academic historian. Calling him a "propagandist" because some IRD personnel were called propagandists, is inappropriate, again unless reliable sources actually call him a propagandist. You are making small but harmful misinterpretations that are extremely negative to the subjects, then amplify it by inserting them drive-by style in the lede sections of a lot of articles where they don't improve the article in any way other than to supposedly discredit the subject. --Pudeo (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• ”Not explicitly contradicted by historians” and “supported by historians” are two very different things. Serial killing is a technical term which should only be applied to a biography with the support of a reliable source. Being responsible for the deaths of eight people might make you a jerk, a regular criminal, a war criminal, or any other set of things, but this is not always the case, and so it does not automatically make you a serial killer either. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• In BulgeUwU's defence, whenever they've popped up on my watchlist so far it has always been for informative and well-cited contributions. Similarly, if someone like Robert Conquest worked for the IRD, that's relevant biographical information! Extua (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• If this editor took a line in a book reading More IRD books followed in the 1950s and 1960s, including Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, which drew heavily from IRD files and used that as a source to add a sentence saying His work is controversial in the historiography of the USSR due to the discovery that he had worked as an agent for the secret British Cold War propaganda agency, the Information Research Department (IRD), and that he had committed plagiarism by publishing unattributed IRD material as though it were his own independent research, then they should not be editing on this topic. Whether deliberate falsification or just incompetence, misrepresenting a source like that is very serious. Their explanation isn't reassuring either, because the other source still doesn't support those claims. After that, how can you trust anything they add to any article? Edit-warring to add detailed sections about IRD to the leads of articles that don't even mention it in the body is also not good. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

108.54.32.185

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

---

108.54.32.185 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Good afternoon, unfortunately, user 108.54.32.185 has violated talk page consensus and reverted edits repeatedly on Lana Del Ray, including here, based on "defamation". During initial discussion they initiated multiple WP:PA, including accusing me of reverse discrimination, and most recently told me to "Go f&@& yourself shit for brains." on their talk page. Obviously, this person is not here to build an encyclopedia and continuously engages in personal attacks, I would appreciate administrative action on this matter - I believe this user has been blocked once before on the article itself for disruptive editing. Thank you and have a great week!--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I ran into this IP a few days ago and warned them for repeated personal attacks. They were blocked in October for edits with similar summaries to the same article, so it certainly seems to be the same user. Compare this edit summary from October [166] with this recent one [167], both to Lana Del Rey, for example. Meters (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to say that I'm not commenting on the actual content in question, just the IP's behaviour. Meters (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should put WP:FREESPEECH in the same sort of red box that's at the top of this edit window, on all of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I paid for a page here and it never happened

And then I got this email, someone here tell me why you are still trying to push for Wikipedia payment????

From: (Redacted) Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:53 PM Subject: WIKIPEDIA PAGE UPDATE To: (Redacted)

Hello,

This email is in regards to your order placed in 2018-19,

We are reaching out to all of the clients whose pages we couldn't publish that time as you are aware of the strict policies and requirements of Wikipedia for publication of any page, but for now, because of COVID-19 Wikipedia has given a lot of leverages to publish the page and your page is possible to publish again.

I would like to communicate in detail on this concern, please let me the best time to call along with the best number to reach you.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Note: Please ignore this email in case you are already in communication with our account managers.

Regards Eric Woods Sr. Product Manager (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:521:93F3:B076:D046:6344:9732 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never require someone to pay money for a article to be created on Wikipedia. They will also never demand you pay money to use, edit, or create pages. We have a strict notability guideline when creating pages about individuals. In short: you were scammed. I would suggest immediately ceasing communication with this person, and if possible, contacting your bank to refute any charges you have sent to them. Good luck. ChipotleHater (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia does not work like this. Wikipedia does not accept payment in exchange for articles. I will not go so far as to say you were scammed in this particular case, but many people promising to publish Wikipedia articles in exchange for money are scammers. It is better to not try and force an article to be created for you or your organization. A volunteer editor will eventually create an article, if you meet our inclusion criteria. Trying to force the issue almost certainly will lead to frustration and disappointment. Best wishes to you, Waggie (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That email makes absolutely no sense to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how Wikipedia works and reads like My Immortal. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah sounds like you got scammed. @Girth Summit: what was redacted? Was it all off-wiki personal information? Because based on your log entry you seem to imply that an actual Wikipedia account was reported to be either a scammer or a PE, and I'm not sure why you would have retracted that part, seems like it needs a different type of oversight. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• And a block Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have received an email from Jéské Couriano assuring me that Girth Summit's logged revdel had nothing to do with this. This begs the question as to why someone's email address was oversighted but their actual name was not. Very strange way of handling this report. I have no idea what is going on here, but it doesn't appear to be any reasonable measure in response to a scammer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I left the name in the event someone wants to escalate this to the WMF for them to do some research (as I'd rather someone who knows what they're doing escalate), since they would have access to the suppressed revisions. I heavily doubt the named person is a Wikipedia editor; I suspect that either their title is as it says in the footer and they're a manager for their firm, or that they're a con man trying to keep their marks from smelling a rat. In either case it doesn't benefit anyone not in the WMF's legal department to attempt to contact them on the off chance that this is indeed a scam. I should note that no company name was directly mentioned in the excerpt above (I don't think it was even present in the email addressed, though I could be wrong; I redacted them without looking too closely); if one was I would have redacted the person's name as well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• 5 quid says that is not their real name. There was indeed a company name in there, and I know the company in question: They are way too scammy to use anything resembling a real name, phone number, or address. They certainly employ a suspicious amount of people with stereotypically American names for an operation that very much isn't American. Blablubbs|talk 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's more important to know what the subject of the proposed article was, so that it can be watched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Based on what Blablubbs says above and the email being about something ordered in "2018-19" I don't think there was ever any intent to write an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Wikispecialist seems relevant here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Changing the subject slightly....I received a begging letter purportedly from WMF requesting more donation soon after I had made one. There is no way to have obtained my personal details except from the payment organisation being complicit in a data-breach. I did contact the UK regulator which refused to comment or become involved unless a complaint was first made to the payment organisation and the payee (both being major US organisations). This was about five years ago (or more) and I really forgot about it until seeing this. I haven't donated since because of this. I should still have the letter in the house, somewhere. Does anyone have any other knowledge/prior experience if this could be a genuine request for funding (ie., ignoring the data breach aspect) direct from the WMF? Or a speculative WMF mailshot that had extremely co-incidental timing?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That does not sound like something the WMF would ever do. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

    It is extremely common for the thank-you letter from a non-profit organization to include a solicitation. --JBL (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

ThanQ - I'll try to find it; the main problem is they should not have been provided with my personal (address) details, hence the potential/likely data breach. I had made other donations previously. Transaction to "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", July 2015. I hope there isn't a statute of limitations. I did search email for anything from Information Commissioner's Office, but as there's none I reckon it was a live chat scenario.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowcode again

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

---

• Flowcode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mediumship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Non-neutral editing at Mediumship by Flowcode

Flowcode is still pushing the fringe POV that some people can talk to the dead.

An interesting twist: They started out by acting as if they don't believe that some people can talk to the dead:

" 'Mediumship' appears to consist of a set of beliefs and practices that claim to be factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Hence, mediumship is pseudoscience."[168]

...but quickly switched to acting as if they do believe that some people can talk to the dead.

"However, there is also no evidence to prove mediumship is impossible."[169]

"There are no double-blind peer reviewed papers that prove conclusively that mediumistic ability does not exist"[170]

Changed "Purportedly mediating communication between spirits of the dead and living human beings" to "Mediating communication between spirits of the dead and living human beings"[171]

Edit warring to re-insert the previous edit: Edit summary: "but there is no proof that this doesn't exist, hence there is no reason to have that word in there."[172]

"It is also important to note, that no double-blind, peer reviewed academic works have been able to disprove mediumship."[173]

This raises that suspicion that this is not a SPA pushing a fringe view but instead a Troll trying to get a rise out of Betty Logan. Concern was expressed at the previous ANI report that this may be a sock instead of a SPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• just block them. They have contributed nothing of value thus far and we have no space for fringe nonsense. (Also it’s past my bed time by a lot) CUPIDICAE💕 05:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam - the logical fallacy that a proposition is or may be true because it has not been proven false. It is most often seen employed by those with WP:FRINGE views and WP:TROLLs. Narky Blert (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good call, but can you prove that Jibbers Crabst doesn't exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Created account just to disrupt sport page

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

---

• Isaiasig978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.14.130.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:908:e845:9600:906b:7b2b:6e82:cf85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8003:d90a:2500:914c:1eb:4733:f18e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.27.115.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users created account just to disrupt UFC pages. Kent Bargo (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Those UFC event articles really ought to be protected pre-emptively. They invariably get slaughtered the day of the event. I have semiprotected this one. The accounts/anons probably don't need to be blocked, but they might deserve it for raiding or whatever you want to call it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

An axe to grind and inappropriate content at RMIT University Student Union

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

---

• RMIT University Student Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Endemetriosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've twice removed unencyclopedic content here, added by someone who's not happy with the school, and sourced to a private letter of complaint. I've given the editor a final warning, and am bringing it here to a) determine whether the content merits rev/deletion as copyright violation or defamatory and b) just to have more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User blocked, excessive quotation removed as a copyright violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of text by Schi11 across different articles of trading ports/hotspots

• Port of Singapore [174]
• Port of Busan [175]
• Port of Kaohsiung [176]
• Strait of Malacca [177]
• Hanoi [178]
• Bagamoyo [179]
• Port of Said [180]
• Karachi [181]
• Umm Qasr Port [182]
• Muara, Brunei [183]

I see these as good faith edits, however, said editor has been adding (and re-adding from reversions) the same exact text across different articles that are said to be part of the People's Republic of China's proposed 21st Century Maritime Silk Road and is not stopping despite a warning by another editor on their talk page. I will warn the said editor as well for repeated additions/re-additions despite many reversions of another editor [184][185]. Possibly a conflict of interest as shown in the history page of the main topic [186]. PyroFloe (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! I was just trying to add the information to the ports that they are part of the Silk Road. Not all ports are part of the Chinese government initiative for the Silk Road but are already part of the historically grown maritime silk roads and are of fundamental importance. I also tried to cite certain current sources. If the additions are wrong please change, I just wanted to improve the article. Many Thanks - --Schi11 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Whereby I would like to state that I found the search for the individual ports of the maritime Silk Road to be bland, as well as the search for the sources. I just wanted to close the matter with the Maritime Silk Road and add the note to the ports. Schi11 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

See also: Paul 012 - talk, - I wanted to proceed accordingly. Schi11 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay I understand, however I do think that every stop of the proposed plan is not necessary to include in every page. Also, the wikilinks of the texts you are copy pasting, links to the old Maritime Silk Road rather than the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road where it should have been. I advise you to atleast change the wording from time to time as repetition of the exact words may be detected and considered as spamming. I see good faiths in your edits and just needs a little bit of tweaking. Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Many Thanks! It is good if someone thinks and controls, because even with the best of intentions one can think wrongly! I will try to improve the text a bit. At the beginning I always thought the same text is good, because otherwise it seems as if a port where a longer text is added might be preferred. Incidentally, I have also tried to add references to the historic Silk Road to document the historical development - And I have not linked to the 21st century Silk Road at the ports that are not directly dependent on China (maybe inaccurate). I will once again revise the additions for the ports ..... - Best regards Schi11 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring anon spoofing IP addresses

How to deal with a stubborn anon? Change article protection? Details are at Talk:Holodomor genocide question#Serbyn quotation. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Holodomor has permanent {{pp-protect}}. Holodomor genocide question is protected until 31 January 2021. IMO both articles should have the same level and duration of protection. Writing as someone with no axe to grind, the whole topic is an activist/apologist magnet. Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

1996Larry reported by Largoplazo

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1996Larry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This user has been abundantly engaging in the behavior for which they were blocked in late 2018: adding unsourced content to articles, specifically "top 10" music articles. At the time (see the user's talk page), the user went through great lengths to regain access, and administrators went through great length to make sure the user had gotten the point before allowing that to happen. The lesson has clearly been unlearned.

A case in point: List of UK top-ten albums in 2020, created by this user in December 2019 and overwhelmingly the product of that user. Its sole references were copied blindly from the article for 2019 albums. Two are no longer in existence, one links to another Wikipedia article, and all were added before 2020 anyway, so they can't possibly be or have been sources for information about 2020 hits. The user has provided no reference to support any content on the page.

Ironically, the user came to my attention for a one-off act of vandalism at Richard Beymer, adding 1 to both the day and year of the actor's birth. Largoplazo (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: While I believe unexplained edits are inexcusable and should not be tolerated (and 1996Larry seems to make many of them), I think it's fair to point out that Richard Beymer's birthdate is unclear. On Jan 13, Deb added a birthdate of Feb 20, 1938 ([187]), but cited a Google Books source that appears to list the date as Feb 21, 1939. Adding to the confusion, the Film Reference website (cited as [www.filmreference.com/film/65/Richard-Beymer.html]) lists his birthdate as two dates, saying he was born on "February 21, 1939 (some sources cite February 20, 1938)". Regardless, I believe that 1996Larry really needs to examine his editing and behavior toward other editors. Normally, I'd try to fix the article, but I don't feel comfortable touching it until this issue is resolved. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one out. I may have been confused by the fact that he's actually listed in the births section of the February 20 article. (Not a good excuse though.) Perhaps I should take him out of there. Deb (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I did do some, but perhaps not enough, due diligence before reporting this and coming upon 1996Larry's history. The first dozen sources I glanced at had the date shown before 1996Larry's update, and some of them seemed independent of Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have looked more closely, but this was coupled with the incrementing of both the day and the year by 1, which seemed prankish. Largoplazo (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: No worries. It would probably have fooled me, too. This is one reason I try to get people to enter an edit summary—changing a number up or down by one is an annoyingly common form of vandalism (and it does real damage to WP's value as a research resource). Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, apologies for the bare link (above)—it seems that filmreference.com was added to the anti-spam blacklist in April 2019. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

‎False claim of administrator rights

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

---

The top user box at the user page User:JzG identifies him as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and contains a hyperlink to verify. However, when I click that link, it displays user rights not for JzG, but for User:K6ka. This is very confusing, and may lead unwary users to mistakenly conclude that JzG is indeed, as he falsely claims, an active administrator. NedFausa (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This does not rise to the level of ANI. Of all the thousands of things to do on Wikipedia, why choose this? Have you considered, perhaps, asking @JzG: about this? CUPIDICAE💕 17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, NedFausa was subsequently blocked for 48 hours for continued personal attacks against and regarding JzG on his own talk page. The discussion on said page is WP:HAPPYPLACE-worthy in and of itself.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

CloudBubble2026 ‎

CloudBubble2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who is too over-eager in reverting IPs and calling good-faith edits vandalism. They have reverted my warning on their talk page, and made this inappropriate revert at Iwo Jima of fixing a grammatical error. Can someone please address their behavior. 97.125.232.133 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I too have expressed my concern. We shall see. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Other editors have expressed concerns with competence on user's talk page, including spelling errors, pointless reverts and failure to communicate. I have partially blocked from article space for one week and asked them to discuss here. Any admin can modify or remove the block at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editor making personal attacks at Talk:Male privilege and my talk page

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

---

• Talk:Male privilege (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• 71.211.129.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can someone take a glance at Special:Contribs/71.211.129.129? I've already warned them about the personal attacks and ABF at Talk:Male privilege, and now they've taken to attacking me on my talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Given their "response" here, I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Blocked. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

They seem determined to try to evade the block. I've gone ahead and blocked the IP for evasion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Dylanport1 poorly-sourced content and non-constructive editing

• Dylanport1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Dylanport1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added content sourced to IMDb to Mickey Mouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after being warned (Special:Permalink/1001684545, Special:Permalink/1002508534, Special:Permalink/1002546886). Dylanport1 has also vandalized RandomCanadian's userpage (Special:Permalink/1002548115). They have received numerous warnings to stop their non-constructive editing on their talkpage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

They don't seem here to build an encyclopedia (they seemingly also have an axe to grind about IMDB). I don't know if a block at this stage would be premature. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of a good faith reason to vandalize someone's userpage, but this didn't seem clear-cut enough for AIV. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

---

If there is an admin who is not asleep, could you please block Dunny124a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A particularly prolific and active vandal, appears to be a sock of Jets124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). AIV is backlogged, so it may be a while before they get to that report there. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Possibly paid editing on W. Mark Lanier's page

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

---

• W. Mark Lanier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Laniermark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GreenC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As there was already a lot of COI concerns about W. Mark Lanier's page. I reverted edits done by User:GreenC because all the issues were not addressed. They removed all the COI tags, education info and more. The same things which some IPs and users were trying to do from a long time. Just after reverting the edits a User:Laniermark appears and removes all the potential tags from the page. But soon their edits got reverted by User:Ashleyyoursmile as they didn't resolve the issues and didn't provided explanation for their edits. User:Laniermark again tried to remove the tags but I reverted them this time. They tried once more but got reverted by User:Ashleyyoursmile with a warning. The User:Laniermark got stopped there. But after sometime the User:GreenC appears again and removes all the tags from page again. I feel like there is some COI involved which should be addressed. Admins attention will be highly appreciated here. Sliekid (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You must notify editors you are reporting here as mentioned in the huge yellow banner at the top of the edit page. I've done so; please remember in the future to do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you had notified GreenC, upon a refresh, but you didn't notifiy Laniermark or Ashleyyoursmile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I was trying to do so. Sliekid (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Can anyone please remove those tags and education section if possible? I don't want them to display on my page. I don't have time for all this. Already hired an agency named WikiProfessionalsINC.com and wasted money to fix these issues. They talked big that they have old experienced editors but seemed like they weren't able to do what they said. That's why I have fixed issues myself. I hope it's ok to do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniermark (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Laniermark (1) It is not "your page", it is a Wikipedia article about you. You do not own it, and you do not have control over what appears in it. You should not be editing it at all, which is a violation of WP:COI. If you have suggestions about how you think the article can be improved, post a comment on Talk:W. Mark Lanier, and if other editors agree that it's a worthwhile change, they will edit the article accordingly.

(2) Paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia, so whatever money you've given to WikiProfessionalsINC.com has been thrown away. Any edits which appear to have been paid for will be deleted by editors patrolling the article. We are not a promotional medium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what User Sliekid has said, a quick look through the talk page shows that the page has a long history of COI editing. My reason for reverting the edits made by User Laniermark is that they removed the maintenance templates and chunks of sourced content from the page without any explanation: [188] and [189], for which I have warned them on their talk page. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Laniermark, you really shouldn't be directly editing an article about yourself as it is considered a conflict of interest, which will reflect poorly on you. You should never give money to people who claim they can get an article posted on Wikipedia for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand

Proposal

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

---

Considering the statement made by user Laniermark above, that they are the subject of the article W. Mark Lanier, and that they have paid an agency to edit the article to their specificatins, Laniermark is partially blocked from editing W. Mark Lanier. They are permitted to post suggested changes on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a partial block from the article only for Laniermark and an indef-block from the whole project for the mercenar(y/ies) who took the job. We should not be making paid editors' jobs anything less than impossible, especially if undisclosed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2

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

---

The one side of the issue is fixed but as there are both parties involved in the project. I propose that a partial or indef block should also be initiated on User:GreenC. As stated by Laniermark that they paid WikiProfessionalsINC.com to remove the tags from the page but they were failed in doing so. As per seeing the contributions of GreenC to the Lanier's page, it's clear that they are fully or partially compensated for the job. As can be seen on the talk page despite getting warning or advice by admin User:Smartse they didn't care to listen. It's a simple & direct violation of Wikipedia rules. Sliekid (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Sliekid (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that GreenC is being paid or has a COI. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a blatantly obvious attempt by Sliekid to deal with a content dispute by trying to get me blocked as a COI editor, an accusation I won't even honor with a response. Furthermore, the personal information removed is completely unsourced and a violation of BLP and V. Sliekid, I posted on your talk page yesterday that I will be working with you, every day. I will be there responding to your talk page posts. We will become familiar with one another over the following days, weeks and months to come. I suggest you start assuming Good Faith and work with me on this article. -- GreenC 15:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. GreenC has been here for more than ten years and has more than 100,000 edits; it is insulting to suggest that his edits were anything other than normal article maintenance. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Disruption at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

The page is getting a steady stream of posts by WP:SPA editors who insist that Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a conspiracy theorist despite multiple reliable sources that link to her blog posts and videos alleging that Democratic party leaders were running pedophilia ring out of a local pizza parlor, that the Parkland High School shooting was a "false flag" and that the children were paid actors, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is knowingly spreading Covid among House members, that that the deaths at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville were an "inside job" to "further the agenda of the elites"... the list goes on and on.

I suspect an off-wiki campaign by QAnon. What would be the best way to deal with this? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect full page protection would be a good idea, but this is not really the place to ask for that. Other than that its hard to see what can be done to one-shot drive byers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note I have informed Lukan27 about this ANI, as whilst he is not named he is clearly a party to this situation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness to editors opposed to this label, even DJT doesn't have conspiracy theorist in the lede and multiple RS definitely characterize him as such. Jdphenix (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reason to add it to his, not remove it from hers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I point out DJT specifically because it is a protracted discussion of a politician with similar views. It seems settled on not having conspiracy theorist in the lede. I'm only intending to point this out, not engage in a similarly protracted discussion. Thanks! Jdphenix (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If you had to make a list of the top three most important things about Donald Trump, "conspiracy theorist" wouldn't make the list because he was the president of the United States. Meanwhile Greene is a new congresswoman who wasn't notable until 15 minutes ago, give or take. There is nothing useful to be learned from the comparison. --JBL (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue seems clear that putting "conspiracy theorist" right alongside "politician" and "businesswoman" or "U.S. Representative" as a career definition in the very first line of the lede. It's not that the term doesn't apply, but that's not a profession or any means of neutrally or impartially describing a person in the first sentence of an article as demanded by BLP. The term clearly needs to be in the lede somewhere but just not there in the first sentence. --Masem (t) 15:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that however this goes, the label is going to stay or not at the end of the day. I'm not commenting on content per se, I'm commenting on the protracted discussion that's going to occur.

I'm more or less in the same boat as Lukan27. Long dormant account, decides to start editing again because I want to FIX WHAT'S WRONG (my thoughts) like a SPA, then someone pointed me out to a very good read. I'm still making mistakes and am learning the easy way why Hipal recommends avoid controversial topics as a new editor. Lukan27 et. al. are learning the hard way.

I'm just saying maybe we should try a "hello and here's some advice" before labeling an editor as a SPA. My behavior is at least as annoying as Lukan's and at the risk of WP:BOOMERANG, I'm not topic banned or blocked. No one's even warned me. Jdphenix (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I purposely did not single out you, Lukan27, or anyone else. (And BTW, being an SPA is not a blockable offense. We have many productive SPA editors.) I asked an honest question, There is always the possibility that the answer will be "Guy Macon is the problem", allowing me to correct whatever I am doing wrong.

I completely reject the opinion seen in many ANI threads that editors are not allowed to ask "I don't know what to do" questions and must name one or more individuals and ask for sanctions. I resent the implication that this is what I did here.

I honestly don't know what to do in this situation. It could have been that the answer I got was "Ignore it" or "your reactions are the problem". It could have been some sort of protection with an added unprotected talk page for those who can't post. It could have been a topic ban for some individuals. It could have been informing me that I am wrong and there is no problem to be solved. Or it could be some solution that I didn't think of. Please don't attempt to force me to limit the range of possible solutions. It really is OK to simply describe a problem and ask for advice on how to deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Never meant to imply you did. Just my observations of the process. I don't intend (or pretend to be able to) limit options for how this is resolved. Jdphenix (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have instructed participants (especially new users and/or dormant accounts) to engage in formal dispute resolution procedure, if need be, because the current discussion is proving to be a drain on volunteer resources. El_C 15:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Serious conflict of interest issues, blatant advocacy and defamation

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

---

• Austhistory99 (talk · contribs)
• PetroAntonio (talk · contribs)
• Bruce Pascoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dark Emu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two editors user:Austhistory99 and user:PetroAntonio have been editing the Bruce Pascoe article and the article about his book Dark Emu. They have both previously revealed on Wikipedia that they are the authors of attacks on Bruce Pascoe. Austhistory99 has admited he runs this attack site, dedicated solely to defaming the author and his book [190] and PetroAntonio has admitted to being the author of this hatchet job [191]. They've both been notified that they should not be editing these articles due to a conflict of interest and have failed to declare their conflict of interest properly and they continue to try and add content which they authored themselves to the article. [192] [193] They are clearly in breach of COI rules. Looking at their recent efforts to defame Pascoe [194] they are most likely colluding off Wikipedia to defame him, but regardless it is unethical and a breach of policy on a number of levels for them to be editing like this. Look at the narrow field of edits: [195] [196] I believe they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and thus should both be indef blocked, they are here to attack Pascoe and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, nothing else. PetroAntonio is obviously an WP:SPA at the very least. Bacondrum 11:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And it gets worse, PetroAntonio should be indef blocked, no question about it. This is something they penned recently about this specific issue, they are clearly here to campaign against Pascoe and promote their book: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ Bacondrum 12:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And if you scrawl through the comments in that article you'll see what is clearly our man Austhistory99 posting as MungoMann, making it clear his contributions are part of an off-wiki campaign being run by Quadrant (magazine) contributors and their supporters. Bacondrum 13:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And it appears that the dodgy behavior here knows no limit. Turns out that our man Austhistory99's promotes and links to sales at Quadrant for PetroAntonios book here on his website, which is dedicated to attacking Pascoe: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/2016/1/30/room-to-work-ye2nx-ghxgn it's all so dodgy. Bacondrum 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Added user links above for ease of access. Both are clearly SPAs, a dose of WP:NOTHERE combined with WP:FRINGE. Talk:Dark Emu (book) is a mess. CMD (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am convinced that PetroAntonio is a disruption-only account and should be indef blocked, so that's done. As for Aushistory99, they have created at least one article that was accepted, so I am loath to block them without stronger evidence. Can anybody supply a diff to prove the statement, Austhistory99 has admited he runs this attack site [www.dark-emu-exposed.org], dedicated solely to defaming the author and his book? I don't see the admission. Beyond that, we need to decide whether a person interested in history and writing strong opinions qualifies as a COI. I am not sure that it does. This may be a situation where the editor can be warned to avoid pushing their views, since there appears to be other useful work they might be doing.

On another note, I see that Aushistory99 may have triggered an autoblock.[197] This raises the issue as to whether they are operating another account in parallel or doing mischief as an IP. @Yamla: any advice you can provide? Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed

Here's Austhistory99 letting us know that Dark Emu exposed is his site

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Pascoe&diff=prev&oldid=931505444

If you look at the last comment in this article written by PetroAntonio: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ You'll see this: "if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia ( the Oracle of the Progressive Left!) some real history from time to time. In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars. Today Wikipedia approved my entry on the Aboriginal inter-tribal Massacre of Running Waters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters" And if you check that link you'll see who created that article, the same person who says "if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia...In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars." Austhistory may have created an article, but their primary activity on Wikipedia has been to attack Pascoe. They have clearly been colluding with PetroAntonio, whose book they promote on their website dedicated to attacking an author who has been the primary focus of their edits. At the very least they should be indef blocked from anything to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, though I think they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and should simply be indef blocked. Bacondrum 14:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, they've been warned repeatedly about the COI and never heeded the warning. Bacondrum 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:FOLLOWING

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

---

Primarily Invasive Spices and Chiswick Chap:

• [198]
• [199]
• WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [200]
• WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [201]
• Attempt to deescalate and return to content issue: [202]
• WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:ABF, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [203]
• [204]
• Again attempt to deescalate and return to content issue: [205]
• Nonexistent policies that contract WP policy: [206]
• WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [207]
• [208]
• WP:FOLLOWING, WP:DAPE, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [209]
• WP:FOLLOWING, WP:DAPE, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [210]
• Yet again attempt to deescalate and return to content issue: [211]
• Veiled threats, mischaracterisation of events, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [212]
• WP:CIVIL, taunting: [213]

Already atttempted [[WP:3O]], deemed not appropriate there. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a content editing matter, despite the assertions to the contrary. It concerns just two reversions: one at Octopus, confirmed by another editor; the latter at Predation a simple reversion on the grounds of being off-topic, and not objected to or discussed by any other editor. WP:30 was rejected over there by another editor on the grounds that it was too early for that. Happy to discuss on any reasonable forum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Partial block request to stop President Polk edit war

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

---

• 2600:1700:1228:3400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• James K. Polk

Can we get a partial block on the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1228:3400:0:0:0:0/64? The person has been edit warring at James K. Polk, causing disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Ammu Editz

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

---

Ammu Editz (talk · contribs) is having issues understanding copyright. They've had four images deleted on commons today, and then turned around and uploaded two of them here, one twice (EBhA6rjU0AA7Q V.jpg and Shivani Narayanan.jpg are the same image). I've left a copyright warning and would have thought the image being deleted multiple times would also be a clue, but they've continue uploading. Would an admin review and block as needed? Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

They're also reverting removal of unsourced information from biography and repeatedly adding back their copyright infringing image. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User: 1.43.105.99

This user has been asked multiple times to leave comments for a majority of their/adds deletes to numerous articles (of which a lot are BLP). They have changed birthdays and deaths without cites.

List of their contributions

Users talk page with warnings.

Thank you. 2600:387:C:6D10:0:0:0:B (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, are you able to cite a specific diff of any violations? At a glance, their latest contribution involves the addition of a birth date to the infobox of James Wright (doctor) — but the information contained therein aligns with the birth date that is already noted in the opening sentence, which is sourced. Also, you have failed to inform the editor about this report, as is required. I will do this for you. El_C 18:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: - I did inform them of the ANI somehow it got put at the top of their talk page. This is [one example]. They changed a date of birth, cited a book but gave no link. I’ve also noticed they are really good at creating info boxes and inserting “per policy, this does not go here” “per policy, this....” I think you get the point. Possible sock evasion? The biggest part is they’ve been warned about this previously not just by me but other editors too. They got quiet for a week or so when I first brought it up then they started again. This is also [another one] where none of the cited sources say she is no longer acting. It was reverted and they reinstated it. Another one where they said the article stated she started her career at 11, but did not cite it nor going through the four references was it seen (two of them take you to the main web sites so the links are dead). [here is that one]. Thanks 2600:387:C:6D10:0:0:0:B (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, those are all from a few weeks ago or so, so perhaps they've heeded the warnings since...? As for Diana Coupland (bioline reads: "actress and singer"), their changes seem legitimate enough. For years active, the 1953 date is for acting, whereas the 1943 date is for music. I think both are okay and are within editorial discretion. El_C 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring at University of the People

Several editors, particularly Weatherextremes, have been engaged in edit wars at University of the People for at least two months now. The article was protected for about a week but the day after the protection expired Weatherextremes resumed the edit war. He or she has been warned many times by multiple editors but the behavior persists. I don't know if a final warning from an administrator will help or if a block is necessary at this point but the edit warring and ownership have to stop. ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Myself and other editors have brought to everyone's attention the fact that various sockpuppets have been those doing the edit warring. They do not engage constructively and keep on adding non reliable sources that have been refutted. I call on admins to have a full on investigation on sockpuppets and editors who have been editing in a disruptive manner regarding this article. I have tried to uphold wikipedia's standards by continuously calling for dialogue and a dispute resolution for the content dispute. Weatherextremes (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are serious accusations that should be made at WP:SPI and supported by evidence. And they do nothing to excuse your perpetual edit warring. ElKevbo (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: There is an open SPI case on this matter. WriteWithPencils (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet yet I believe I have warned you against edit warring multiple times... Both on the article talk page and on your own. Up until now your failure to get the point has been everyone else's problem, now you get to deal with it. Your chickens have come home to roost. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to keep a civil tone here but the accusations you keep on throwing do not help. What I have said above is a summary of what has been happening and also a proposal for a serious look from admins about a potential sockpuppet issue Weatherextremes (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Observation: Over the past ~six weeks, Weatherextremes indiscriminately reverts all edits back to their own article version.[214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225]

ElKevbo and Horse Eye's Back both point out several times on the talk page that Weatherextremes's reverts include many edits unrelated to their specific objections. Weatherextremes, in their edit summaries, demands that everyone else stop reverting until they get consensus on the talkpage. Weatherextremes appears to believe that their version must remain the status quo until there is consensus on the talkpage for changes, however the talk page discussions don't appear very productive. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, they're not necessarily wrong, though resuming the edit war right after the protection expired is obviously not a good look. Anyway, has there been enough meaningful discussion in support of the contending version? Because, if not, other editors really are the ones responsible to align any unrelated improvements with Weatherextremes' longstanding version. El_C 22:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Weatherextremes' version is only longstanding because he or she has constantly edit warred with several editors over the past couple of months to continually impose his or her preferred versions of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: yeah, well, all those IPs never attempted to discuss anything (whatsoever) — obviously: their only edits consist of reverting Weatherextremes. El_C 22:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a new "you're allowed to revert war against unregistered editors" exception to WP:EW? ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, would have semiprotected the page had I seen it at the time, which would have at least forced those IPs to engage the talk page. Again, the fact that those IPs' only edits consist of reverting Weatherextremes — that is totally suspect. El_C 23:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional note regarding recent edits to Wikipedia page for W. Mark Lanier

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

---

User:GreenC, User:MelanieN, User:The Bushranger, User:CaptainEek, User:Tenryuu, User:Beyond My Ken, and other interested parties, I’ve had a chance to read the discussion from the past few days and hope I can add some clarity. I represent Mark Lanier and have stated my COI in the past. Anytime we have an edit we would like incorporated into the page, we post on Mark’s talk page and request that experienced editors review and implement the edits themselves. We have spoken to Mark regarding the activity on the W. Mark Lanier article over the past few days and confirm that neither he nor I have relationships with any of the editors of this page. Whoever is making these edits under his name is not Mark. We don’t know who is using the Laniermark username, but it’s no one affiliated with Mark Lanier or the Lanier Law Firm.

Further, it has come to our knowledge that User:Akronowner, who nominated the page for deletion, subsequently contacted Mark Lanier via email and asked for money to keep the page from deletion. No renumeration was made and we view this as a case of extortion and encourage the Wikipedia community to look into this matter.

At this time, I would also ask for the following protection of this page by a qualified admin.

=== W. Mark Lanier ===

• W. Mark Lanier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full-protection: High level of IP vandalism and unauthorized edits or deletions.

WriteJames (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I repeat here what I said at Talk:W. Mark Lanier, and I'm pinging @WriteJames: in this one:

Declined. I only see one edit by an IP in the last year and change. I do not see disruption of a pervasive enough nature that full protection is required—or even semi-protection.

Also, I think your allegations about off-Wikipedia actions by an editor would best be handled in an email exchange, rather than in an open and logged discussion. I would start by emailing the Volunteer Response Team (see WP:VRT for instructions); they can either assist or refer you to the party at the Wikimedia Foundation who handles such issues. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from User talk:2600:1003:B02C:8B17:0:6:B05E:3801

Not sure how the No legal threats policy applies to IPs but this may be a static IP due to no previous edits before the disruptive behaviour? FozzieHey (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the IP is static, since I saw similar behavior on 16 January from a different IP in the 2600:1003:b02?:* range. See edit history at Steve Walsh (musician) for more info. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just looked up both of those IPs and they're both under AS6167, Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless so they seem to be cellular IPs as opposed to residential IPs. Not sure we can do much here in terms of blocking then. FozzieHey (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what remedy they think a court would give them. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat, this is just vandalism. I've semi-protected Steve Walsh (musician) for a year - this has been going on for a long time, now with lots of oversighted edits. I was going to suggest a long term range block on that page, but it looks like one of the recent IP's has been doing this to other pages too. So probably one or more long term sitewide range blocks is more appropriate. The current short-term range block placed by someone else should buy some time to figure it out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, after looking at the history it's probably more vandalism than a legal threat. The issue with a long-term range block on these IPs is that they aren't even in the same /44, now that's already a massive range so you'd have to effectively put an AS block on AS6167 to stop this. Not sure how feasible that is, would it be more acceptable as these are cellular ranges? FozzieHey (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Namcokid47: Ongoing vandalism

Namcokid47 won't stop being a cancerous parasite who always edits out my list of anime distributed by Bandai Visual that was clearly sourced from Japanese Wikipedia. Please block him immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecrusher (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Tarik289

User:Tarik289 is making edits and deleting sourced content with reasons and edit summaries that imply that he just didn't like it [226][227][228] and adding forum style uncivil talk page discussions, filling them with name calling and assuming bad faith;[229][230] [once calling an editor 'fascist'], user current engaged in persistent deletion in ‎Nâzım Hikmet ‎and when asked to explain had this to say[231] his contributions also have the same sense of WP:NOTHERE to them. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)