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

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [1], edit summaries at [2], [3], [4], [5], and generally at [6] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

  For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Imagine my surprise on clicking. EEng 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"String 'em up, I say. It's the only language they understand". The box has now been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Wikipedia back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support warning — 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)[reply]
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not a "logged warning", it was a straight-out civility sanction: i.e. If you do X, you will be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;).^[FBDB] --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)[reply]
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [11] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticizing a series of problematic edits involving BLP articles. That is not uncivil. Johnpacklambert by his own admission was disregarding available online sources, and making arbitrary decisions on who is alive or not. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately". Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a huge fan of expecting civility. And HW's comments aren't at that bar. I'm not certain anything less then this will get them to pay attention. But while it could be said much better, is anything said by HW inaccurate? We appear to have an editor who has a very high error rate. Calling them out on that seems like the right thing to do. HW hurts their (important) message here. A calmer approach might have resolved the problems by now. I'm not sure what the right next step is--this proposal seems like it's likely to be used as a hammer. But I don't see evidence that anything less will get HW to pay attention. (I'm neutral on this for now, mostly just musing and seeing where I get to as I type this.) Hobit (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions if the main or only complaint is reminding John Pack Lambert via edit summaries that his playing around with people's alive status is utterly incompetent. Further, I would WP:BOOMERANG this and ban JPL from changing such categories, given his longstanding display of incompetence in doing so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@El C: I note that User:Chess has, coincidentally, edited Wolfowitz's user page to remove said userbox. I assume it will probably return sooner rather than later. ——Serial 07:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from the ping. The userbox is a BLP violation plain and simple. We can't just wantonly accuse living people of criminal behaviour without sources. Calling for the death of a living person makes it 100x worse and could result in WMF actions (Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm). The fact he was the President of the United States and that it might be a common political belief that he deserves to die only matters in the sense that threatening death upon on a President is potentially in violation of US law and certainly has no bearing on whether one is allowed to violate BLP. WP:BLPTALK is extremely explicit that BLP applies to all namespaces including userspace and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

I wasn't aware of this AN/I thread when I removed the userbox (I patrol userspace for BLP vios and personal information and what not) but I stand by my decision and this isn't really something up for debate. The userbox violates BLP regardless of whether it is acceptable political speech. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure

Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in case anyone still believes that BMK and some others are genuinely concerned about civility in edit summaries (rather than inflaming old quarrels), I suggest you review these bon mots from BMK's more recent contributions. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. And is there even a sign of a warning . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rev id's that start with "8" or lower are not recent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Civility is a slippery slope :-) Vikram Vincent 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa. That is a surprise. What's with all the fuck-derivatives, there, Beyond My Ken, if you don't mind me asking? -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So HW's official explanation for why they have been uncivil while under a civility sanction because of the nature and extent of their incivlity is that another editor who is not under a civility sanction has at times used colorful language? Perhaps they should recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be a legitimate argument in and of itself. And perhaps others might remind themselves of what the nature of HIW's objectionable edit summaries were that caused him to be sanctioned in the first place [23]. Hint: It wasn't for using colorful language, it was for multiple personal attacks against an editor. So I rather think this is an apples and oranges situation, and not relevant to HW's behavior to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe he is arguing that your objections should be discredited because WP:POTKETTLE and WP:GAMING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see where someone might think that POTKETTLE was relevant -- even though it's not, because our situations are entirely different, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz being under a civility sanction, whereas I am not -- but "gaming the system" is obviously completely irrelevant here. If that's what he's on about he's grasping at straws. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they are different. You have been substantially protected and largely avoided any perm sanctions despite your actions. HW has been fucked repeatedly. The argument that they should be punished more severely while simultaneously getting away with similar is not just pot-kettle, its amoral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been "protected" and he's been "fucked repeatedly", huh? You might want to compare our block logs to see how much I've been "protected".
  In any case, this report, and the proposed sanction, is not about me, it's about HW's continuing incivility while under a civility sanction. I understand that the "whataboutthem"-ism of pointing at someone else is a frequently used tactic to attempt to get the heat off oneself -- one often used in contemporary politics to create false equivalences and confuse the public and the press (which should know better) -- but such sleights-of-hand are rarely successful, even when repeated by enablers with hidden prejudices, unless the audience for them is extremely gullible, a category I do not place the Wikipedia community in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Deepfriedokra

• Really, there are points in this "discourse" where y'all should be ashamed of yourselves, or run for Congress. Just go back over what's been written and consider how it would go down if written by someone else.
• Request for closure? I don't see a consensus to sanction HW at this juncture. The fallacious arguments, hyperbole, wikilawyering, and false analogies (0n both sides) not withstanding, despite being presented with great gusto and enthusiasm. Some of y'all need to take some calming breaths and regain your composure. Y'all are really great people and great editors when you are calm.
• However. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is really no excuse for the level of harshness in your interactions. Do we need a list of people to IBAN you from interacting with? Were it JPL alone you've been rude to, an IBAN would be the answer. How do we stop your behavior? I'm a shoot-from-the-hip kinda guy, and am ready to Indef you right now based on your behavior. Cutting through all the sophistry, that's what it comes down to. I await your reply.
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz That signature is really disruptive and offensive. Don't you think it is time to move past that? As to the political screed on the user page. If we took all of those down at once, the servers would overload. My opinion is they have no place on Wikipedia, but we let established users get away with that sort of thing. I question whether the community would tolerate it if it were pro-Trump.
• I see no consensus for any action, and that is one of the many failings of this venue. Partisanship dictates outcomes rather than fairness and objectivity. I'll leave it for another admin to look at. I cannot and will not act unilaterally. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [24]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.

I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:

I think this individuals contributions,[25] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).

They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.

They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).

I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)

A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
  The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [26] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [27] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [28] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [29] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.

I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.

This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.

Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.

I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [30], [31],[32],[33],[34],[35]) and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [36] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban BunnyyHop hasn't stopped making POV pushing edits since last time, as well as him now, doubling down at pushing his POV even harder. Des Vallee (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

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

bold and italic added by me

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

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

Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [37]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [38] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.

I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):

On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»

In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»

In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»

The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»

Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop

• Comment: BH's POV WP:BLUDGEON continues at Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, ignoring responses, repeating the same arguments, this entire thread is a timesink.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [45],[46] on the same page where they did it before: [47], [48],[49],[50],[51]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([52]), ([53]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.

Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [54], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.

The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([55] [56] [57] [58]).

There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.

So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.

So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova   T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've been paying more attention to these disputes on the linked pages and they are indeed content disputes and not behaviour issues as the OP projects. Agree with TFD that this complaint is again a badly written piece. Perhaps they should try out Rosguill's ANI reform proposal for the next complaint. Vikram Vincent 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here is Bunnyyhop still engaged in their usual tendentious behavior about Mao Zedong, casting asperions on other editors saying their source evaluation was just their own POV while defending fringe sources and material. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [59] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [60], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Just going over the diffs that have been presented, this is reasonably sourced and attributed; this is removing a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that had gone completely uncited for months; and this (regarding this edit) seems like a reasonable dispute over sources and WP:DUE weight. That isn't to say that Bunnyyhop is necessarily right in each case, just that these are patently obviously legitimate content disputes, not something that could reasonably be used to justify sanctions. Perhaps Bunnyyhop could be more cautious about assuming good faith, to be sure, but it's a bit silly to raise that objection while simultaniously making accusations of bad faith over a content dispute; and I'm not seeing a lot of presumption of good faith extended towards Bunnyyhop in the talk history of that page, either. Is this earlier comment really indicative of someone who has WP:CLEANHANDS when it comes to assuming good faith in this dispute? --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin evaluation and close

• I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.

Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.

Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This again? User makes questionable edits, we get a bunch of people who seemingly have similar political views defend them for making POV-pushing edits about those views, etc (My hands aren't clean here either, I !voted in the previous ANI). This has turned into a mess. I have to agree with Neonorange here, this is going to waste more time and turn into another sprawling thread in which it's going to be hard to find a bunch of neutral admins that have the time to read through everything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Informed analysis (talk · contribs)
• All of these IPs: Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64
• Back in 2019: Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21

I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring.

Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive.

Can somebody else try and have a chat with this user? I feel like I've got a sore head. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four other editors have either implicitly or explicity agreed with the additions I made in the Genensis lead. Look at the history. For example, why is only the fact Invsible Touch had 5 top 5 singles in the US mentioned. Where any of those successful anywhere else? Turns out only the titletrack and Land of Confusion were. The cherry-picking of only specific high success many editors do is in fact a contravention of the point of view policies. Why is mentioning the popularity of Mama and another signficant song wrong? People want to know some of their popular songs. Why is saying which was their first top 10 ablum in the US was X wrong and what their highest platinum level in the US was wrong? That was stated in several other articles.

I should add some of the text which Richie cited as wrong was not text I added. If it was wrong before I added other stuff why was it in there?Informed analysis (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you analyze at the text I deleted there you would indeed see the old text was repetitive and inconcise. The text had Aerosmith repeatedly going on more and more extensive tours. The Aerosmith lead is the longest of any lead on any band I tried to add a key fact of their original breaktrough that is provien by the chart info and dates - that Dream On was re-released 2 years later after Sweet Emotion mde the top 40 and then became their first huge hit, and that editor has reversed in 4 or 5 times even though I explained my rationale several times. He prefers to have info in about rollercoasters and video games. He is exhibiting unobjective ownership. No one else expressed any concern.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed analysis, That is not the point I was trying to make. My point is you seem to get angry and upset when people disagree with you and bark at multiple editors not to change stuff. That is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richie - you made massive reversions without thinking or acknowledging some of the text may have been useful. You were angry when you made the massive reversions. You did not make any collaborative effort. You should be restricted from making massive reversions. That is the truth - I think a read of the history will show that - you blindly added back in text that I had already explained in my changes was wrong .Informed analysis (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. If you look at the statistics for Genesis, you will see a number of editors who have worked on the article besides myself, including LowSelfEstitle, RoderickSilly, Joefromrandb and MrMarmite. As far as I'm aware, we've all edited the article at the same time without any issues, and I've had no cause to complain about any of their edits, nor vice versa. The only person who seems to have a problem is you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted text saying a certain album was their first to chart in the UK when it was in fact their second. You also inserted text saying they had success in mainland Europe first when the only country the album had charted in was Italy (at number 1). Admit your error. If I made an error in something, I will admit I did. Of course, if you are adding text saying which their first to chart in the UK was, why would we not add text saying which their first to hit the top 10 in the US was?Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Informed analysis to loosen their grip on the Bryan Adams bio, and I warned them that this edit summary was unacceptable, telling others to stop editing, which demonstrated WP:OWNership issues. I have had a few very spirited jousting matches with Informed analysis regarding how much detail was appropriate for the lead section of musician biographies (I argue for streamlined prose and less detail) one of which can be seen in the Pat Benatar editing history. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet and others just completely revert with no discussion large amounts of text that I had gradually inserted over weeks or months with no one objecting, including by cutting/reduced clearly overly detailed text on tours, record companies and members, and Binksternet and some of those others think that is fine and appropriate behaviour fro them to undertake?? Why? Read the history - Binksternet exhbits excessive, totally uncollaborative behavior over the Pat Benatar article. THe Def Leppard page noted above is one where I had carefully found ways to cut out less important text in order to add relevant text. Why is whether a video was one of the first played on MTV important to the overall impact of a band? It is not. Statement of greatest success "from early 80s to 90s" was partly wrong as they did not have hardly any success from 80 to 82 and is obvious when they read about the 3 albums from 83, 87 and 91. Why is simply saying they had 7 hits in the US from an ablum (which was wrong - a number 80 peak is not a hit - that is biased) adequate without saying how those tracks did in any other countries? It is not - I added key info to which Def Leppard single off Hysteria had actually had success in the most other countries or the only one that was a big hit in the UK.Informed analysis (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed analysis has also made a few thousand edits logged out, working on the same articles as when logged in. See Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21.

Starting in September 2019, Bettydaisies and Larry Hockett tangled with Informed analysis at the Gregory Peck bio. They might have some thoughts about the behavior of this user. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Binkersternet, I gradually added text over several weeks on the Benatar article - no one had any concerns - he then deletes every single word I added - that sure is collaborative. That is warring! He could have reviewed the text and deleted or reworded text he felt was truly wrong. I keep in as much of the text already but reduce its length to more concise/cut out repetitive and then I add informaation that many people seem to have found useful. What song and what country was her first top 10 song. What was her first top 10 song in the US? What was her highest charting single in the US? Stuff that is found in other leads but that Biskernet just did not want to include it here. What albums were her first big hits in other countries. As I full illustrate in the explanation of changes to Benatar segmnets, his text made no sense on which Benatar's biggest album was and suggested her success in Britain ccurred at a different time than it did. It was vague and misleading. As well, many leads give 2 or 3 lines about the band's or artist's early years/origins - for Genenis it gives needless detail on my members/organizers; I added what Benatar did in school and in her early 20s, right from the main body - Binksternet just deleted in without discussion.Informed analysis (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further regarding Binksternet, for Alanis Moressitte's main article (not lead) I gradually added fully referenced chart information, sometimes aggregated i.e. "made top 10 in several countries in Europe" for her entire career over the period of weeks. I pointed out how she how her 4 number one singles in Canada had been number one for something like 30 weeks in a single year. The original article mostly mentioned the US and was wildly inconsistent, i.e giving all chart positions for some minor hits later in her career whereas for signficant hits early on it gave virtually none. So, I had added a larger amount of info so that the article was completely consistent like an encyolpedic article should be. No one had a single objection. He just came in a month latter and reverted every single item of text I had added. Every single item. Clearly that is warring, uncollaborative, acting angerly, and possessive. He should be santioned even moreso than myself. Same with Ritchie.Informed analysis (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have encountered this user regarding Peck’s page. They expanded if, but users on Talk: Gregory Peck thought it much too bloated. I made substantial revisions to Gregory Peck to improve its readability based on the concerns. The user expressed on my talk page unhappiness at this, stating I “began to destroy” “the most thorough” assessment of Peck’s work ever written.

My personal feedback would be that civility should be kept in mind - as well as syntax and professional language. WP employs summary-style to write informative, digestible biographies. The relevancy of the primary subject to information is paramount. The most prominent issues here are struggles with WP:OWNERSHIP and collaboration. Constructive editing cannot be done without the user having a thorough and ensured understanding of the latter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this editor impossible to deal with, in that they're just not interested in abiding by WP:NOR. After clashing with them over this issue at Hard rock, I've seen the editor rewrite leads and article text at other GAs (the Who, the Rolling Stones) where their main aim seems to be to present a more international picture of chart success than just mentioning the UK and US markets. Which would be fine as long as the sources supported that, but most band biographies and books on 1960s and '70s rock music do not discuss a song or album's chart performance in, say, Australia and Canada. Wish that they did.

So, most of these changes at the Who and the Rolling Stones will have to be undone. But I get the feeling that other editors are (like me) holding back until they've got the energy to deal with what most likely will be another head-to-head confrontation, because Informed analysis makes it an issue of personal opinion between themselves and any editor who challenges them – when it's not that, it's about a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The chart statistics I inserted are completely accurate - in some articles I added them to the body first; in others they are from body or from the Discography page on the artist or the page on a specific song. Nothing has to be redone. It is amazing how every different lead on different artists has totally different level of information - some only state singles, some only state albums, some extra short, Aerosmith extra long talking about Rollercoasters and cultural phenonmon without any reference at all. One person says 5 paragraphs should be used, another says 4, another says 3. In every case, I try to include as much as the original text that is there as possible respecting what someone else earlier found important. They should be more similar and when you read all the differnt ones it is like what is going onhere. Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed analysis: Once again you're sidestepping around the pertinent issue – that is, whether the additions are supported by sources in the article, or whether they're original research in the context of the article because the information is unsourced. You're just choosing to focus on their accuracy and, as you see it, the need for such information.

In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed.

A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there.

Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues. So of course they have to be redone or removed if the article's to retain its GA status. And to echo a theme voiced by other editors in this thread – and despite your constant protests to the contrary – no one's going to thank you for compromising the quality of GAs and FAs, and you are in no way collaborative by continually ignoring warnings and other concerns raised on your talk page over the years. You're either wilfully ignoring WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and the like, not to mention WP:BRD with regard to working with other editors, or it's your competence that's the issue. And Ritchie and Binksternet are excellent collaborative editors, by the way.

Your 7–9 February edits at the Beach Boys show you're doing the same to the lead there. You've not added any sources to support the information on the band's Canadian, Australian and mainland European chart achievements. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted ALL the relevant chart information with exact references into the Alanis Morisette, Pat Benetar, Foreigner, Rush, Bryan Adams, Abba, Journey and some other articles - go look at them. Then Binkersnet reverted ALL my additions of that to the Alanis M article three or more times, and refused to allow me to add anything at all; and deleted my addition to the lead of the Pat Benetar article 4 or 5 times. In Hard Rock my additions were mainly to the body and they were deleted. Due to Binksternet and a couple others, I gave up spending a week or more adding all the references to the body before adding things to the lead as it would just get deleted so I just went straight to the lead using information all found at the discography page for the artist or the page for a song or album.Informed analysis (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hard Rock above, that article had random references to the chart positions that certain songs had reached, such as No. 12 for Don't Fear the Reaper and several others. I added the chart positions for some of the acknowledged agree-upon most integral early hard rock songs - Born to Be Wild, Girl, You Really Got Me, etc. and Baracudda by Heart. The other editor just blindly reverted what I added without any explanation - that is edit warring. I asked the editor to explain why the chart positions for certain songs was fine to include but not for more important songs and he did not respond. I added references to songs by certain artists who had no songs mentioned - the songs are listed on external lists of all-time best or most important hard rock songs and he deleted the names of the songs. Sounds uncolaborative. Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My frustrations are similar to the above. After he started synthesizing conclusions from movie critics over and over again (example here), I tried (and failed) to explain WP:SYNTH to him (on the Peck talk page, his user talk page and my user talk page). In hindsight, I could have provided more detailed explanations and showed more patience, but I was frustrated after the IP irregularities became apparent and most of my attempts to explain were met with deflection. (Example: Part of the edit summary for the SYNTH edit above says "go in a delete such statements from all other articles".) Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor at the Peck page kept telling me I should add the exact quotes of the movie review, so I did. Larry kept saying, the the reviews of 1 editor or 2 editors do not represent all reviews of the time period...so I looked up virtually eveyone available and for recent decades focused on 8 or 9 most well-known sources. I bascially did what 2 other editors directed me to do. Some people told me they thought it was an excellent read - there are books (Christopher Tookey) that specifly do that. If you read the point of view guidelines, simply including the quote of one reviewer on one actor's performance in a movie should not be allowed as that is not presented a broad perspective.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with synthesis (such as saying “Critics agree that ..." when no source describes such agreement) were brought to your attention about fifteen months ago. I'm disheartened because there is still not much evidence that you've attempted to understand the guideline. We work all the time with honest editors who have genuine misunderstandings, but when you respond to these IP address concerns by saying you forgot to log in a couple times, that is going to create a certain distrust that makes people lose patience. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hockett - as I have said then and above - why is simply stating the opinion of one critic is isolation proper point of view?? It is not. It is suggesting that that one critic's statement is better than everyones elses. I got heck for just stating one critics opinion on other pages and even at Peck's. That is why I gathered quotes from 12 or 15 critics AND included the exact key part of the quotes PLUS links to the actual webiste, where availabe, and then said "The majority of reviews were positive citing such things as X or X", and then including the most interesting quotes AND allowing them to link directly to all the quotes. The I said "the few negative reviews focussed on X with one saying...." I cannot see how in the world that is wrong compared to someone just including the comment of one reviewer who someone simply decided to be the one they include. I explained this all to you 4 or 5 times in 2019.Informed analysis (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed analysis, I think you're missing the point Larry Hockett is making. I haven't reviewed the article, but from what you've just said it sounds like you're making an unsourced assertion about 'the majority of reviews'. If you collect a bunch of individual critics' comments about a piece of work, they can be used to support assertions about those individual critics' opinions, but presumably none of them say anything about what the majority of critics say, and thus they can't be used to support an assertion about what the majority of critics say. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

regarding inclusion of only one critics opinion of movies, here is text from wikipedia's article on wikipedia:

"Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[95] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as a neutral point of view (NPOV)." This is why I included quotes of numerous critics both from the time a movie was released and in recent decades, not just one quote or viewpoint from one critic that so many other people feel is appropriate, in contravention of wikipedia's principles.Informed analysis (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed analysis I'll try to explain this again. The problem is not using more than one critic. The point is that if you have a bunch of sources, in each of which an individual expresses their own opinion, you can't go from that to say what the majority opinion is - that's where the WP:OR comes in, you are performing research by sampling a bunch of reviews, and determining that that's what the majority view is. I hope that's clearer. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TO EVERYONE: I challenge you to just read the history on Genesis (band) to see Ritchie's methods as he is the one launching this review. You will see he just massively deleted text I added whereas I tried to explain my changes. I challenge you to read the history on Pat Benatar with Binksternet - he was the warring one whereas I tried to reach middle-ground.Informed analysis (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit that I have not read any articles involved and stopped reading Informed analysis's comments above after seeing that this editor considers that getting to number one in Italy was not success in mainland Europe. Anyone who doesn't know that Italy is in mainland Europe cannot be considered qualified to be involved in writing a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that Italy was the only country it charted in - it did not chart in single other European country. That is not "success in Europe." Success is Europe means at least 3 or 4 countries. I wonder how many of you seemingly Americans consider an album going numer one in Canada but not even charting in the US "success in North America" Even when a song has success in 3 or so countries in Europe, people have tended to write "parts of Europe" or "Scandinavia" if that was were the countries were?Informed analysis (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone - I propose a vote of each person who reviews all the above comments - read the current leads on the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Eagles and Genesis, and tell me if you do not think they are an excellent summary (all at length that is still less than Aeorsmith's and the one of Bette Davis - which some other person was trying to add more length too) of those band's careers. You could add Rush to that. No one has objected at to the Rush lead for a few months - but what if Binksternet or Ritchiee suddendly don't like it and revert everything from months ago? I guess that would be fine? For some of these bands, old lead did not even mention they were in the Rock Hall of Fame - how was that not in there???Informed analysis (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone - look at Beach Boys lead - on December 8 editor ILIL rigigdly reversed additions I made listing some of the band's top charting hits (previous version only mentioned 1 or 2 songs) and despite myself explaining my additions (and deletions to make other things more concise) he repeatedly reverted even my moderate, half-way additions. He was showing rigid ownership. I gave up. On Feb. 7 I decided to just add TWO of their number one US ongs to the lead (which is done in many, many other leads). Now someone else (Merjin2), totally on their own, I swear this is not a co-worker (204) or friend of mine, has gone in on their own and added more info on their top charting songs. Clearly, other people agree with adding more on important songs, their chart positions, including outside the US. The problem here is mostly editors who feel they alone own a particular band's article refusing to allow someone like me to objectively analyze the situation and to add other useful information that a vast majority of people have not opposed and in some cases are adding back in themselves. Wikipedia needs to focus on the quality of the leads, and making them consistent which is clearly, in any objective analysis, what I have been doing.Informed analysis (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out edits with Toronto IPs

Informed analysis has acknowledged that they "forgot to log in a couple times", but the problem is much bigger than that. The range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 has made a few hundred edits, and some were clear violations of WP:MULTIPLE, for instance this sequence from yesterday in which Ritchie333 reverts a series of edits from Informed analysis, which is quickly reverted by 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:69EF:EFDF:8697:2E80. Back in October–December 2019, Informed analysis made a concerted effort to fool others into thinking that there were two different people involved in the Gregory Peck article, when it was simply Informed analysis editing logged out using Toronto IPs of the range 204.40.194.0/21. Informed analysis referred to this other editor as "204" in the following edit summaries: "this addition of editor 204 from famous writer Shipman seems useful so I am re-inserting", "I discussed this with editor 204", "204 - these changes show the exact text you need to insert to do it properly..." and "204 - the soft break template shows up in red..." This is bad faith falsification, using two accounts to take advantage of other editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

204 was a friend at work who I used to talk to about making changes. She would make the herself. I could not control what she was doing and aver a year ago she lost interest in doing any more edits and since we now work from home I have not talked to her in ages. I don't know what else to say. This does not excuse Binksternet's repeated huge reversions without working collaboratively or trying to meet halfway as is explicity shown in Pat Benetar and Alanis Morrisette.Informed analysis (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not creative writing class. You and the 204s have the same edit summary style: "the changes I made are totally valid" and "this change is totally valid". Same with you and the 2607:FEA8 IPs: "paragraphing" and "paragraphing". You are all the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's because at work our supervisor and entire unit used the term totally valid and discussed changes to reports we prepared to go to the minister has valid or non-valid. We talked about using that term in our wikipedia edits.Informed analysis (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)th[reply]

Color me disbelieving. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, are you going to accuse me of being Merjin2 at the Beach Boys and Floydian at Genesis too? They are both explicilty agreeing with my changes. And in numerous cases various editors went in and corrected minor errors that I may have left behind, obviously generally agreeing with my changes and trying to assist in their implementatin/finalizationInformed analysis (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Binksternet or Ritchie defending their mass, repeated reversions, refusal to collaborate, and ignoring the explanations I provided. That is because their changes are completely undefendable and they acted in totally inappropriate, edit-warring fashion.Informed analysis (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at the top of the thread, I wrote I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring and that's why I left a lengthy message on the talk page to resolve the dispute. You also asserted I did not discuss my revert on The Who as mentioned by JG66 upthread; which is not true. You also said Floydian supported your changes on Genesis (band) which is not true. If you continue saying things without backing them up with evidence, people are just going to tune out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example where the 2607.fea IP accidentally replied to a discussion between me and IA on my UTP (before deleting the reply). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good example, and the person says they have more "contacts" who agree with them, obviously referring to the IPs working with IA in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And then a few edits later on your talk page, the IP editor continues the charade by implying they are not IA, which is completely false. Purposely violating WP:MULTIPLE for more than a year now. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No substantial talkpage participation

It appears to me that Informed analysis is mistaking this board for a content discussion forum, having saved all this discussion up for years with no talkpage participation, least of all on a bunch of GAs and FAs. Given that the wall of discussion above appears to be in lieu of any article talkpage participation on any of these articles since ... click, click, click ... I give up, at least since last November, I can understand why editors are complaining. IA, you are expected to use talkpages to explain your edits and to gain participation. Your complete absence of such engagement is disruptive and contrary to the editing ethos of this site. I see a whopping 62 talkpage edits on 3902 total edits, apparently with no talkpage participation at all for years. No wonder people are irritated. In short, stop posting here, go to talkpages and make use of them, and make no major changes without gaining consensus first, most of all on high-profile articles. If you return to jumping into articles with big boots and no discussion, you will face sanctions Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the pudding - it is clear that in most articles there is only one editor (the one who feels they are the owner) objecting to the additions/reductions I made, often gradually over weeks; sometimes they only objected several weeks later. As I provided evidence of, some people explicitly and others implicitly agree with the specific and type of additions I made. In most cases, the talk pages have had no discussions in a long time - probably only the one objector would even check there and, given their obvious evidence of rigidly reverted any changes, they would have disagreed on the talk page anyhow. I note that two to three years ago on some webpages I engaged in talk about a few article and got agreement from the only person who commented. Then 1.5 years later someone else came in and changed everything. I objected at first but then gave up. Even the persion who had originally agreed with my approach changed their opinion.Informed analysis (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be under the fundamental misapprehension that you don't need to explain anything. Your edits are being disputed. It's 2021. Use talkpages - this isn't optional. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal : 1RR restriction

I have to admit my patience is now being frayed. Despite working with MetalDiablo666 on the lead at Genesis (band) yesterday, and carefully documenting our findings on the talk page, cross-referencing the MOS where necessary, and despite Acroterion leaving a "seriously, use talk pages" message, I come in today to find Informed analysis has reverted without discussion again.

So I would like to propose : Informed analysis is restricted to the one revert rule. That means they must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Violations of this can be enforced by blocks. Logging out to evade scrutiny and attempt to avoid the restriction can also be enforced by blocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IT SURE IS AMAZING THAT RITCHIE REFUSES TO DISCUSS WHETHER A BAND'S ONLY NUMER ONE SONG IN COUNTRY SHOULD BE MENTIONED. OR IF THEIR FIRST SONG TO GO TOP TEN IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES SHOULD BE MENTIONED. THIS SITE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT QUALITY INFO NOT ABOUT ONE MAN AND MAYBE ONE OTHER PERSION IMPLEMENTING THEIR UNIQUE VIEWS IN A CERTAIN LEAD. He's like Donald Trump spreading false information or news.Informed analysis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ritchie333. This is a good first step to increase article stability and to minimize the frustrations of those dealing with the behavior here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As a minimal measure, given IA's unwillingness to abide by or seek consensus, or discuss his changes with other editors in a meaningful way (rather than talking at them), and his continually branding every dissenter as the bad guy when other editors have merely been protecting article content that's been reviewed and, by implication, agreed upon by consensus, and/or ensuring that articles aren't bloated by the inclusion of chart data. This user has had multiple warnings on his talk page about original research and adding unsourced content, requests to use the Bold–revert–discuss cycle, and other behavioural issues that have come to light here. The WP:MULTIPLE concerns also suggest he's not contributing positively, imo, but is more concerned about "winning" the point each time. (As I commented with a post I made here, I'd like sanctions extended to a topic ban.) This recent comment at Genesis is arrogant and absurd; Genesis are synonymous with Charisma Records ... On this noticeboard, Chrisahn added a comment with an edit that, although addressing an entirely different report, I thought was perfect for the user that's the subject of this one: "Please take this to heart: 'If multiple people are telling me I'm wrong – there's a pretty good chance that I am wrong.'" JG66 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at a minimum. Any measure that will bring IA to talk pages is a step in the right direction. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think stronger sanctions may be required, but this is a minimum. They have to start using talk pages.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a minimum measure. IR has taken to this board to debate content instead of discussing behavior, and has also failed to provide diffs and engaged in WP:PA. Aside from the current block, cordial attempts from multiple editors to encourage IR to cooperate haven’t worked. They must show willingness to listen and learn to make any constructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettydaisies (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support From my experience with the editor, half of their changes have been welcome improvements, while the rest simply involve the addition of tedious chart data, the removal of vital information, or grammar "fixes" that corrupt the nuance of a statement so much that it causes factual errors to appear. Also, seems to have difficulty proposing or accepting compromises. ili (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People - before you issue your "support" for the above, go read the version of Genesis that I last inserted and compare it to the last version issued by by Ritchie333. Think - his version contains minute detail about some guy name King who helped the band do their first recording etc. etc. etc. His version talks about recruition of some guy named Ray Wilson for their last album. It does not mention their only US numbr one single. It does not mention what single was their first to go to the top 10 in a good number of countries (their first true "international hit") and in the US. It omits any mention of the songs considered to be their most significant songs. It totally omits any detail on their most successful albums? Does anyone who reads the lead, who has no prior knowledge of Genesis get a true sense of when they achieved success by the current text? Do any readers read it and when they see a key song listed think "oh yeah, I recall that song - I do know who they are after all??? In response to a point Richtee made, Florian specifically said he/she supported the gist of what I was adding - look it up.

The Genenis lead deviates from what many othe lead articles covered even before I made any changes. He and one other persion have some strange focus on keeping the content they like - BUT that is not the content that the average reader would find useful. If any Univeristy prof read the Genesis lead proposed by Ritchie33 and gave it a mark, they would give it probably 60% - extra detail where not needed and important detail excluded. THINK PEOPLE. This should not be about protecting the unique opinions of someone who thinks they own a page, but about creating a high quality product. Some of the above persons specifically said the only issue was that the seemingly useful detail should be in the article, which I began to do with the Who article.Informed analysis (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked Informed analysis for 60 hours for continued abuse of this noticeboard to argue content and to disparage other editors. I expect them to address their own behavior, and this action does not preclude continuation of discussion here about further community sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: and @William Allen Simpson: used pejorative terms in a recent CFD ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent ) we were involved with, namely "Delete another useless descent category (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) without any indication that "Lower Yangtze descent" is definable or meaningful. " and "That's because your premise is both absurd and useless. " Upon closer inspection these two users also have a long history of using such terminology in deletion debates even though it is specifically advised against in WP:ATA. As such I find little faith of their ability to participate in CFD with integrity. I'm only posting here because I have spoken directly to both of them about it, and they refused to even strike their offending comments, whereas a third user who used similar language has taken this exact action.

Carlossuarez46 has also indicated he will report me for canvassing and inappropriate talk page usage. I will agree to stop messaging either of them directly about matters related to this issue.

--Prisencolin (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46, these highlighted comments are an example of "belittling a fellow editor", see WP:IUC. Please be kinder in your comments. A simple apology would have avoided this escalating. Fences&Windows 22:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I never called him useless; the categories are - and per WP:ATA I described why they were. He/she is personalizing a content dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, thanks for advising me about this discussion, because contrary to the instructions the OP did not so notify me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I indicated my intention of bringing the issue to this board to both of you a few days ago, I think that's enough. If it pleases you I have now posted the notice template to both of your talk pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Prisencolin: it's not and never is. When the big box says you must notify, it means around the time you start discussion. (Most people notify immediately after, but it would be fine to post just before.) People shouldn't have to follow your contribs to know if or when you follow through with your plans in a day or two. (Obviously if an editor says something like, thanks, I will follow you contribs, you don't have to notify me again then it's fine to follow that.) And pings aren't enough even after you said you might do it a few days ago for the same reasons they aren't enough if you never said anything. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those statements are commentary on the contributions, not the editor. Not pleasant to receive but not personal attacks, not "belittling a fellow editor", and certainly not a reason to raise steam at ANI. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that those terms weren't directed ad hominem, but the fact that they are used cast doubts on the motives of these editors.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to highlight a larger pattern of these two editors systematically ignoring my evidence (supported by reputed scholars in the field), and relying on their own subjective judgement about a topic they know little to nothing about. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS appears to be at play.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless you've got some better difs, I can't see this ending any other way besides "Well that wasn't all that nice, but they're not even really personal attacks, let alone anything actionable". Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those would relate to my second concern which is the fact that they are consistently ignoring whatever reliable sources I put out. I've asked about this issue on IRC and they suggested I take that concern here too.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how you think that is heading towards something actionable either. I think you all just need to disengage for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more I look through the these users' recent history with CFD (see the sub-section), the more I realize this is actually a small part of a broader issue, which is potentially damaging to the project. I don't know whether it's an issue with the users, the CFD process or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The way I see it, if your argument and sources really destroys the argument of the other two, then the CFD should clearly close in you favour and no major harm done. If the two name editors really persistently add useless comments to CFDs and are always wrong, perhaps we will take action. But we're not going to take action over two or three or even ten CFDs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • How would you even go about proving this though? In a discussion a few places above this one, there is a discussion concerning possible sanctions over a user’s obsessive AFD activity. It lists the discussions and outcomes of 30 nominations given by the editor. I personally have little interest in compiling this kind of data, but I do hope that some kind of increased oversight over the CFD process can come out of this notice board request.Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Prisencolin (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand what you mean by "increased oversight". You've presented zero evidence of an actual problem with CFD. As always, since it's a consensus discussion and not a vote, if someone's arguments are not persuasive e.g. because they ignored sources, then they will largely be ignored. If someone is wasting people's time by making them read an excessive number of useless comments, then perhaps they can be sanctioned e.g. topic banned from CFD. But you will need sufficient evidence that this is a problem, which is either more than 3 discussions, or extremely excessive participation (i.e. a lot of comments) in 3 those 3 discussions. Frankly, having looked more closely inspired by RevelationDirect's comment below, your participation seems to be the bigger problem since you're coming awfully close to WP:Bludgeoning considering you seem to have replied to nearly every !vote. While most of your comments are short, it is unlikely there is something so unique about each comment that you need to repeat yourself 8 times or whatever. So I'm even more perplexed what sort of increased oversight you want. You could just stop posting to that discussion rather than asking for your actions to be restricted. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the CFD discussions, there is often a healthy tension between subject matter experts in a topic area and those more familiar with the categorization processes and notability generally which I think is what's being described above. Rather than being a negative, those differing but complimentary viewpoints generally produce better results for the encyclopedia's categorization. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Nil Einne, I had to repeat myself numerous times because the same few editors would make the same remarks that were untrue, and did not bother reading my previous replies to other comments about why they were untrue. Namely, in this discussion, William Simpson made a !vote saying "delete both per nom, not an ethnicity", I then (after a few other comments) presented evidence that it is considered an ethnicity. In the follow up CFD, Simpson reiterated the same sentiment he had before, to which I also correct him with another example, and he does not reply further. This kind of stonewalling is why I'm rather frustrated with this particular user, and if you look at his talk page it appears that others have had issues with him as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. conduct in CFD

To further illustrate examples of questionable conduct at CFD please refer to: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4#Category:One-thousanders. A user put up an earnest question about a series of technical classifications for mountains used in the sport of mountaineering, and Carlossuarez46 inserted his opinion that they should all be deleted as he believed it to be some arbitrary measure invented by editors. This was apparently done without WP:BEFORE finding out more about the subject matter. I believe admin action should be taken if he continues down this pattern of behavior.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Prisencolin has been busy posting a WP:VERBOSE attack here overnight, the same as much of her/his "discussion". This is abusive.

1. Obviously, I've A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines; I've been involved in writing them for ~16 years, and am a former developer who was involved in creating Categories for Discussion.
2. Carlos has been active for even longer, and is a long-time administrator.
3. Prisencolin recreated a nearly identical category after deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent, resurrecting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Category:People of Shanghainese descent.
4. That is against WP:CSD#G4 policy.
5. We don't categorize descent of people "by city or region". Descent is a WP:CATNAME#Heritage category. The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged. The place of birth or emigration status of ancestors is even less notable.
6. I was the original editor of the Heritage and WP:CATNAME#Residence subsections of our guideline.
7. Prisencolin is abusing Wikipedia review processes (both here and at CfD) as method of attack, both personal and procedural.

Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I posted the discussion to WP:HELPDESK and another editor suggests that my participation in the discussion is not even particularly long to warrant WP:WALLOFTEXT objections (he did suggest it could be WP:BLUDGEON based on my insistence to reply to everything, but I think that's just a result of my being the only person to defend niche content on an obscure board.

1. Nothing to say, you have both worked on the project for a very long time for sure.
2. --
3. It's clearly not G4 because it's intended to be a much broader category than the first one, a fact that you summarily ignored when I pointed out to you
4. The admins appear to agree at this moment seeing as they G4 categories in CFD all the time. Given that I was the only one to work on the category, I requested WP:G7 deletion, in order to focus on a WP:DRV which was recommended by the closing admin when I spoke to him direclty. It is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING because DRV is a widely used path of negotiation.
5. "We do not classify based on descent of people "by city or region" is literally just a made up policy that you insist on re-stating over and over in these discussions; it does not exist in the guideline you linked (If such a policy exists somewhere I apologize for misunderstanding and will remove this statement). Such categories do actually exist as well, I may add. e.g. Category:People of Catalan descent, Category:Bavarian emigrants to the United States. This classification is also not exclusive to people who's place of birth is Shanghai, so that part doesn't apply. --Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we're arguing the WP:CFD over here as well. I wish to redirect attention back to the hasty and uninformed deletion of content performed at CFD. Perhaps they have been working at CFD for so long that they have become too accustomed to using their intuition rather than search for answered when a challenge confront them.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Prisencolin is out of line; he or she is posting on CFD participants' talk pages, in their user space, all to forward some agenda that is specifically targeted to anyone who disagrees with him or her at CFD. This has got to stop. Will someone uninvolved talk sense to them before they cause more problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will attempt to explain my recent talk page messages to the best of my ability as I believe Carlossuarez is conflating a few things, using the chronology I found using the advanced contribution search. The first message I sent in relation to the CFD was an attempt on 28 January to get an explanation from User:Good Olfactory about the closing of Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. Soon after I messaged User:Marcocapelle, who had nominated the CFD, about re-creating the category now that I added more information to a header article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong , Marcocapelle did not directly reply to the new evidence, but stated the CFD had already closed. I then went ahead and created a new category on that same day, and the category was put up for CFD (and not tagged for G4 directly I may add) by Marcocapelle a while later on 5 February. At this point I messaged him about the nomination again, and asked why the new one did not satisfy inclusion criteria even though I had worked extensively on it, and he gave a similar non-response. During the course of the CFD the two users who were mentioned in the initial ANI post made !votes on the CFD, and I took issue with the way they phrased their comments. I messaged both about this issue, and asked that they strike the comment I perceived as uncivil (per WP:RUC) but did not get a reply immediately. On 7 February a third user, User:RevelationDirect, used similar language in their !vote, so I spoke to them about it, and they agreed to strike the comment on that same day, and thanked me for taking it to their talk page, rather than the CFD discussion, thus implying that my course of action was correct. I went to User:Good Olfactory about my intentions to go forward with a DRV. William Allen Simpson replied back on his talk page, choosing not to comply with my request. I informed Carlos Suarez and William Allen Simpson about an impending ANI notice on 8 February, and got a reply from Suarez which I interpret as WP:BAITING ("Go ahead. You will not intimidate me. ") and he suggested that I may be breaking WP:CANVASSing rules. Carlos Suarez alludes to my activity on his userspace, and that regards a message I posted on his essay User talk:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories, in which I express concern over his appearance as an authority on academic disciplines which study ethnic identity and descent, where he doesn't appear to have any credentials in this field. This was not related to any specific discussion, but rather I felt the need to do this because he will often post this essay to CFD threads. Anyone who wants to review my claims can see my contribs filtered by User Talk space. I will also refrain from directly posting to anyone's talk page for at least a week.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's best to keep the conversation in CFD so we can all follow it. (The one on my talk page was fine since it wasn't on the substantive category discussion.) It looks like you were on every talk page of anyone who !voted, correct? - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 6 !voters and I think I messaged 5 about their wording. To be honest I'm having trouble recalling the events between the two CFD's.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been very frustrating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (involved editor) This concerns a regular content discussion, it does not belong at ANI at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (involved editor) I'll add some more context with this discussion on my talk page that I originally thought was from Carlossuarez46 but was from Prisencolin. For background, I was concerned that every !vote at the Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent discussion being met with a lengthy but generic rebuttal from Prisencolin and I made a (since stricken) snarky comment in reply. I remain concerned with overly lengthy posts, as evidenced above, but will defer to others on the ANI. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you feel someone is Bludgeoning the discussion, then just say something like "please take care to avoid WP:Bludgeoning". This is more likely to be useful than a snarky comment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound advice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time this is also a good advice to User:Prisencolin, namely please avoid bludgeoning. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping by Prisencolin

Prisencolin started an RFC on the Talk page of the nominated category. Rather than a short statement, it is yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've closed WP:RFCNOT. Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is not about "Renaming categories," which is prohibited by by WP:RFCNOT, it's about creating a definition for said category with help from actual experts in history and geography. (this should be obvious if one actually read the text of the RFC...) The outcome is intended to have no bearing on the CFD. One again, you are ignoring everything I have to say..--Prisencolin (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's forum shopping, but it certainly does not seem productive to start such a conversation there since, if the CFD is successful, the associated category talk page would also be deleted so you would lose any of the input you are trying to gather.- RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the RFC, you can see that I was trying to find a way to move the text back into the CFD (which is commonly done). Also, talk pages of deleted pages can be permanently restored (eg Talk:Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence/Archive_1 (although now that I think about it it may only be there because the admin forgot to delete it...) .—Prisencolin (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for racism in category names by Prisencolin

Prisencolin's most recent comments are beyond the pale:

We do not remove content that can be construed as racist WP:NOTCENSORED and all social science (and science in general), is going to be biased in some way. Some fields (like IQ research) can be criticized more frequently for their biases, but I don’t think that’s a reason to exclude WP:POV depictions of said research on the encyclopedia.

— —-Prisencolin (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of racism...—Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the pale means "bounds of morality, good behaviour or judgment in civilized company." That there was a pale in Ireland, and a pale in Russia, and there have been others, does not mean this expression has or ever has had anything to do with racism. (The Pale is the monthly newsletter of the SCA Middle Kingdom where I'm located.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment by Prisencolin

@Prisencolin: should be talked to about his or her behavior such as [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2021_February_11&type=revision&diff=1006455344&oldid=1006453101%7Cad hominin attacks]] since retracted and apparently trying to impersonate me on another editor's talk page. [[74]]. He or she retracted the first and corrected the second, but this editor's behavior - originating in a content dispute - moved into wikilawyering (I hope this editor realizes that he or she is misciting various policies or accusing me of violating essays), and has now moved beyond that. See our policy of Wikipedia:Harassment where "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't get this behavior; it's repeated on many of the people who disagree with this editor on content matters and this editor attacks editors about their knowledge, opinions, and credibility. I ask that it stop and that some admin make it stop. Whether there is an element of racism or not as posited above I haven't fathomed but the behavior - regardless of its motivation - must stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I was misidentified by another user as you, it was a legitimate mistake in not signing my comment, and I further have no idea why you are accusing me of impersonating you... My complaint, which I have tried to illustrate on this board is that you and probably others on CFD are carelessly... no let's use a more neutral term, just voting for deletion given your own opinion with WP:BEFORE carrying out the checks. Admittedly BEFORE is a guideline for AFD, and for nominations, but I feel it should still apply for voting. CFD resembles Wikimobocracy due to the small number of users involved, as the high proportion of categories deleted (from a cursory glance). Further, it almost feels like a bit of a trap when an editor brings up a category for renaming, and the category immediately gets voted for deletion even though that was no their intention. Perhaps Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion should be spun-off. It's not for me to say whether it was harassment or not, but so far no one seems to what I did was otherside the lines of civility other than yourself.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you were misidentified is likely because you forgot to sign, but did link to Carlossuarez46's talk page at the end of your comment. [75] I agree you clearly weren't trying to impersonate anyone, but an important reminder why you should always make sure you sign. If people are voting in CFD, that's a problem. But AFAIK, you've presented no evidence people are voting at CFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I misidentified the poster. FWIW, I would have taken the same corrective action regardless of which editor brought it to my attention. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing against consensus by Prisencolin

Closed as keep Prisencolin is an involved party, and therefore not eligible to close. This is currently at 7 delete (most of them speedy G4), to 1 Keep (Prisencolin).

Fortunately, it was promptly reverted.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened there, maybe a misclick (I've never used XFDcloser so I have no idea what it's like). But while closing would clearly be inappropriate, I don't see any reason to worry about a close reverted the same minute it was performed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:XFDcloser, I think a quick close could easily be performed in two clicks very close together. Probably especially easy on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was clearly accidental, as third parties have noted. Why is this even being reported to this board?--Prisencolin (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to "misclick" XFDcloser — it requires at least 2 clicks to operate, and a final click to execute. The problem is this removed the discussion from various groups and pages. The revert in place did not restore them. Clever method to limit discussion, and nevertheless a problem caused by a problematic editor.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent has been closed as delete.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@William Allen Simpson: You're completely wrong. See Special:Contributions/Nil Einne. I should have trusted my instincts and the documentation. If you use the quick close, only 2 clicks are required, and these are very close together as I said in my first followup above. Basically you click quick close then options appear below it and you click one, and then by the time you managed to click abort, you find you've made 30 edits you need to revert if you stupidly chose a CFD with lots of categories for discussion. I guess you've never used a smart phone or tablet, but believe me this would be very easy to do accidentally on one. A little harder on a device without a touch screen, still not that hard. If Prisencolin did not properly revert their close, you should talk to them about it rather than wasting ANI time on stupidness like this. There's no evidence this is anything but an accident, your lack of knowledge of how the XFDcloser works, and how people use devices not withstanding. (Yes I'm incredibly frustrated because I just wasted 10 minutes and messed up Wikipedia because I decided to trust you but you were wrong. Okay yes I chose a terrible example to try this on, and should have killed my internet connection before trying but meh.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct that I've never used a smart phone or tablet to edit wikipedia. However, the rest of your post is entirely speculative. As you mention, even a quick close requires both a selection of a pulldown menu and a minimum of 2 clicks. There is no likelihood of accident.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify I only had and have one option when I open the quick close menu, quick keep. I assume it's because I'm not an admin but I'm not sure. Maybe if you do have quick delete as an option you do have a third click for that option, again no idea. It's fairly beside the point since keep was what was done. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More importantly, Prisencolin should not have been using XFDcloser on a discussion where s/he was participating. That's unlikely to be an accident. Edit is at the far right margin, the easiest to select.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin view on reliable sources

Followup to Prisencolin's original posting:

Please tell me that Oxford University Press and the Los Angeles Times are "absurd and useless." I may be inclined to believe you if you argued they are absurd and useless leftist propaganda machines.

— Prisencolin (talk)

This section of diatribe reveals possible political motivations for relentless attacks on fellow editors. It is congruent with the expressed support for racism in category names.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi everyone! I'm here to discuss the editing behavior of Wright Stuf and the user's failure to drop the stick on Talk:Wright Flyer, as well as their continued disruption on the page. This issue was first brought to my attention on my user talk page here by BilCat. Wright Stuf and other editors have been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page here, but it has quickly turned into finger-pointing, incivility, and other drama - and I believe this to be mostly caused by Wright Stuf. If you see their user talk page here, it is littered full of warnings, requests to drop the stick, and requests for the user to stop their disruption there. It hasn't stopped, and I believe that action is required in order to put a stop to the disruption. I'm not sure exactly how I should go about handling this properly, so I'm turning to the community for input. Should this user be partially blocked from the article's talk page? But then, in my mind, the discussion and finger-pointing will just move elsewhere. If I fully-block the user, I fear that it'll just continue after the block expires, and will only set them off and make them cause further disruption. How should I go about handling this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's way over 3RR. Far too invested in his own notions to collaborate. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reviewing that case can clearly see that I Dropped the Stick and walked away 3 times. Each time in my absence, my posts were tampered with. It is my GREATEST DESIRE to exit that page. Exit cleanly. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Stuf - ...But you came back after others removed the discussion, restored it, and continued to edit war over it. Why? Dropping the stick means that you move on, and you clearly haven't done so. As evidenced by your responses here and here (among others), you clearly haven't discussed the issue peacefully, and you're continuing to push your thoughts when others have indicated that it's time to move on. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I committed to staying away for the remainder of 2021. I hope that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue. Among other WP violations I've flagged.

As for 3RR, I never once did more than 3 reverts on anything. Binksternet's claim is a distortion.

And you'll all see that the MUCH BIGGER ISSUE at the root of the entire discussion is lack of Policy. This entire mess could have been easily avoided if WP:Colorization existed. But it doesn't. LOTS needing to be fixed here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: pushing my thoughts...

The part I have been insistent on since I walked away the first time days ago is simply that my posts remain unmolested in my absence. I see this to be perfectly reasonable. Especially since I was the one conforming to long established consensus. Established in 2014. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I'm the editor who first reverted Wright Stuf's addition of their colorized photo and their simultaneous deletion of the historic black & white photo of the first flight in two articles: Wright brothers and Wright Flyer. Their argument is based on the fallacy that consensus about photo colorization among editors in another article (Ilia Chavchavadze) compels the same result in these two articles. That's what they are referring to when harping on the idea "that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue", "established in 2014". (Postscript: someone just swapped the colorized photo back to b&w in the Chavchavadze article, so the "consensus" there is not as certain as WS believes.) DonFB (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You FAIL to grasp the concept of Consensus. The rationale presented (here) for removing the colorized image for this new b&w image was that it was a "better quality photo". Notice that in SIX AND A HALF YEARS, absolutely no one has posted any rebuttal whatsoever to Centpacrr's excellent rationale for using the colorized image:

Talk:Ilia_Chavchavadze#fake_photograph

Consensus from 2014 remains standing to this very day. Swapping to a higher quality image which happens to be b&w does not change the long established Consensus on the proper use of colorization. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation at Talk:Wright Flyer

Wright Stuf reverted many times at Talk:Wright Flyer.

• Feb 11, 12:28 UTC – reverted cot template
• Feb 11, 15:01 UTC – reverted cot template
• Feb 11, 15:21 UTC – reverted cot template
• Feb 12, 05:55 UTC – reverted hat template
• Feb 12, 06:53 UTC – reverted hat template
• Feb 12, 07:05 UTC – reverted hat template
• Feb 12, 19:26 UTC – reverted deletion of trolling post
• Feb 12, 19:50 UTC – reverted deletion of one line break (intended as a null edit, to continue argument in edit summaries)
• Feb 12, 20:18 UTC – reverted deletion of trolling post
• Feb 12, 20:24 UTC – reverted deletion of trolling post

I count six reverts in 24 hours, or seven if you count the null edit which was technically a manual reversion. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By my eye, those look like SEPARATE ISSUES. Never more than 3 on any.

Furthermore...

Permissible reverts on VANDALISM is unlimited. I made multiple requests for anyone to explain why my posts being repeatedly tampered with was not vandalism. My requests were repeatedly ignored. By Binksternet, among others. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Your argument is invalid, that you were attending to "separate issues". And if you read the policy page at Wikipedia:Vandalism you will not see any support for your second argument. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:VANDALISM is very clear on what constitutes vandalism. What happened on the talk page for Wright Flyer does not meet the criteria for vandalism. WP:3RR is very clear on how many reverts an editor may perform to a page outside of vandalism. 3RR applies to any page on the encyclopaedia, not just article pages. 3RR is also quite clear on the exceptions allowed, and the reversions on Talk:Wright Flyer do not fall into those exemptions. 3RR has quite clearly been exceeded even after the editor was warned. Yesterday Wright Stuf even posted the policies on 3RR exemptions on their talk page, so it's clear that they had read them. They have chosen to interpret that policy in a way no one else is interpreting it and continue to double down in their disruptive editing to push their editing preferences (preferences which are clearly against consensus on that talk page and are in my opinion violations of WP:OR, colourising an image is original research to determine what the colours were, their hue etc.) I think it's quite clear what needs to be done here so I have done it. They keep claiming they wish to walk away from it, if the editor returns to editing after the block it may be an idea to block them from the Wright Flyer article and talk page if disruption continues. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail - Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canterbury Tail - I concur. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing an opinion which runs counter to Consensus does not change that Consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about a consensus, yet there is no such consensus on the talk page for the Wright Flyer. Please point out where a consensus is for using a colorized picture on the Wright Flyer article. Anyway I'm not concerned with consensus (which having read the talk page of Wright Flyer extremely clearly exists and the consensus is to NOT have a colorized image), that is a content issue on the page. When I blocked you I did not ignore consensus as you have claimed on your talk page, I simply acted due to edit warring and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 02:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a 24-hour block, Wright Stuf is back with a disruptive edit to the same talk page. I have tried, along with other editors, to encourage them to move on (on that talk page and on their user talk), but all we get is very long indignant speeches and no improvement to the actual article. I would like to propose they are blocked from editing on Wright Flyer and the article talk page. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My return to that Talk was after I found key policy guidance which I had hoped would shed light. It was not to discuss. It was intended to illuminate, and then I leave for the remainder of the year. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "key policy guidance" is still based on your totally unfounded idea that a previous consensus was established. There was no previous consensus for what you want to do at the Wright Flyer page. The more you insist there was previous consensus, the deeper you dig your hole. Let it go... Start to work on a new consensus, or work to establish project-wide guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I announce that I leave for all of 2021, and people cry here, telling me to let it go. I have. I have no plans to return there. I added no "very long indignant speech" whatsoever. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I honestly think you're just trolling now. At this point it's becoming apparently clear you are fast approaching being unable and unwilling to collaborate with other editors. It appears that you're only interested in making demands and hurling around accusations that people are ignoring a non-existent consensus and are approaching Wikipedia editing as it being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you continue to accuse or mention to other editors again that a consensus exists, that they're ignoring a precedent or consensus, or continue to make demands you will be blocked. If you wish to discuss with other editors in a civilized manner to see if you can amicably resolve your differences and maybe make some traction on pushing forward a solution that involves colorized images on Wikipedia, then great. However if you continue to bang on about some consensus for Wright Flyer that quite clearly at this point only exists in your mind, and continue your combative approach to this, on any page space be it talk, mainspace or user, then it's clear that you're no longer compatible with this project and you will be blocked indefinitely. Canterbury Tail talk 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the impression I get is that WS is willing to walk away if they have their way? I think they need help in walking away and staying away. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban proposal

Just a glance over the editor's behavior is appalling, and after taking some time to analyze the editor's responses to the accusations levied against them, the behavior that is on display both in this thread and on the editor's talk page is a flagrant violation of the most basic expectations of conduct on this site. For example, [76] "Either that, or you don't know how to count to FOUR." This is clearly unnecessary, and in my view, at least, borders on a personal attack. Somehow, the editor has additionally accused other editors of "gaslighting" for telling the editor to stop their problematic edit-warring behavior. [77] Accusations of "gaslighting" should not be flying around, and are clearly incivil and unnecessary. After being given a short block, they have continually attempted to light more fires, and, as far as I can tell, have not made any significant contributions to the project, but instead, have taken the time to write attacks against other editors, sometimes lengthy, sometimes short.

And it is because of this clear pattern of behavior that I propose that the editor be indefinitely site-banned. The editor is likely to just continue on their talk page, however, so I would also place as a provision of this site ban, that their talk page access be revoked, and that an appeal to the community be sent through email to an administrator, or through UTRS. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in favor of the below proposal. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Meh. UTRS ain't all it's cracked up to be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose User has only been blocked once and that was for this. Moving to a site ban seems precipitous, given lesser remedies having not been tried. WS seems emotionally engaged with his whole colorization thing and is not thinking clearly. Perhaps time away from the subject will help them clear their mind. Oh. Need to amend my TBAN proposal to include colorized images. @Wright Stuf: is there some non wiki reason you are so het up/emotionally invested in colorization that it is affecting your judgment? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal TBAN on Wright Flyer for WS

Let's not be overly hasty and fly off the handle. Six month TBAN on Wright Flyer, enforced by partial blocks, with the understanding that WS edit constructively and collaboratively on other subjects. Understanding that further disruption or incivility will result in further blocking. With the understanding that the TBAN applies Wikipedia wide, including their talk page. To be reviewed after six months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amending above to include image colorization uploads. Seems to be stuck in WS's craw. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much better idea than the site ban proposal I made above. My support of this is for the same reasoning as the striked out portion in the above section. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to support because I am unable to confirm the so-called consensus they refer to. That is tendentious IMO & worthy of break from the topic for the benefit of WP. But the wording is confusing. What if they do not violate the TBAN re: the article, but they are uncivil or uncollaborative elsewhere; would the article TBAN be lifted but the other restrictions remain? Why not just partial block from the article now, and if they don't violate the other requirements, then lift after 6 months? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my notice above. --Ariadacapo (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Having looked over the history, the overall problem appears to be that WS is trying to exercise ownership of the page, which is why they came back to it after saying that they were leaving it and were satisfied (but then someone else edited it). The more specific problem is the edit-warring over the colorized image. A topic-ban, enforced by partial blocks, is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dtt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashish Chanchlani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ashish+Chanchlani

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani (2nd nomination)

Dtt1 is tendentiously attempting to create an article on this Youtuber. Articles have already been created and deleted as A7, and then created and deleted after AFD, and created with a variant title in order to game the history, and deleted after AFD. The title was then salted, but a Deletion Review said that re-creation should be allowed. There may have been a misreading of the DRV as to whether re-creation was allowed in draft or in article space, but it has been re-created yet again in article space, and has been tagged for deletion by User:Pradixicae. The current AFD should simply be allowed to run, but then Dtt1 filed a case request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which does not handle deletion disputes. I have closed the DRN request as forum shopping. This was vexatious litigation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above, more name gaming about a week ago: Draft:Ashish chanchalani (see Teahouse thread 1 and Teahouse thread 2). That was not created by Dtt1 but by a new user who has since been globally locked as a LTA. It looks like there is a marketing push to get an article about Chanchlani created. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Someone with OTRS access please have a look at this Ticket:2021021310003214. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I here on Wikipedia work on articles which are salted or banned despite of the fact that they have sufficient coverage and ARE notable, and the same I am doing with Ashish Chanchlani the fact that he passes WP:RS cannot be denied, If we keep aside the fact of his multiple notable award winning then also he has multiple RS sources and I recreated the article on the base of all the new sources which wasn't there in the afd's, and if we talk about the references this here on Forbes India piece (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece which is by The author, Mansvini Kaushik, who was employed by Forbes at the time of publication and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Similarly, the Entrepreneur piece (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458) here is also a staff profile which is independent, and also there are sources like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) Wikipedia:INDIANEXP this which is again mentioned in wp:rs so how come I am paid or wrong if I attempted to create them? Parmish Verma was also salted and banned from recreation despite of the fact that he was well Notable and was having good refs available and I am being blamed as a UPE where I am trying to create articles on pages which ARE NOTABLE in India and just because we lack knowledgeable editors the fact that these people are notable can't be denied.Dtt1^Talk 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title Blacklist

I recommend that Chanchlani be title blacklisted to prevent future gaming of naming protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And to add onto this, I don't think the suspicions here are remotely unfounded or coincidental. Nearly every page move Dtt1 has done is moving sock-spam (or coi-spam) into mainspace:

Rohanpreet Singh - created by a declared paid/coi editor, moved within 24 hours of submission by Dtt1 who was a "brand new" user at the time

Draft:Rohan Solomon - recreated by dtt1 following CarryMint's several blocks

Draft:Toranj Kayvon/Toranj Kayvon - recreated/moved by dtt1, following known upe sock farm, Shringhringshring's block

Pratik Gauri/Draft:Pratik Gauri - moved by dtt1, sock spam by ShaiksKings

Khushi Shah/Draft:Khushi Shah - moved by dtt1, which also led to their temporary block for socking, from the ImSonyR9 a well known and prolific paid sock farm

R Nait/Draft:R Nait - moved by dtt1, a creation by a prolific spammer Swarup Kumar Solanki

Yasir Akhtar - moved by dtt1, created by known spammer Ayesha Mallik just weeks after their block and Dtt1 joining

Bandish Bandits - moved by dtt1, created by Godiswithyou

Viral Shah - another ImSonyR9 upe creation, even acknowledged by Dtt1, moved to mainspace

Just Sul - yet another ImSonyR9 UPE creation

Yasser Desai - their first page move, a long term spam target by a variety of spam socks, was moved to mainspace by dtt1 within hours of becoming extendedconfirmed

I could continue but I think my point is demonstrated here. When you hear hoofbeats... It seems so unlikely to the point of improbability that Dtt1 is some special unicorn who has just showed up at all of these paid-for-spam articles out of happenstance. CUPIDICAE💕 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-Ban

I recommend a topic-ban against Dtt1 having to with Ashish Chanchlani.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per the clear case presented by Robert McClenon - wolf 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite

• Indef, there's no way Dtt1 is not an UPE as mentioned in this SPI from September – Thjarkur (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• support both a tb and indef should they come back. My UPE suspicions aside, Dtt1 lacks the competence to edit BLPs, as evidenced by my multiple warnings to them about sources and their continued insistence that policy based decisions regarding said sources are "reliable." It's like talking to a brick wall. I'll also note, failing an indef, a BLP topic ban broadly construed should be placed to prevent further disruption. They've been warned about BLPs, sourcing and deprecation but insist on adding unreliable sources to support content in blps. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef as UPE per the evidence in Ticket:2021021310003214 and other indications of being a paid editor such as their vehement defence of this spam magnet by citing SEO spam sites, their attempts to do the same elsewhere and their moving of sock spam to mainspace. Blablubbs|talk 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For context, the ticket provides credible evidence that Dtt created Ashish Chanchlani in exchange for undisclosed payments. Blablubbs|talk 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef for UPE - There's no way this isn't UPE. On Wiki evidence is clear enough, OTRS ticket takes the cake. Wikipedia isn't for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef for UPE - This editor had drawn my attention when they tried to create Sapna Choudhary Draft:Sapna Choudhary a salted page made by multiple socks previously. His creation log is full of promotional non-notable pages that have been deleted. Ticket:2021021310003214 is damming too. All in all in my opinion there is enough here for a Indif block for undisclosed paid editing. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef for UPE - 2021021310003214. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef for UPE per the ticket and edits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef – pretty obvious UPE issues even though I can't see the ticket. And this post is a prime example of other problems discussed above (WP:IDHT, difficulty/refusal to understand the requirements for sources for BLPs, which turns into a time sink for other editors). --bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Site-Ban as per comment by Bonadea about above post by subject editor saying that they work on items that are salted and banned. That is, the subject editor is saying that they are here to break the rules. I've inserted a subhead for the calls for indefinite block. I can't see the ticket, but I can see what amounts to a middle finger. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors are repeatedly removing a merge template from an article, but the merge discussion has not yet been closed. See [78], [79]. I attempted to discuss this on the talk page but ExoEditor continues to remove the template, and Kepler-1229b has put a 3RR notice on my talk page, even though I was careful not to violate 3RR. In addition, ExoEditor (formerly Albertheditor) has baselessly accused me of sockpuppetry in the past, which was discussed in a previous ANI thread. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Kepler-1229b's talk page, they seem to have a history of reverting constructive edits. They have also been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet investigation was a false accusation, and there were only two or three incidents of reverting constructive edits, and one of them was ended by another editor. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. On one hand, you did technically break the three revert rule, but on the other hand, I would do the exact same, and would consider removing merge templates for a merge being discussed obvious vandalism or disruptive editing, which is an exemption from 3RR. But on the stand next to the tv, I am definitely looking at the exception in a forest of rules, which is WikiLawyer-esque behavior. So I'm going to stop writing now. 4D4850 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia works with consensus. We are two editos in favor of removing that merger notice from the article (after many months of debate and many editors involved, consensus has been reached about not merging the article (or at least no consensus has been reached about merging it) even though it hasn't been closed. SevenSpheresCelestia has now broken the three-revert rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KOI-4878.01&action=history), something that neither Kepler-1229b nor me have done in this case. I'm not asking for him to be temporarily banned. I personally think there is no reason to create a problem from something like removing a merger notice from a page. I would appreciate if an administrator archives the merger proposal (most of the pages proposed by SevenSpheresCelestia to merge have already been merged; those for which consensus was reached, including me) - I think I shouldn't do it myself. With respect to the sockpuppetry accusation he is talking about, that happened last year and I honestly don't think it's related with the issue at hand here. In any case, anybody can check in his talkpage that I apologized to him. I don't want any trouble. I'm just in Wikipedia to help it grow with my little grain of sand. Thank you and have a good day. ExoEditor 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fully protected the article so that all parties involved can discuss the dispute properly and make sure that a consensus has been reached. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion has been closed by User:Onetwothreeip, but @ExoEditor: reverted the closure. I added the archive template back and commented on the talk page; an IP editor (possibly ExoEditor?) then removed my comment and the archive template. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: ExoEditor has removed my comment again. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: and again he continues his disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice, but he claims I'm disruptively editing and created another ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of SevenSpheresCelestia is just unacceptable. He keeps closing a debate for which consensus hasn't been reached at all. I'm now forced to kindly ask the Administration to temporarily ban him from editing. He proposed 4 mergers, and after many months and editors involved, consensus (including me) was reached for merging 3 of them. It's not enough for him. He insists that consensus has been reached to merger the 4th article, something that not only is untrue, but shows no respect for the group of editors (including me) who spent much time working on it. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 right here. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very suspicious of this recent edit happening when it did. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth removal of my comment, please block ExoEditor for disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot close a debate that you started: True, but I didn't close it, User:Onetwothreeip did. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. "Fourth removal" is counting the IP editor. Regardless of the number of edits, your removal of my comment is disruptive and borderline vandalism. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend closed it, so it's irrelevant. Wait until an administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached. Plus reverting vandalism is an exception. I really won't waste my time reading more your comments. You may not have but I have a life. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My "friend"??? I haven't had any interaction with User:Onetwothreeip before this incident. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I agree the disruption here stems mostly from ExoEditor, who, as far as I can tell, edits on exoplanets much like a fanboy of whatever niche fandom would. They went as far as opposing merge notices e.g. [80], which is utterly silly WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, given a merge discussion was ongoing. I don't know what the best solution is, but IMO a topic ban is on the table. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, I'm forced to reply you. Wikipedia works with cosensus. Several editors were in favor of removing that merger notice (most of the merger proposals had been accepted after several months of debate and many editors involved, and no consensus was reached for just one of the pages). Plus the debate should take place in the talkpage of the page at hand or in a 'Article for deletion' discussion. Not in third-talkpages, as it's happening now.

I will avoid commenting on your insults. If you think that keeping an un-solved debate open in Wikipedia is 'fanboy' behaviour, it's not my problem sorry.

Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia.

The corresponding evidence will soon be sent to the Administrators.

I won't check more this discussion, sorry. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia. Here he goes again, he was making the same claims in the ANI thread mentioned above... SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, now you made me interested enough to make some time to find the proof, which I already have. Good luck and bye.ExoEditor 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Show me your "proof" then. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia" Alright, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality has to stop. Such repeated and baseless accusations are enough for me to support a full ban of ExoEditor (talk · contribs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExoEditor is continuing his disruptive editing at ANI. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comment because the Administrator asked me for the evidence we have against you. Just for the archive, it must be noted that this user SevenSpheresCelestia is closing ANI's where he is partially involved. As I said, I won't waste my time anymore with this disruptive editor who has 'suspiciously' semi-retired the same day that an investigation on him/her has started. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not close your ANI thread; I reverted your disruptive reversion of its closure. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @ExoEditor: I strongly suggest that you - very quickly - either provide evidence for we have solid evidence that (SevenSpheresCelestia) uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia, withdraw and strike those comments, or I will simply block you. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SevenSpheresCelestia Cheers. ExoEditor 21:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExoEditor: Yes, which I've suggested is closed as none of it is convincing, and some of it is plainly incorrect. So, again, "solid evidence" please. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kepler-1229b: This also applies to you, given that you wrote the SPI and nonsense like this. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have blocked ExoEditor for a week after they ignored the above, but instead asked for the merge request to be closed how they wanted it here, and again repeated the sockpuppetry allegations. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And out of nowhere (see immediately after ExoEditor's block), [81], Kepler-1229b asks that SevenSpheresCelestia is banned, offering no logic. This smells of retaliation through a sock sock behaviour. It's at the very least WP:BADFAITH/WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, how on earth does a two day old account, knowing you can add sub-pages to his user space, straight through some AfDs then arrive at an Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsuser. I find it very suspicious and wondered if this is a continuation of a banned user. Something seems very fishy to me. Govvy (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This user definitely rubbed me the wrong way, as well. Nobody requests suggestions from SuggestBot 22 minutes after creating their account. Nobody subscribes to the Administrators' Newsletter before they're autoconfirmed. Nobody starts archiving their talk page within three hours of account creation. This one definitely quacks like a duck, although I'm not sure what the backstory is. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably simple block evasion. Some sort of CheckUser action may be warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ, I concur. This is not a new account and I concur Ockham's razor aka duck suggests block evasion is involved. But who's the master, I am unsure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing a lot of research when I was anonymous so that I was prepared. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at checkuser evidence for this account, and I couldn't conclusively associate this account with any other. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a WP:CLEANSTART, which is allowed. Fences&Windows 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user hasn't edited since this thread was opened. The point may now be moot, and in any event there's nothing we can do about it unless the master can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I scared him away, who knows! Or he decided to recreate himself with less red-flags! heh. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first account, not a clean start. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People can be blocked for disruption, trolling or obvious block evasion even if the original master isn't clear. Blablubbs|talk 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the diffs? AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 14:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of disruption, trolling, or obvious block evasion, I merely made the point that people may be blocked even if there is no master. The original block here is an example of that. But since you asked: I do have trouble believing you're a new user, and your conduct here and here does give me pause. Blablubbs|talk 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What conduct are you talking about? Also, I am not connected with the other user in any way. Extraordinary Writ says there is no master. User:Slykos is not involved. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Animaljamfan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User is ignoring Talk page notifications indicating a strong pattern of unhelpful editing. Not all of the edits are unhelpful, but the user does not seem to be trying to learn from the advice they have been given. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof, you gave this editor a vandalism warning for their edit to Quotation mark. Can you please explain how that edit constitutes vandalism? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have gotten some very BITE-y warnings. There's no way MOS:LQ warrants a Level 3 disruptive editing template, and this edit to Church & Dwight is just adding the existing Feline Pine information to the lead. I don't think their talk page notifications demonstrate "a strong pattern of unhelpful editing". DanCherek (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the warning I gave the user, that was not a matter of MOS:LQ. I agree that the edits are not so clearly vandalism. My template message was intended to get their attention, as they have been ignoring warnings, never providing edit summaries, and most of their edits have not seemed helpful. I agree they aren't really clear vandalism, and perhaps my choice of template was ill-advised. I acknowledged above in my original remarks that not all of the edits are unhelpful, and that's part of why I opened a discussion here instead of WP:AIV. However, the user has been rapidly accumulating lots of warnings, and most of their edits don't seem to be improvements. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof, just to clarify, I wasn't focusing on your message to them—I was mostly concerned that they had been hit with a block-threatening template a few posts above yours for MOS:LQ (which is one of the least obvious parts of Wikipedia's MoS). Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."

On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."

Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [84][85] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [86] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [87] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [88] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([89], [90], & [91]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [92][93] and have been uncivil. [94]

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

Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [95] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [96]

See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [97]

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

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

• 9 November 2020, American politics: [98]
• 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [99]
• 2 December 2018, American politics: [100]
• 5 August 2018, BLP: [101]
• 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [102]

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

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [103][104] This one was very nearly a violation: [105]

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

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [106] is not a personal attack? This [107] much like this [108] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, this sockpuppet investigation against a particularly popular contributor of bad faith to Wikipedia has returned. The sockpuppet investigation case has been expanded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter, however, there also have been lax protection policies pertaining to articles related to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia in particular). I am requesting the sockpuppets of Hoaeter are immediately stopped in their tracks. The WP:DRIVEBY at Habesha peoples, and WP:AGENDA pushing at P'ent'ay among other articles is tiresome. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheLionHasSeen, I had protected Habesha peoples for a month and (as you probably noticed) the suspect edits resumed a couple of days after that expired. I suppose that article will need protection again, but the new edits were less disruptive than before (perhaps by design) and, as of this writing, it's been pretty quiet for a couple of days. I'm not sure what happened with the SPI report. I wondered if it was missing some sort of flag where the clerks or checkusers would see it, but it's in all the right categories (and is listed on the main SPI page). It's frustrating, I know, but FWIW it's not even the oldest open SPI case (and, as always, we're depending upon volunteer effort). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that per WP:ARBCOM ruling standard discretionary sanctions are not in play for the Horn of Africa region, so don’t be afraid to put them to use here. 2600:100C:B02B:FDE3:7D12:4069:B31F:9D78 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the editor meant "now in play?" (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Final decision.) I am not sure about applying sanctions, as I would seem to be fairly much WP:INVOLVED. I have, however, placed an alert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have even attempted to get me blocked on Simple Wikipedia for notifying their administration of their workings there (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&oldid=7383888 vandalism report) and verbatim copying information from this English Wikipedia, with the same agenda pushing tactics they've used before. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexa O'Brien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NedFausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adobrien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 11 February 2021, BLP subject Alexa O'Brien tweeted from her verified Twitter account that "the obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page" was guilty of stalking her, "bordering on harassment." In a pair of follow-up tweets, she identified me as the editor in question.

On 13 February 2021, Shushugah—who three days later disclosed his WP:COI, "because I have met the subject of this article before"—removed the following content (which I had contributed, sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF, on 21 February 2020) from O'Brien's BLP relating to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange:

By mid-February 2020, however, O'Brien had turned against Assange. "He is a mother f*cker," she tweeted from her verified account, "and deserves ridicule for being a self-centered narcissist clown, IMO." Two days later, she tweeted that although she'd been approached by agents over the last decade to write a book on Manning or her work, she was glad she had not done so. "If I ever write it," she joked, "title will be Useful Idiot, an autobiography."

The expunged content did not contain the word hostile nor did the word then appear elsewhere on the page.

Yet in a series of tweets commencing February 14, 2021, O'Brien denounced "an attempt to harass me via Wikipedia." In particular, she fixated on the words hostile and hostility, each of which she used in seven separate tweets, in response to a comment by an editor at her BLP's talk page. Earlier that day, user Burrobert had written: She is very hostile both to Wikileaks and Assange. After O'Brien took issue on the same talk page, Burrobert conceded: Perhaps "hostile" was the wrong word to use and "critical" would have been a better choice. In no instance did I personally use the word hostile.

Nevertheless, O'Brien has publicly charged that I am "making the Wikipedia platform look like a tool to harass ppl he disagrees with that are women." She asks rhetorically, "Would they do this to a man? Less likely."

I have not stalked or harassed Alexa O'Brien. I am not a misogynist. I request that an admin caution O'Brien—who seems to have posted both as User Adobrien and IP 69.200.229.184—against violating WP:AGF and advise her to stop attacking me off-wiki. NedFausa (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation and anyone reading this board cannot do anything to make external forces stop tweeting about you or anyone else. WP:NPA is an internal policy and applies to editors. CUPIDICAE💕 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I recommend that you acquaint yourself with WP:OWH. By contributing to Wikipedia talk pages both as User Adobrien and IP 69.200.229.184, O'Brien has established herself as an editor. NedFausa (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where on Wikipedia did she attack you? CUPIDICAE💕 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: You either did not read WP:OWH or refuse to understand it. I will respond to other editors. NedFausa (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am well acquainted. You're trying to weaponize Wikipedia to fight a Twitter battle with someone who disagrees with you. I see nothing threatening, objectionable or actionable. Just a discussion by someone who thinks your Wikipedia editing is poor. ANI isn't the place to hash out some personal off-wiki beef with a subject and editor who, as far as I can tell, hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies. But you keep doing you, Ned. Maybe someone will listen one day, but it won't be here. CUPIDICAE💕 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally opened a Request for Comment, but as I was tagged, I am happy to continue it over ANI, which is probably more appropriate. The subject of the article, User Adobrien only made comments on the talk page about herself, which is what Wikipedia recommends when people have a concern about how they're portrayed. The way the article is written now, it's not surprising she is questioning why her tweets are valid, but not her essays. I would argue, that both likely should be removed, as bulk the article is composed of original material, interviews and other material closely tied to the subject.

Without getting into whether User Nedfausa's behaviour constitutes stalking or not, I would certainly argue it's 'original research' or at best, journalistic work, which is not what Wikipedia is for. User Nedfausa has made number of edits within the article, that constitute WP:Original research whether it's using self published tweets, or blog posts written by the subject. I pointed out this concern, that Wikipedia is comprised of WP:TERTIARY sources.

I see this is not the first time User Nedfausa had trouble with editing WP:BLP especially around American politics after 1992. Shushugah (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Without getting into whether User Nedfausa's behaviour constitutes stalking or not—that's what this ANI section is about! Why are you evading the issue? NedFausa (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct/behaviour of a reporter on WP:ANI is also subject to scrutiny. My first comment, and others' address your concern about Adorbien's behaviour as well. Shushugah (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, let me state that this is not, as someone mischaracterized it above, about a "Twitter battle" with someone who disagrees with me. It's about an editor at this website using Twitter to attack a fellow editor here. I have never tweeted to Alexa O'Brien and have no intention of engaging her on that platform. This is solely about my activity as an editor of her Wikipedia BLP and her personal off-wiki attacks against me, which violate WP:OWH. It's as simple as that. NedFausa (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which Tweet is an attack not simply a disagreement or statement of the issues? And further, which of those tweets violates any Wikipedia policy? Sorry, Ned, but if someone wants to call you an asshole on Twitter, there's nothing Wikipedia or Wikipedians can do about it. Perhaps you should read up on meta:Trust and safety or contact Twitter because right now it just looks like you're still trying to get Wikipedia/Wikipedians to fight some silly battle for you while grossly mistating things. CUPIDICAE💕 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, you must not write a biography by cherry-picking from primary sources written by the subject, let alone their social media posts and particularly on controversial topics. There is a reason we use secondary, independent reliable sources. The subject of an article complaining about edits on social media and on the talk page is, I think, something you have to manage by engagement and negotiation, not locking horns with the article subject and trying to get them sanctioned. However, you may be getting in too deep to be able to edit objectively and I advise you let other editors handle this. Fences&Windows 01:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows, agreed. I will make no further edits at the Alexa O'Brien BLP, although I reserve the right to respond to attacks against me at the associated talk page. Thanks for your advice. NedFausa (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I did not try to get O'Brien sanctioned. I requested that an admin caution her against violating WP:AGF and advise her to stop attacking me off-wiki. If you feel that's too much to ask, so be it. NedFausa (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, Adobrien is in no real sense a real "Wikipedia editor" but rather the subject of a BLP who is unhappy with how you are shaping and curating her biography. All nine of her edits have been to that talk page. She is not harassing you; rather, she is criticizing your edits about her. I agree with Fences and windows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I must continue to be her punching bag on Twitter. Wikipedia cannot help me. I misinterpreted the rules. I withdraw this ANI request. NedFausa (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm rather concerned here, but let me first address the complaint: we can't expect Wikipedians to abide by our conduct policies off-wiki. And O'Brien's comments don't come anywhere near to harassment.

I'm much more bothered by this: the content that Shushugah edited is inadequately sourced negative content on a BLP. Content like that should have been removed from a BLP promptly, and it isn't inappropriate from someone with a COI to remove a BLP violation. What really bothers me is O'Brien's claim that the content of the article may have cost her a job. If it was based on that BLP-violating SYNTH, we have a real problem. This is why the BLP policy exists - because poorly-substantiate content can do real-world harm. I feel like the community is obligated to act here. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this is my sole edit on the page, and indeed, despite my WP:COI I took swift action, because of the (potential) BLP violation. I also, immediately opened a section on the talk page to discuss it, in case it was the wrong move. In Retrospect, I should have disclosed my relation with the subject sooner that instant and not a few days after, but I would not have changed my actions otherwise. Shushugah (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: Nowhere at Talk:Alexa O'Brien does she claim that the content of the article may have cost her a job. On Twitter, she wrote, "The obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page probably just cost me a job interview." It seems to me that costing someone a job and costing them a job interview are two quite different things. Moreover, she did not specify which part of her Wikipedia page caused her prospective employer to abruptly withdraw a job related interview. Before the Wikipedia community acts, might it not be a good idea to ascertain what triggered such sudden rejection? Perhaps if you asked her, she would clarify. Or even better, if her prospective employer could explain precisely what turned him off, it would give the Wikipedia community solid ground on which to proceed. Otherwise we're dealing in conjecture. NedFausa (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting someone here should contact O'Brien to ask with whom she was interviewing, and then contact that prospective employer to ask why they withdrew their invitation? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously suggesting someone here should get the facts straight before proceeding to community action. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an absolutely wild invasion of privacy, and the suggestion is frankly concerning. Please keep in mind that O'Brien is quite possibly reading this discussion. If I was in her position, I imagine I would find the suggestion that a bunch of internet strangers (with whom I'd clearly already had poor interactions) might be reaching out to my prospective employers quite alarming.

I think there's really no way to know for sure whether an interview invitation was withdrawn, or why, or based on which portion of her Wikipedia page (if at all)—from her tweet it sounds like she's not even sure that was the cause. But we can see the edits to the page, which in my view were quite out of line for a BLP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you! That's all I was looking for: There's really no way to know for sure whether an interview invitation was withdrawn, or why, or based on which portion of her Wikipedia page (if at all)—from her tweet it sounds like she's not even sure that was the cause. If that forms the basis for community action, then I'll leave you to it. NedFausa (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear from the sentence immediately after where you ended your quote, it would presumably be the on-wiki violations of the BLP policy that could lead to community action, not the possible fallout from said BLP vios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and Windows has already partly dealt with this, but I feel I should point out that O'Brien's concerns aside, since Assange is a living person, a statement which says '"He is a mother f*cker," she tweeted from her verified account, "and deserves ridicule for being a self-centered narcissist clown' is clearly not the sort of material intended to be covered by ABOUTSELF since it does involve claims about third parties. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was wrong to cite that. I construed it as a statement about self in the sense that she was expressing how she felt, but I failed to think it through—you are right, she was of course making a claim about a third party. As such, it failed to meet the WP:TWITTER exception and should not have been included. I apologize for my mistake. NedFausa (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am pleased to report that GorillaWarfare has now done a thorough housecleaning and the BLP Alexa O'Brien should no longer offend its subject. NedFausa (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest though, in my world, if somebody tweets about a public person calling him a motherfucker, and then does not get a job, and needs to blame somebody for this, they should start with themselves, and only if that fails consider other options.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a very helpful perspective, Ymblanter. We should focus on our actions and role: "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Fences&Windows 11:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is why it is entirely irrelevant whether or not the subject of the article was denied a job due to her Wikipedia article (as far as this has not been reported in reliable sources). What is relevant is that we keep our article in compliance with WP:BLP (I also have some notability concerns, but this is a completely different issue). It does not matter whether the subject likes it or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: to clarify where I was coming from when I brought that it - it was meant as a good reminder of the potential harm an article that doesn't comply with BLP can do. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brien addressed this exact argument on Twitter after she apparently saw it made at Wikipediocracy: "To the guy talking about my tweets. Wikipedia profile ranks 1 with my name as a search term. My tweets do not rank anywhere on the index like that-- and if someone reads them they are in context. Ned has selectively edited that context out-- by design." However, as I've already said, it is likely more productive for us to focus on the BLP issues on-wiki rather than trying to determine what may have happened as a result of them off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that NedFausa got the point here, but this post suggests strongly that they did not. I'm starting to think that they shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]