• BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Des Vallee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Removal of properly sourced content:

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

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

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

Example 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example 5: Marxist-Leninism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of quotes to give a soapbox to Marxist-Leninists

Example 1: Marxist-Leninism

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

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

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

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

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

Example 10 More Soapboxing for the PCP:

Edit Warring

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

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

On Marxist-Leninism, Various reasons mostly POV pushing sections

(Diffs of the user's reverts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll deal with these one by one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6- Not backed by source after verification

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

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

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

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

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

• Topic ban from politics or block indefinitely. Bunnyyhop is an WP:SPA who engages in tendentious editing. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to advocate for the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist POV (compare WP:NONAZIS to see how I and many other editors feel about pushers of another totalitarian ideology). TFD/The Four Deuces, who downplays the problem above, has been heavily active for a long time at Talk:Marxism–Leninism and is not an unbiased observer. I have only stepped into the topic very recently and saw right off the problem of Bunnyyhop's editing. That Des Vallee's report is not perfect does not matter (and getting the length of these right is very hard anyway - too short and people say there's not enough evidence to take action). I will add this diff [1] as a representative example of their tendentiousness and POV pushing. They changed "As the only legal vanguard party it decided almost all policies" to "the vanguard party that guided the establishment and development of socialism"; "Tiananmen Square massacre that stopped the revolts by force" to "Tiananmen Square protests that stopped the revolts by force" (which is not only POV but also makes no sense - the protests were the revolts); and removed "anti-religious". What TimothyBlue testified regarding this user's editing [2] is also highly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossroads, I don't think that being "heavily active for a long time" in the discussion page makes me biased. In fact I only joined the discussion in October. Incidentally, I notice you were canvassed to join this discussion.[3] When other editors have improperly canvassed me to join I discussion, I have always recused myself. I suggest that editors ignore your comments on the basis that you were improperly canvassed. TFD (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [4] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE. How did you find this discussion? Your accusation is baseless and does not help your case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My very best wishes, seems like there's explaining to do. When I come across that template, this was the version [5] up on the website. There was no mention of «genocide» on the lead, except from the Ukrainian Parliament, and I thought the guy on the talk page had made a fair point when he mentioned the deportation of the Japanese Americans during WW2. Keep in mind that this was my 6th edit, I had come across WP:NPOV and WP:V but not WP:NOTTRUTH for instance. That's something I would never do today due to the knowledge I picked up about how Wikipedia works - hence why the discussion is now mostly about my edits as a completely new editor. Despite what some editors accuse me of, I have no sympathies with Stalin and I have no interest in editing things related to him. But it got me by surprise the way some editors use the ideological concept of Totalitarism to equate Communism and thereby me to f#%#$#% WP:NAZIS. This is just fantastic. When the Russian Revolution article had one party dictatorship as one of its outcomes it was completely acceptable. One challenges this POV (with academic sources, 0 WP:OR) and is instantly apologizing for Cheka, «totalitarian tendencies», and so on. Some here seem to forget enwiki is not exclusive to Americans, due to english being a lingua-franca. This «freak out» equating Marxism-Leninism or Communism, whose states today hold a high percentage of the world population, to Nazism, is completely absurd. Neutrality requires stating all significantly view points to each article, not just anticommunist ones. Also, I urge again to check the talk pages and edit summaries of each page, and keep in mind what the recent edits are, and what the old edits are. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be very clear about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

• Support: as proposed.   // Timothy :: talk  21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly per the evidence and reasoning above. A complete net negative to the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This editor is a determined POV pusher. The topic ban should be indefinite and broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, especially Crossroad's comments. — Czello 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - based numerous edits like that [6], [7], [8], discussions like here and persistent edit warring and disruption to keep "his versions". This subject area already has a number of leftist pro-Communist pro-Soviet POV-pushers. We do not need more. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: I missed this and am glad My very best wishes pointed it out. I had been struggling to AGF regarding their attitude towards the Red Terror and Cheka, and that pushes my good faith past the breaking point. This inexcusable edit combined with the other issues here merits adding a site ban.   // Timothy :: talk  04:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose As I said above, this appears to me to be a content dispute and I don't see any difference between the editing of the complainant and the respondent. In fact Des Vallee received 3 blocks in November including one for biased editing on U.S. politics and a block on editing an anarchism related article.[9] Also, I would reject it because of improper canvassing. Crossroads wrote above, "That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [10] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE." [11][20:44, 31 December 2020] In fact APPNOTE allows the notification of "uninvolved" editors. CANVASS clearly prohibits selective notification of editors based on how they are likely to vote. Since this article comes under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, I recommend that we post the notification to the article and follow up any disruption through Arbitration Enforcement. TFD (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, TFD is taking "uninvolved" out of context. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying Editors who have asked to be kept informed. If this isn't a case of that, then what is? I would have just watched Bunnyyhop's talk page anyway. And TFD is far more "involved" in this topic than me, as is Davide King who posts below. TFD's whataboutism and irrelevant "poisoning the well" about Des Vallee is completely irrelevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I encourage anyone reading your reply to read WP:APPNOTE and determine what it means. One of the reasons for sanctions on Eastern European related articles is canvassing: "While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive." (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Final Decision. You were IIRCMy very best wishes was one of the parties to the case.) In particular, editors had worked together to get editors blocked when they had content disputes. It is clear that if informed of this discussion that you would vote for sanctions against Bunnyyhop. TFD (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What!? I wasn't even editing at the time of that case! Stop trying to discredit me with nonsensical arguments and falsehoods. APPNOTE is very clear about the ping I requested and I would have made sure I knew about this report no matter what. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I recalled incorrectly. It was My Very Best Wishes under one of their previous names. In any case you read the case to see why canvassing other editors to get another editor blocked is disruptive. (Incidentally, in cases where it is appropriate to contact other editors, it is still considered canvassing, but not inappropriate canvassing. So let's stop with the arguments about whether it was canvassing and concentrate on whether it was appropriate.) TFD (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TFD. However, before I go to explain my reasoning, as I wrote here, I suggest that BunnyyHop refrain from editing these political-related articles, as a sign of good faith, and write drafts, sandboxs and discuss on the talk page their proposed changes and edits, gaining consensus for them. If they are a sockpuppett, that can be investigated. However, I agree that this is a content dispute. I would note that Des Vallee also engaged in violations of due weight, original research and synthesis to push their anarchist POVs; I do not think either should be banned because with more experience and time they are going to better understand our policies and guidelines. Finally, context is important. Communist-related articles are one of the most controversial and indeed the academic field is one of the most conflictual, controversial and politicised fields in academia.
  • There is indeed a double standard, which take as fact that Communism was equal or even worse than Nazism, something that is not actually supported by the vast majority of experts. It is simply assumed and taken for granted that sources and scholars agree that ideology alone, not just Bolshevism but communism itself of which Bolshevism was the natural and inevitable result, was to blame. This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism, so they are not in their articles because they fail weight, and there is nothing I can do about it, although an article about a link between capitalism/liberalism and the events could be made. Going back to Marxism–Leninism, I would argue they also fail weight for this article; as written here by Czar, it is supposed to be about the ideology, not anything that Communist leaders and states did. We already have a bunch of other articles, perhaps too many and coatracked, for that.
  • In conclusion, if Crossroads rightly warning me about canvassing, I do not see how this was not canvassing, so I agree with TFD on this point too and also of applying the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. For the record, I am pro-European Union, anti-Putin, anti-Trump, anti-Stalinism. I simply believe one can oppose Communist leaders without being an anti-communist or adopting anti-communism, which is not any opposition to communism but an extreme opposition to communism, which usually conflates communism and Stalinism; the same way anti-fascist does not just mean anyone who is not a fascist but one who is actively opposed to it. I do not see how any of these are extreme views.
  • If you are curious about my views of Communist states, I think the following comment by TFD here is what I hold too. "I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise." I do not hold the view Communism and Nazism were equal, nor I believe in the double genocide theory. I think Nazism was the worst and Communism had more in common with 19th-century capitalism and liberalism. In other ways, both Communism and 19th-century liberalism had similarities with Nazism. 19th-century Western racism and white supremacism was a precursor of Nazi racism, but Nazism was still the greatest evil. I always found curious how those who hold Communism and Nazism as equal do not hold the theory of red fascism, or that both were fascism, but that they were totalitarian. If everything the anti-communist scholars about Communist states is true, I do not see how they can even be considered communists, as if they are right, they were much more similar to fascists and Nazis. Yet, instead of coming to this obvious conclusion, they both group and separate the two, so as to blame small-communism, socialism and the broad left, for Communism and Nazism were the inevitable results of them. Whatever one think of this, these are not exactly my views, since I simply came to held these from reading on the topics and what legitimate academics and scholars have written, the same way I usually but not always take the academic and scholarly consensus on other issues and topics. I do not see any of these views of mine as extreme or fringe. If they are, it should be very easy to prove.
• Davide King (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reply Since this entire thread is more about content than behaviour and all feel so strongly about their "beliefs" I would like to point out that the USA has killed more people both directly and indirectly in the name of setting up "democracies" in different parts of the world and there is enough of data to show that. Does that make democracy a problematic concept? No. The point I am trying to make is that if you have a problem with the content then go to the content talk page and hash it out till the cows come home. WP:ANI is about behaviour and the editor in question cannot be penalised for holding a different view point even if dont like it for very stoeng reasons. Vikram Vincent 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See my longer comment here. Going back to the topic of this thread, the bottom line is that the user in question is not a Stalinist and they do not advocate or support the "Intensification of the class struggle under socialism" theory, so I think the point is moot. There is not a single ideology that is without atrocities and violence in practice, and the user in question has not advocated or supported the extermination of races or classes. They can be redirected to read scholarly books that reflect consensus on a given topic, so that they understand what the consensus is and whether their proposed edits goes against it; and if so, is it a minority or fringe view? In general, let us make them better understand our policies and guidelines; they have shown they have learned from some guidelines they did not know about it. At Talk:Slavery, they have shown there can be a respectful discussion with them. I see a permanent ban as far too punitive for the time being. Davide King (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• My final comment: This [12] and the follow up here [13], plus this and this elevate the seriousness of these POV edits. This is going down a very bad path.   // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A new topic was opened in Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour. For the last diff, one has to look at TFD's comment. After looking at the «cultural genocide» citation on the current article, I opened a new topic on the Talk:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#Cultural_Genocide. The removal of a journalist's opinion from a WP:BLP stated as fact is POV pushing? BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BunnyHop is clearly here to push a POV, and isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as demonstrated by the vast amount of diffs provided by Des Vallee. Also, I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology, but either way, POV pushing cannot be tolerated no matter what the POV is. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just another political content dispute. I see, however, that this ANI report crosses the line on political discrimination. First, a supposed (and unproven) political affiliation is used as a one of the points justifying a block (note this is not a COI dispute). A supposed (and unproven) political affiliation to a party that is legal and with parliamentary representation in Portugal and the European Union. Not that this matter for the main jurisdiction of Wikipedia, since discrimination against communists is codified in US law, but a lot of us are used to live in countries where this kind of discrimination is illegal (not a legal threat: I know this has no standing in the US). --MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Des Vallee, listen to Timothy. Even reporters have no immunity, regardless an editor spotted you and a few who is opposing sanctions agains Bunnyhoop are supporting, just let it go. The reviewing admin likely will check everything, so you don't have to be afraid or desperately prove your innocence, do not feed anyone to draw away the attention of the real issue of this thread. For every neutral reviewer is clear there have been serious problems with Bunnyhoop since his/her appearance in WP, and of course you do not even approach such problems like the reported user. I think Timothy has been a bit harsh with you in his previous comment, but if he wanted to scare you :), the earlier the better. Just drop the stick, and let admins wo work, they have already enough information. I can assure/reinforce anyway, shall anything you did in the past and anyone blame for you that for now, I consider you are recently a decent, collaborative editor, at least this is my experience in the recent months. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment Des Vallee, I will double back by saying listen to KIENGIR. I was harsh in my tone, and I apologize. I agree with KIENGIR, you are a good, collaborative editor. One thing I have learned at ANI and on talk is use the minimum number of words possible to make your point; once made let the quality of your arguement, not your tenacity and word count, make the point.   // Timothy :: talk  01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and also support restriction for anyone engaged with the BunnyHop in any similar conduct, should it exist. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional information: See [14] regarding the removal of information regarding the genocide of the Crimean Tartars. I have reverted the edit and added refs.   // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Reply: This is not about viewpoints or content; it is about conduct in discussions and editing behavior. The walls of text about the content dispute have obscured this. If others deserve sanctions, they should be pursued, but this is irrelevant to addressing the subject of this proposal.   // Timothy :: talk  05:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lord Belbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Justgravy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am reporting Lord Belbury here again. They keep refusing to acknowledge the original consensus and keep reverting my edits when I try to implement them citing that I am not the one who has achieved consensus.Justgravy (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Justgravy: You are going to want to provide pagelinks and WP:DIFFs (especially diffs) so that admins understand the context behind the report. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted two of this users edits, to the Bexleyheath and Crayford articles. Their edit summary was "restoring to previous consensus", but a recent RFC they started on whether such changes were appropriate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages was closed with the verdict that there was no clear consensus on the matter - but Overall there is possible a very weak consensus against changing "Greater London" to "London". Justgravy is changing "Greater London" to "London".

@Justgravy: - are you saying that although there was a recently established "very weak consensus" against making these changes right now, you're aware of an older, "previous" consensus which said the opposite, and you're choosing to apply that one? --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. This previous consensus was established by many editors and over a long period of time. This is actually one of the fundamentals of the London Wikiproject, a Wikiproject which you are making a mockery of by doing this.

What you are saying is that it’s absolutely fine for someone to change a huge amount of stuff with no consensus. Just so long as nobody challenges it at the time. And then if/when this is discovered a while later, a new consensus is required just to change it back - because the previous no-consensus changes have been active long enough in Wikipedia time. The fact is, MetrolandNW made massive changes with no consensus and these have been allowed to stand for over a year. Wikipedia is institutionally biased, that is clear to me now. Justgravy (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it’s absolutely fine for someone to change a huge amount of stuff with no consensus. Just so long as nobody challenges it at the time. And then if/when this is discovered a while later, a new consensus is required just to change it back - because the previous no-consensus changes have been active long enough in Wikipedia time. Er...yes, that's how it works. If somebody makes a WP:BOLD change and it is not challenged, it becomes the new WP:CONSENSUS, and removing it is a new WP:BRD cycle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, institutionally biased...Justgravy (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply: those were not "no-consensus changes". The article being stable for "over a year" including them established consensus for the edits - especially since, as Lord Belbury has stated, the previous "consensus" you are claiming has, in big, bold letters on top of the discussion on the subject, "NO CONSENSUS", and based on the evidence the 'possibl[y] a very weak consensus' is what you were editing against. Also I should probably point out that WikiProjects do not own articles. The fact common sense and consensus established through editing produce a result you don't like does not imply bias, institutional or otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No this is wrong. the “NO CONSENSUS” of which you are referring to is for the recent discussion, not the one which took place over many years before MetrolandNW made these mass edits. Please read through the archives for Wikiproject London and you will see this. The closing party failed to understand this as well. The problem is this current “NO CONSENSUS” stems from bias by certain editors, there is no common sense in this…Justgravy (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I need to add, the reason certain users object to this consensus comes from local bias which everyone round this way understands. No offence, and with all due respect sir, but someone who is from halfway around the World from here just would not understand these issues as we do. Issues which have been ongoing for more than half a century...Justgravy (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus changed. The old consensus is no longer relevant. At this point I would advise you of the Law of Holes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no new consensus either. So you are saying that there should be no consensus at all in this matter? Also, there are a lot of people in the past who agreed with what I am doing. Although, it is annoying that they have all gone silent now I must admit. If I was completely alone in this then I could admit that I am wrong. However, if you just looked into the matter yourself, did some research etc. you would see that what I am trying to do is not ridiculous.Justgravy (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no new consensus either. So you are saying that there should be no consensus at all in this matter? There is a "new consensus". Since the discussion on consensus didn't establish a consensus, consensus by editing established one. Since these [edits] have been allowed to stand for over a year the article was stable with them and it was consensus through editing for them to be present. What you are trying to do is not "ridiculous"; simply once you made the changes you desire, and they were reverted, you should have discussed the content dispute, per WP:BRD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if consensus through editing violates guidelines? It clearly states here that guidelines “are developed by the community to describe best practices” surely by going against them it is degrading the quality of the content, and such content is not the best it could be? Also, I have gone through the various stages of dispute resolution. There is a lengthy discussion focussed on it.Justgravy (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not established that the edit violates any guidelines. So you're putting the cart before the horse here.

And your earlier comment is troubling: Also I need to add, the reason certain users object to this consensus comes from local bias which everyone round this way understands. No offence, and with all due respect sir, but someone who is from halfway around the World from here just would not understand these issues as we do.

That reads as if you want your personal experience to override everything else. Which is just not going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s my point, nobody here seems to have read the conversation on the Wikiproject London talk page. I mentioned many times there that what I was proposing is just following guidelines. Also, I do have to retort because I was really not talking about my “personal experience”. This is something which affects millions of people in some way shape or form, so I can hardly call it personal. It is also something which is difficult to grasp if you have not been fully immersed in it. So what I was actually trying to mention was the biases that certain people hold. Especially stemming from incorrect interpretation of the facts.Justgravy (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't said what guidelines. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so the guidelines can be found here it states that "For locations within Greater London, placename, London should be used" whilst also stating at the very top of the page that "This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles."Justgravy (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Note however that it also says "occasional exceptions may apply". Once this became a disputed issue you need to WP:DISCUSS to resolve the dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. And yes it does indeed. However, as this affects most of the entire area in question, I would hardly call this an “occasional exception”.Justgravy (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• D4rkeRR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of editors, including myself, have been reverting D4rkeRR9's undiscussed page moves and edits to infoboxes for the past few weeks. Everyone has assumed good faith and no warnings were issued at the beginning, except for when they moved an article that is within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict.[15] The situation changed when they started edit warring and removing the warning from their talk page without paying any attention to their content. They even removed a complaint about them on an article's talk page and edit warred over it.[16][17] The latest attempts to make them stop don't seem to be having any effect as can be seen in their latest response and their refactoring of my comment on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Instead of joining this discussion, they just removed the ANI notice and went back to edit warring. The question that we have to ask ourselves now is: are they here to build an encyclopedia? I will ping some of the editors (R Prazeres, Kansas Bear and VQuakr) who are familiar with their problematic edits. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are now edit warring on my talk page.[18][19][20][21] @Oshwah: Could you please put a stop to this madness? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton - I've blocked the user for 36 hours for disruptive editing. This should hold pending a review of the user's edits submitted to this ANI discussion... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thank you very much. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton - No problem. Given that there's edit warring going on at French Algeria and other pages mentioned here, the block was definitely needed... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D4rkeRR9 just blanked their user talk page, so I guess a response to my questions are out the window... If disruption continues, I'd be in support of a longer (if not indefinite) block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in this type of administrative discussion before so let me know if I can be more helpful, but from my perspective I've tried, along with other editors, to help this user improve their practices in good faith by offering many direct suggestions and links to relevant Wikipedia policies (e.g. in my comments here), and at best they've acknowledged feedback and then ignored it in practice, or followed it once or twice after many complaints before going back to their original behaviour. When it comes to page moves, for example, they seemed to finally attempt the proper moving procedure on December 17 (here), but only after they twice moved several pages, were reverted, and had received critical feedback from other editors here, here and here. (For those first two undiscussed mass moves, see histories of Idrisid dynasty, Almoravid dynasty, Saadi Sultanate on December 8 and on December 15, 2020.) They then recently did similar undiscussed page moves at Dutch Surinam and Ayyubid dynasty on December 29 (and maybe elsewhere, I haven't checked every edit), as if none of this had happened. When I brought this as a complaint to them again (here), they responded (here) with what came across to me as either a sarcastic question or simply evidence that they do not understand, or refuse to understand, any of the feedback given to them by other editors.

Maybe not directly part of this complaint but relatedly I think, I don't believe they've ever cited a single source for any of their edits, even after being told (again, here) that doing so would improve the chances that their edits are retained. They seem determined to insert their own WP:OR and their edit-warring seems to be a reflection of that. In terms of an example dispute that I've been involved in, that seems to be the case on the Idrisid dynasty page where they kept modifying the "succeeded" and "preceded" parameters of the infobox to the same things they wanted (namely here, here, two consecutive edits here and here, and here, followed by slightly different but similarly unsupported edits here and here). And that's in addition to other recurring unjustified edits they made on that page alone. I offered plenty of information with sources on the talk page there (and in edit summaries) to explain why these changes were not improvements and were not warranted without clearer support and consensus, in addition to trying to improve the information and sources on the main page itself, and this insertion of OR has persisted in one form or another throughout. This makes it frustrating to work on some of these pages and puts other editors like myself in the awkward position of having to figure out how many times we're willing/able to revert the same edits that clearly refuse to engage with any consensus or reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitton should be blocked as well. 4RR in a mainspace, edit warring on user pages (which he complained about) and frankly hasn't gone to a talk page himself and I would say that the onus is on you just as much as the other party involved. You're more experienced than this other editor, use some brain man instead of calling out behaviour which you are just as guilty for participating in (this has gone on longer than needed and had a totally unacceptable edit war)! Dude has blanked page don't think he will be back. Games of the world (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third revert was after they were blocked, so what 4RR are on you on about? I have been dealing with this editor for weeks, undoing their undiscussed moves and removing their nonsense (factually incorrecty info) from articles. As for my talk page, it's mine and I'm free to remove any content I want from my it. Did you actually read the initial complaint at all? M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitton you've admitted it. You can change you comment, but I've seen it. The 4th revert was before they were blocked (now your trying to say the 3rd was after, it was not and neither was the fourth). Games of the world (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. There were 3 reverts in the last 24 hours (16:15, 16:25 and 16:47). The last one was made at 16:47, which is after they were blocked at 16:44, so your claim of 4RR is baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When someone else was blocked is irrelevant to how many reverts you made, either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WP:BLANKING stuff from your own talk page even when entitled to is not exempt from 3RR. While it may be annoying when an editor is trying to keep something on your talk page you don't want and don't need to keep, as always the solution is simply to wait or let someone else deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Since this is news to me and WP:BLANKING says: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages., can you please point me to the policy that says "WP:BLANKING is not exempt from 3RR"? M.Bitton (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: it seems I'm mistaken the lack of a 3RR exemption so I apologise for that and any confusion I've caused. But it also sounds like you may be confused about how 3RR works in general. 3RR applies to any edits any where on wikipedia. Even if an edit is allowed, you aren't allowed to violate the three revert rule in making the edit. Therefore no matter what any other pages says, you need to heed 3RR and at a bare minimum never make more than 3 reverts on a page in a twenty-four hour period unless specifically covered by an exemption. As mentioned by The Bushranger, reverting an editor temporarily blocked for edit warring is not something covered by an exemption so you cannot make four reverts on a page in 24 hours just because you waited for the editor to be blocked. However I see now that the 3RR lists "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." Since the user page guidelines allow to remove most content from your talkpage including the content you were removing the exemption would apply. Personally I still wouldn't violate 3RR despite that, but it's your choice. Note that if this exemption did not exist, you would not be allowed to make four reverts in 24 hours on your user talk page, no matter that you were removing content you are allowed to remove, unless some other exemption applied. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mainspace stuff which I assume refers to French Algeria, you technically avoided violating 3RR by about 55 minutes. Still as 3RR itself says, escaping 3RR by reverting just outside the window is generally a bad idea, and again "the editor was blocked" doesn't really help. As Games of the world mentioned, if your going to go that far, it would help if you'd at least started discussion on the article talk page, no matter that it seems unlikely D4rkeRR9 is going to join. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

__________

Editor was blocked for 36 hours, and block has run out. Further disruption should be reported here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I hate that I have to be back here again regarding Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs), but his conduct at RfD is still deep in the "net negative" territory. To catch you up, he was topic banned from creating redirects in March 2020. In September, there was broad consensus for a strengthening of his topic ban, but unfortunately the thread was archived without action. Since then, Soumya's behavior has frankly gotten even worse. Today, Soumya submitted a flood of 24 separate RfD nominations for simple retarget requests (Thankfully CycloneYoris cleaned up his mess). Some of them have no rationale, like a simple Retarget to Kashmir. with no explanation why. Another, Cassimere, Soumya falsely claims that it's "not a valid spelling", which a simple WP:BEFORE would show otherwise. Note that Soumya is not banned from retargeting and he knows this; for example he boldly but incorrectly retargeted Canadien just last month, so it's unclear why he would flood RfD with these requests instead of boldly doing it himself. Going back to yesterday, we find a simple vote with no explanation at the RfD for Bahmin, and some misleading rationale editing at the RfD for National capital territory, that required a discussion at his talk page from Thryduulf. Going back one more day (still in 2021), there was a questionable nomination of English nation. There was a telling reply from Mutt Lunker there: Typical of the slapdash, uncomprehending approach of this editor, I have come to appreciate. I'll stop at 2021, but there are many, many more examples I can bring up if necessary. I've been saying this since last March, but the only way this behavior will stop is with an indefinite topic ban on redirects, broadly construed, and I hope you will agree. This isn't my wheelhouse, but it may also be worth examining a topic ban from ethnic groups (especially Kashmir) since I've noticed others have been frustrated with his efforts there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is highly prolific, doubtless well-intentioned and quite possibly making many positive contributons to this project but my heart sinks whenever I register an edit of theirs on my watchlist. My overwhelmingly experience of their editing is that of hasty, bold and sweeping changes or proposals, made with neither care nor understanding. If they slowed down, did some research or just stuck to what they knew, matters might be different but after months of observing the considerable collateral damage of their activities, they seem to be pursuing quantity, not quality, in a bull-in-a-china-shop fashion. This can not continue. I too can give multiple examples if required. I will say that they do seem to be receptive to constructive criticism on individual isssues but the amount of work they are generating in having to clear up after them and explain their errors is an overall drain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban from redirects, broadly interpreted. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to correct basic errors in procedure, basic errors in understanding of policies, guidelines, essays, etc. that indicate that if they've even taken the time to read them they haven't been understood. Soumya has been here for over three years and has been contributing to RfD for months - we shouldn't have to be repeatedly explaining basic concepts (like don't edit your comments after others have replied to them) that most editors grasp either intuitively or within a matter of days of editing. I will look up the link if desired, but yesterday was at least the second time I've had to comment about misleading edits to their RfD comments. I have not looked in detail at their contributions regarding Kashmir, but the comment on their user talk page from M Imtiaz suggests that competence is lacking there too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding competence on Kashmir pages, I have had limited interaction with this editor but I have nonetheless been left frustrated. Breaking edits to templates have been made with no attempt to clean it up and attempts to elicit a rationale behind the edits have been met with silence. The editor seems more preoccupied with the userboxen on their user page than with addressing concerns on their talk page; this has been the case with many editors' questions there. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Corrected 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but yeah, Sdrqaz hits the nail on the head, and I don't think I have anything to add other than that a WP:ENGAGE block might also be worth considering at least in the short term, given their refusal to even participate in this ANI discussion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I find it concerning that some of the editor's contributions to userboxen have been to create User:UBX/Sinophobia and User:UBX/CCP virus, the former of which is displayed on their user page. That seems ... problematic. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they're not wrong about that first one, though, are they... ^[FBDB] M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC) edited 02:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha I find it highly unusual that an editor will be so explicit about their prejudices. It's possibly one of the most blatant violations of userbox/user page guidelines I've seen. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He created Wikipedia:Userboxes/COVID-19 and most of the templates listed there, including this, this, and this. Nardog (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog, I did see that too, but I thought the Sinophobia/CCP virus ones were the worst so only listed them here! I've nominated the CCP one for speedy deletion. I gave the editor the benefit of the doubt for the North Korean one and the WWIII one, believing them to be possibly tongue-in-cheek. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I created the Sinophobia userbox on the right place, under a user page, since the userbox was controversial. See WP:Userbox migration. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya, the issue isn't where you created the userbox. The issue is that you created the userbox in the first place. I know that many editors ignore WP:UBCR, but that userbox was not just simply controversial. It was inflammatory or divisive. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now that we have evidence of disruption in at least three separate topics (I agree those are some concerning userboxes), along with a failure to engage or even acknowledge his shortcomings (he has been editing elsewhere despite a nudge from Liz on his talk page to participate here), I think it's in the best interest to upgrade my recommendation to a full ban. If we topic ban him from everywhere there is disruption, we'll end up topic banning him from all of his interests... -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indefinite block is in order. The competence issues are bad enough, but the anti-Chinese comments are honestly enough to merit a block by themselves, and his response to that issue being raised has been severely lacking. We should not be bending over backwards to teach a self-declared bigot to edit constructively. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. This gives me further doubt the user is here to build an encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my latency, but I want to say that I wanted to do the right thing to improve the encyclopedia. However, the users above has have shown in this section that much of my contributions are ended up being problematic. I acknowledge this but I can't realise why it is occuring. Maybe Gosh don't let me to improve an encyclopedia that aims to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's the typical outcome when it's felt that someone is causing more harm than benefit to said encyclopaedia, and I appreciate you recognising that. That said, I'd suggest the other editors in this thread not think much of this user's "semi-retirement", given the likelihood that they'll return quietly sometime after the discussion once the scrutiny has reduced a bit. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having now seen the userboxes, the comments regarding China and the opinions of those familiar with the Kashmir topic I unfortunately cannot object to a full ban. The only alternative would be a topic ban from Kashmir, China and redirects, all broadly interpreted but that would likely either be the same as a full ban or move the disruption to some other area. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to implement an indefinite, broad topic ban alongside a full ban for a defined period, say a month, to allow the user to have a wee word with themself? If they can't direct their efforts constructively to matters outisde the topic ban thereafter, no slack, short shrift and a full ban imposed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: If there is consensus for it then that is entirely possible. I don't know off the top of my head whether I support it or not, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that suggestion. Either they are likely to be a net negative in all areas, in which case a full ban is warranted, or they can contribute constructively in other areas, thereby requiring only a TBAN (or set thereof). I don't know what combining the two would accomplish, and in the past such sanctions have often been criticised as being WP:PUNITIVE. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to be preventative, rather than punitive, banning them from areas they have proven themself - charitably - to be incapable of operating competently but give them a cooling-off period to allow them to return to engage in work in which they may be capable. I can see though that they may already have proven themself too much of a risk to be allowed to work even away from the areas of a topic ban and, if that is the general feeling, am happy with an indef. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been an editor quite some time, and can differentiate between a legitimate POV controversy and fraudulent editing. I have a past of even editing in controversial articles such as Ching Hai (added all the scholarly refs) and Water fluoridation (added the EU position and the notable oppisition view]] Also in Influenza vaccine (added EU position), where there was quite a robust POV discussion. Eas even commended by one of my opponents, an Administrator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782699643

Wikipedia has becaume a very arduous and putting off place to honestly edit for a singular editor, especially because of clique behavior (see htCriticism of Wikipedia.

The article at hand is Pentagon UFO videos. Which appears to be in WP:OWNERSHIP by a group of editors.

I've read the Wikipedia article, and read the first cited reference in full. A reference from VICE magazine https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wjzg/the-skeptics-guide-to-the-pentagons-ufo-videos

I was honestly shocked by the blatant violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy by way of WP:CHERRYPICKING statements from the VICE article. It's really fraudulent editing.

I've corrected the the issue in this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentagon_UFO_videos&oldid=998147440

But was multiple times reverted by the "owners" of the article. Completely disregarding the obvious blatant Violations

Another example would be allowing only Skeptic Michael Shermer view to be while reverting and deleting the views of notable experts:a former pentagon investigator and a Jane's Defence Weekly eviation editor views, both cited from a Popular Mechanics article. By way of various obvious WP:LAWYERING

I kindly ask of you to please do something about the Editors involved (editors who have reverted, or have supported this behaviour: LuckyLouie MrOllie ජපස jps

I have warned them on the article talk page that i would take ANI action if they persisted. But to no avail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#The_VICE_reference

Thank you Bigbaby23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a content dispute reported by an editor pushing a number of WP:FRINGE PoVs. If numerous editors agree on what is proper to include in an article, that's not group OWNERSHIP, that's WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; reviewing the talk page and article history, I see a content dispute on the talk page, and Bigbaby23 apparently past 3RR on the article history. Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbaby23, three different editors have reverted your edits and you are guilty of edit warring. This dispute just started today and you need to resolve this matter on the article talk page. If you can't resolve your disagreement there, use dispute resolution. ANI is for editor misconduct, not determining whether or not an edit is valid. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to leave a diff here of the level of discourse BigBaby23 has been bringing to related articles: [24]. - MrOllie (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbaby23 This is complete nonsense, you are trying to convince the reader of something which isn't allowed and also use biased wording. To make the case of "solid evidence" your going to need an immense amount scholarly citations. You seem to be acting in good faith. However you should read on verifiability policy and the manual style of writing (MOS) for how what wording to use. A general rule of thumb is to state anything as fact, unless it is completely verified something this most certainly isn't. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee, what are you talking about? Have you read the sources? What am I trying to convince? Here's Popular Mechanics (a respectable mainstream publication) article on the subject: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/

What are they trying to convince? they are simply stating facts and interviewing experts. Nowhere is it stated that the UFOs are 100% Alien. The discussion was about probability. Shermer said Zero (VICE magazine) the Pentagon and Jane's Defence Weekly experts say it actually seems more probableBigbaby23 (talk)

You are seriously advancing Popular Mechanics as a reliable source about UFOs? I don't think so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you should read WP:FRINGE, which applies here in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Beyond My Ken is doing is a perfect example of the dishonest editing/discussion practice. So the VICE reference that is cited multiple times in the article is a reliable source about UFOs then? Come on. Enough.Bigbaby23 (talk)

Enough, indeed. Given they went to 5RR on the article in question, Bigbaby23 has been blocked for 48 hours (and it's not their first block for edit-warring). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a notice that about WP:RSN#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, finaly, these editors at least seem to accept one inappropriate quotation of only Skeptic Michael Shermer, and have removed that paragraph all together. But other misuse of the VICE article are still present. My ANI is not about normal content dispute, as depicted by some editors commenting above. It's a question about how do you deal with a very blatant, deliberate violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy? Does Concensus overide WP policy? according to WP:CONLIMITED the answer is no. What do you do then, when WP:FACTION is so evident in violating the above through Concensus if not let ANI deal with it?Bigbaby23 (talk)

• I would reccommend dropping the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia page for Christian worship, I added a note stating that proskeneu is not only used for Jesus and God but for others in Revelation 3:9 and when the brothers of Joseph bow down to him in Genesis 42:6 of the Septuagint

He claimed it was "unsourced"... Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMando (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you that it was unsourced. Please see WP:Citing sources for an explanation of how to provide sources for content you add to Wikipedia (and WP:NOR might be applicable here too). I also advise you to not assume bias in other people's actions, and I refer you to WP:Assume good faith for further information on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I don't see where you informed User:Viewmont Viking of this report, as you were instructed to do in the big orange box above the edit window. I will do that for you now. (But looking at the comment you did make at User talk:Viewmont Viking, I think I need to draw your attention to WP:NPA too.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He claimed it was 'unsourced'"... that's because it was unsourced. I don't see any actionable information here. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Steven a91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Steven a91 continues to edit disruptively despite multiple requests and warnings from several editors over the last two weeks. Specifically, he continues to add speculative future changes to articles before those changes actually take place, either misusing news reports or not citing any source at all. It seems he wants to get in early with 'breaking news', but his efforts are highly disruptive to editors who are trying hard to ensure that legal pages, in particular, are properly sourced to the actual published regulations, not to speculative in-advance news reports which may or may not be accurate.

His latest edit to The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 continues this behaviour. The edit relies on a BBC report to claim that some of the the current COVID-19 regulations changed yesterday, 4 Jan, which they did not. The new regulations have not even been published yet, let alone come into force. In any event, the edit is as usual not even supported by the reference, which states that the changes are expected to take effect from Wednesday 6th.

This is not a case of a new editor who is doing this through inexperience. The editor has been here a long time, and has a history of warnings for this type of unsupported speculative edit (see his talk page for 2018, 2019 and 2020 warnings). Recent edits have required yet more warnings in respect of yet more articles, but the editor has not changed his behaviour in the least. I think that admin action is now required. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gov website does say "withdrawn" in the header but Boris did say they will be replaced with legislation on Wednesday so I agree saying they ended on 4 January is not correct, the message Boris was giving was not to wait for the legislation but to start the rules now but that doesn't mean it was revoked on the 4th. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody from Chicago is targeting my edits for reversion,[31][32] using the range Special:Contributions/2601:240:E181:2020:0:0:0:0/64. This person is a long-term disruptor who was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/12.178.190.58, especially noting the personal attacks in edit summaries ("get killed",[33] "GFY", "aggotFAY"). This person has previously targeted Synthwave.94's edits for reversion,[34][35] and he doesn't communicate except for hostile edit summaries. He blanks his talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP may need to be blocked, given their actions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 97.80.113.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• The Reason (Hoobastank song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:97.80.113.37 has been disruptively editing The Reason (Hoobastank song) by adding music charts on which the song did not appear or charts in violation of WP:USCHARTS. I have warned them multiple times to stop, but they simply will not listen. They had previously been blocked because of genre warring in August 2020. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 22:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running into "Autoblock #10288711" while using the PAWS tool. Admin User:Nthep has blocked User:Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara 12 a few hours ago, with the autoblock option activated. That user had also used the tool. Can the autoblock please be removed, as it affects shared Wikimedia infrastructure? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the autoblock. Nthep (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975 is indefinitely topic banned from Dwid Hellion and the band Integrity, including all articles, talk pages, and discussion boards. Kire1975 is also subject to a one-way interaction ban, to not interact with Guy Macon. Kire1975 is formally warned to respect WP:BLP policy at all times, including on talk pages and discussion boards, and to not cast aspersions about other editors. Reasoning: it can be difficult to handle COI editing by article subjects, but Kire1975's editing and comments amount to a campaign against the subject, with no sign of de-escalation once it was brought here. This WP:BATTLEGROUND approach extends to how Kire1975 discusses the reporting user, Guy Macon, inappropriately linking to irrelevant commentary on an essay and by disgruntled blocked users in an attempt to discredit him. Kire1975 is not a new editor. The dismissal of previous BLP warnings is concerning and further such breaches of BLP policy will lead to additional sanctions. Fences&Windows 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

(Note: because of personal issues, It may be several days days before I am able to access wikipedia, so feel free to deal with this without my involvement)

Background:
Dwid hellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), lead singer of
Integrity (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a typical newbie who is the subject of a BLP. Previously Hellion edited the page of his own band, and got into multiple fights over inaccuracies on the band's page. Example: the page said the band is in Cleveland despite it having moved to Belgium in 2013. I was the first person to actually do a Google search and find a reliable source instead of blindly reverting Hellion's attempts to correct this error.

As sometimes happens, all Hellion needed was for someone to treat him like a human being and explain why Wikipedia editors do the things we do. Since I talked with him he has limited himself to talk page comments.[36] The page still needs a lot of work, but Hellion's COI editing stopped on 16 December 2020, right after I calmly explained our policy on editing your own page.[37]

Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a personal animosity against Hellion and has, in my opinion, violated WP:BLP. In my opinion Kire1975 should be topic banned from the areas of Dwid Hellion and his band.

Examples of problem edits:

• [38], 18:39, 17 December 2020: Added "Lead singer Dwid Hellion has been criticized for 'an artist's penchant for brooding, a frat boy's taste for fun, and a used-car salesman's tongue, the mercurial Dwid is a charismatic shit-talker who's one of the most divisive figures in all of hardcore.' He operated a 'zine where he would 'crack on people' to 'create controversy' and this would limit the prospects of the band. Tours crumbled, shows were cancelled and a revolving-door membership has amounted to over 60 people." (Wikilinks not in source; they were added by Kire1975 -- a dubious practice in the case of direct quotes).

The source (An editorial in website Cleveland Scene[39]) is not a WP:BLPRS for such a negative editorial opinion.

• [40], 06:15, 17 December 2020: Tagged the exact same Cleveland Scene source with "non-primary source needed" when it was used to say something positive about Hellion.
• [41], 21:10, 16 December 2020: Tagged one of Integrity's albums with "The neutrality of this article is disputed" after Hellion corrected some errors.[42], Yes Hellion should not have done that (and stopped doing it once I explained it to him) but the tag is an overreaction; the factual corrections did not affect the neutrality of the page.
• [43], 01:24, 16 December 2020‎ : Overtagging to the point where is is getting close to being vandalism. (and since when is "monthly magazine" overly detailed? Note that in his zeal to stuff as many tags as possible into the article, Kire1975 actually reinserted the word "monthly" himself while at the same time tagging it as being overly detailed![44])

Hellion has complained about Kire1975 multiple times, the most recent being today.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51] While Hellion hasn't quite gotten the message that this isn't Twitter and that being aggressive won't get you far here, he does have a point. It took me roughly three minutes of searching to confirm Hellion's claim that the band is currently based in Belgium. It shouldn't be this hard for the subject of a BLP to correct errors in his page.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Dwid Hellion is editing his own band page,
• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Deleting unambiguous promotion drafts in other people's userspace

Again, in my opinion Kire1975 should be topic banned from the areas of Dwid Hellion and his band. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975's Response

"The Cleveland Scene is an alternative weekly newspaper" that has been published since the 1970s. Noting becomes not WP:BLPRS by being labeled so. State your reasons.

Why don't you just remove the wikilinks not in source? Seems reasonable to me.Though I do notice that you didn't cite any Wikipedia rules addressing that question to support your complaint.

The primary source in this edit refers to a positive quote by artist Derek Hess who is a colleague of Hellion's, having done artwork for an album that Integrity was on according to Hellion. The reliability and verifiability of the source is not in question. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a press-release service for positive stories only.

Which "factual corrections" made by the connected contributor are you referring to exactly? Please elaborate on how you know they did not affect the neutrality of the page? If I had to do it again, I would have put a WP:COI tag on it, expecting a consensus to be reached in a normal fashion. Kire1975 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon is WP:GASLIGHTING when he speaks about overtagging. The word monthly was removed by me a minute after I had reverted his edit and five minutes before the first time he accused me of reinserting the word monthly, which he has done many times.

There were a lot of tags on the page because the page has been relentlessly edited since 2007 by a connected contributor who has been described in the press as "one of the most divisive figures in all of hardcore" (see above). The first edit on Hellions' account was to wipe out the prose on the page in question entirely. As Guy Macon states, the only reason he is posting here is because Hellion is able to enlist Guy Macon on his war against reasonable standards by once again falsely accusing me of tricks, disinformation and lies.

Guy Macon has been asked twice to leave my talk page alone because I am legitimately afraid of his gaslighting ways. As you can see from the title of his complaint, Guy's complaint is not about my actions, it's just about me. I spent two nights around Christmastime last month literally trembling. He has posted on it multiple times and now the trembles have started again after he he has posted an ANI notice on my talk page that if I don't meet his contradictory and intentionally confusing standards I am going to be banned from editing a page I have had no interactions with for three weeks and for no legitimate reason.

As a counter-request, I would request that Guy Macon be banned from interacting with me for three years, or however long the consensus decides (hopefully not less than six months), and that User:Dwid_hellion be banned from Wikipedia entirely for the same reasons that user:Cullen banned hardcore guitarist Vic DiCara on December 1, 2020.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Dwid Hellion is editing his own band page,
• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Deleting unambiguous promotion drafts in other people's userspace
• [[52]]
• [[53]]
• [[54]]
• [[55]]

--Kire1975 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975 my understanding of the idea of wiki is that it portrays the publics perception and opinion on a band or individual, your deliberate choice to solely source negative content from a cleve scene article from 14 years ago is rather suspect. You have decided that your personal perception of my band shall take precedence over that of the wiki community itself. You have deliberately sought out the most slanderous article of my band with the intention of painting a negative portrayal. Your personal decision to only site one cleveland scene journalists opinion as fact over and over while ignoring all of the other articles about my band is biased ( 32 years of articles about my band and you can only source one article from 14 years ago). Your counter research is also flawed, your statement that Derek Hess designed a few of my album covers is untrue, please cite your source for this information. Hess has not designed any album covers for me at all. He did design a various artists compilation album of which my band has one track on that record (a motorhead tribute album), but he has not once designed any of my album covers. Your actions on wiki continue to confirm that you have a personal vendetta against me and my band. The intention of your wiki edits on my band's wiki page is malicious in nature and has not been done with preserving the quality of the wiki community in mind, but done solely for your own personal vendetta against me and my band. You cherry-pick negative quotes and insert snarky language to discredit any positive remarks about me or my music. You are intentionally abusing your role on wiki. I recommend that you consider this when you defend your intentions as being for the wiki community and not for your own self-serving purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwid hellion (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dwid hellion - You are a connected contributer. The band has been filled with nothing but "positive" articles since you started editing it since 2007. See WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Your contribution history shows that you have aggressively attacked anyone posting anything that you don't like long before I showed up. Your reputation as a divisive, brooding, charismatic shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue who enjoys publishing material just to cause controversy and crack on people is well documented in a reliable, independent, secondary source. That this source is 14, 15 or 500 years old is neither here nor there. If you want to post nothing but positive articles about your band, hire a publicist or open a free blogspot page. Derek Hess is your colleague. Talking positive things about you benefits the reputation and sales of the album you and he both worked on. This is MOS:PUFFERY. Why do you go on and on about a personal vendetta? Please read what it says about projection on WP:GASLIGHTING. You have enlisted Guy in your quest to tarnish my reputation with completely false allegations is plain for the whole world to see. This incident report here on ANI is evidence that you are the ones out to get me. You have influence around the world, as is evident with how you convinced Guy to gaslight me like this for weeks. I am legitimately frightened at the lengths you will go to retaliate against me for trying to make your bands Wikipedia conform to basic standards. I am very much aware that I am WP:NOTPERFECT and I am also aware that I don't need to be. You have been encouraged to suggest edits in the talk page, but you have done way more than that. With every comment, you are intimidating people. Why Vic DiCara has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia after making just two edits and you are allowed to intimidate good faith editors for almost 14 years is beyond my comprehension. Please leave us alone. Kire1975 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to Kire1975 the rules about posting an ANI notice to a talk page after being asked not to post on it?[56] Thanks.

I note the irony of Kire1975 doing the following:

• Told Hellion "Your reputation as a divisive, brooding, charismatic shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue who enjoys publishing material just to cause controversy and crack on people is well documented in a reliable, independent, secondary source."
• Accused both Hellion and me with "you are the ones out to get me", and "gaslighting".
• Engaged in off-wiki "opposition research" by searching Reddit until he found someone who criticized me.[57][58][59]
• Claiming that he is trembling in fear because I posted this report.

Again, Hellion's COI editing stopped on 16 December 2020, right after I calmly explained our policy on editing pages about yourself. That issue appears to have been resolved, whether or not Kire1975 wants to keep criticizing Hellion for it.

If given a bit of time, I am pretty sure that further calm discussion with Hellion will result in him being less aggressive in his comments, and perhaps even learning the ropes and becoming a productive Wikipedia editor. From his standpoint it is understandable; it is difficult to have someone post false information about where you live and who created the cover art for your albums while calling you a divisive, brooding, shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue. As Hellion wrote to me on December 18th: "Thanks for taking the time to explain wiki. I had a different understanding of this website before this conversation."

Personal attacks such as the following are not acceptable behavior:

• "I've been going to hardcore shows since 1991 and I've never heard of him or his band before today. Is their name seriously called Integrity? Wow."[60]2020
• " User:Dwid hellion, who goes by the same name as a singer in a well known band called funnily enough Integrity (band)" [61] 02:55, 16 December 2020

Accusing Hellion of lacking integrity is crossing the line. It's admittedly a clever play on words considering the name of Hellion's band, but it is still a personal attack and a sign that Kire1975 lacks the objectivity ("his account is about to be blocked forever any minute now"[62]) needed to edit Hellion's BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellion's COI issue is one that should have been dealt with years ago but got lost in the shuffle based on his talk page. And since, wikipedia is forward looking, I concur that nothing further needs to be done now that a Guy has properly explained the issue.

Kire, on the other hand, may have started with good intentions of fully covering the band's highs and lows but at this point seems to have lost all objectivity and is only concerned with adding a negative item to a BLP article. WP:BLP stipulates we should be conservative when editing BLP article and further that multiple sources should be used for documenting incidents or allegations. Quite simply, if they can not drop the stick then it is time for the community to encourage them to move on from this article and be a productive member of the community elsewhere. Slywriter (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stick was dropped three weeks ago. Delete the "negative" properly sourced statement if that's the consensus. I am not concerned with it on a personal level at all. Guy's mind is made up. I went looking for sources to support a normal history section, or sources confirming the long list of membership, anything to make it not WP:PROMO but all there is out there is non-primary interviews with people being positive about this connected contributor. Hellion won't even let anyone say the band is from Cleveland, which has been confirmed through sources, or similar basic edits without completely WP:PAGEBLANKING the prose over and over and over.

If Hellion's extraordinary COI issue should have been dealt with before, how is it being dealt with now? If any other wikipedian comes along in the future and makes any edit whatsoever that doesn't fit what he perceives to be "positive coverage" they are going to be attacked with false accusations of bullying, vendettas, tricks, lies, snark, hate, stupidity and alleged inability to drop the stick when no edits have been made in this matter for several weeks, but nobody else has said any of that crosses any lines. I made a pun about the name of his band weeks ago, amidst volumes of evidence that Hellion actually does lack actual integrity. That a WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia has been allowed to disruptively edit his own band name's wikipage and bully good faith users for 13 years brings the reputation of the whole website into question. --Kire1975 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Macon's allegation of BLP violations, see WP:BLPBALANCE. Criticism can be included if it can be sourced to reliable secondary source. The Cleveland Scene is both. If only praise is allowed on the page, disproportionate space would be given to a particular viewpoint, see WP:UNDUE. Kire1975 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irony noting is not a valid reason for topic ban. The existence of this discussion is evidence that Guy Macon is trying to get me topic banned for dubious reason. That he cites the fact that I used the phrase "out to get me" to illustrate a point and that I stated that he is causing me fear and trembling as a justification for punishing me for being a good faith editor is WP:GASLIGHTING. The ANI discussion itself is unmerited and is only a pretext for him to continue bothering me on my talk page despite being asked multiple times to not do so (see above). Kire1975 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Dwid doesn't want to be described in the press as a divisive, brooding, charismatic shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue who enjoys publishing material just to cause controversy and crack on people, there are ways to establish alternative reputations besides falsely accusing good faith Wikipedians of allegedbullying, vendettas, tricks, lies, snark, hate and stupidity. Same goes for the criticism Guy Macon has received repeatedly on Reddit. 16:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks such as "...volumes of evidence that Hellion actually does lack actual integrity" and "If Dwid doesn't want to be described in the press as a divisive, brooding, charismatic shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue who enjoys publishing material just to cause controversy and crack on people..." (both in Kire1975's comment above) are clear BLP violations. They show that Kire1975 has lost objectivity and should not be allowed to edit Hellions' BLP. The fact that Kire1975 continues to edit the Integrity (band) talk page (the most recent edit was three hours ago) is inconsistent with the above "The stick was dropped three weeks ago" claim. I do not see any viable solution to these behavioral issues other than a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to spell your name correctly, which I assure you was a complete accident that I was wholly unaware of until you pointed it out, then when I complied, you are now using the fact that I made an edit without explaining to anyone here what the purpose of the edit was to try to get me banned. More WP:GASLIGHTING. Kire1975 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I referred to was this one:[63] I am not stupid. I would not have commented about you still editing on the Integrity (band) talk page after claiming to have dropped the stick if all you had done is correct a typo. I believe that I have identified the reason why you use the word "gaslighting" so often. I suggest that you stop paying attention to what I say and start paying attention to what others on this page are saying. What are the odds that everyone is wrong about your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something disruptive about this edit? You accused me of "reinserting a word" by reverting an edit multiple times, while ignoring that the word Monthly was removed 5 minutes before the first time you accused me of reinserting a word. I became so afraid of your relentless personal attacks (for example, "I am not stupid" above) and your relentless accusations that I dropped the stick so much that I didn't even look for that edit that made your attacks unnecessary until you brought it up here after three weeks of inactivity. That edit had a legitimate purpose. It was an answer to your question. I point to WP:GASLIGHTING so much because your mind is made up about me, though. You are trying to get me banned for simply editing, regardless of the purpose of the edit. You have never assumed WP:GOODFAITH, I am WP:NOTPERFECT but you never cared about explaining what I don't know without treating me like a human.

Hellion should have known better thirteen years ago. He has a history in the press of causing controversy and intimidating behavior. That's newsworthy and notable. He had a reputation for being "delusional and paranoid" before I started editing here. It's not a BLP violation to post criticism, even if Hellion calls is slander with no evidence of a court case or anything. But hey, I type too much. I talk about my feelings. The alternative press article used profanity so, you can come here, clutch your pearls and enlist more and more people to "support" you and parrot your non-reasons. You could have just deleted the material and stated your reasons for it. I would have not objected. The page will be WP:PROMO if that's the consensus. Kire1975 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again I say, there are FOUR people who have commented on your behavior on this page. You keep going on and on about why you refuse to listen to what Guy Macon and Dwid Hellion are telling you (I thought Hellion's "your statement that Derek Hess designed a few of my album covers is untrue, please cite your source for this information" comment was quite reasonable). Fine. Ignore us both. What about the other two people who have commented on your behavior? Are they also delusional and paranoid? You are violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. You just did it again by calling another editor -- who is also the the subject of a BLP page that you keep editing -- "delusional and paranoid". How many people have to tell you this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Derek Hess designed a few of his album covers or one, the question is whether or not Hess is a connected party/primary source. Hellion has confirmed that Hess did the artwork for an album coverm, therefore his WP:PROMO statement still on the page that "They were ahead of the curve. Integrity started incorporating art and illustrations, and I think that was a real right-on thing that broke away from the pack. When you say the name Dwid throughout the industry, they know who you're talking about. He's infamous." is WP:PUFFERY and should be removed, but meanwhile it won't be because you've got me here pinned down scared I'm going to be banned because of spelling errors and posting criticism and anything else you can think of to play gotcha with me. Instead of using bold and making threats, assume good faith and all will be well. Dwid is documented to be a paranoid, delusional, shit talker with a divisive used car salesman's tongue who has a history of publishing material just to cause controversy. This is not an ad hominem attack against him. These are facts. If Dwid doesn't want them to be reported in reliable, independent, secondary and verifiable sources, there are things he can do to develop a different reputation. Threatening good faith redditors with false accusations and potential bannings is not one of them. Nothing becomes slanderous by being labeled so. You may silence me, but you will not be making Wikipedia a better, safer place. See WP:NOTHERE Kire1975 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dwid writes lyrics about mental illness according to the lede. I didn't put that there. There's nothing wrong with being paranoid and delusional, per se. Check out my own userboxes. Threatening good faith editors with banning on the other hand.... --Kire1975 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked (not banned) User: Vic DiCara as a standard procedure to protect against possible impersonation, with simple remedies available to the user. See User talk:Vic DiCara. This is a completely different type of situation. This thread is filled with BLP violations by Kire1975. I support a topic ban for Kire1975 regarding Dwid hellion and the band called Integrity. Kire1975 is engaged in axe grinding and an ugly vendetta. It needs to stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Vic DiCara followed Cullen328's instructions, verified his identity, and was unblocked now that we know he is not an impersonator. I have given Vic DiCara the same advice I gave Dwid Hellion about not editing pages that are about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Thanks for finally explaining that. Your edit on User talk:Vic DiCara looked like it was some kind of template but I could not figure out where it was from or any precedents for that kind of block no matter how long I looked. There was also nothing there about the remedies having been taken. I am sorry for getting confused. Kire1975 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the COI tag from that album page. Thank you Guy for pointing out that Dwid's contributions on that page were not as major as they appeared. Speaking of overreactions, you could have pointed all this out on the talk page like a reasonable person or just removed it yourself and stated the reasons in the edit summary instead of trying to play gotcha with me here at ANI. Kire1975 (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for close

Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate this thread and ether close it with a conclusion of no action required or close it with a topic ban? I am about to once again be in a situation with weeks of no Internet access and will be unable to monitor the BLP page for continued violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the editor's conduct is well-documented in their own words above. Slywriter (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third, but please read WP:CRYBLP first, especially the part about the chilling effect, remember that I have asked for WP:IBAN with Guy Macon and Dwid hellion because of well documented WP:GASLIGHTING. Please remember that Guy Macon has a history of harassing inexperienced editors. And please be precise about the reasons and clear about which "topic" I am to be banned from. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if the closing administrator would also opine on the oft-repeated charge of gaslighting. If I actually am guilty of "history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord." as Kire1975 claims, I should be informed by an admin as to what I have done that I should no longer do. If, on the other hand, I am not guilty, Kire1975 should be told to stop accusing me of it.

I would also appreciate it if the closing administrator would address the CRYBLP claim above. Fortunately, Kire1975 has indicated exactly which part of CRYBLP he is claiming applies: "Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion". Multiple editors have told Kire1975 that he has violated WP:BLP. If, as Kire1975 claims, we are all wrong, we should be told so in order to avoid making the same mistake elsewhere.

Finally, may we please have a comment on whether quoting some random flamer on Reddit is appropriate?

In other words, a too-brief closing summary will leave Kire1975 convinced that his behavior is acceptable, so he should be told clearly and unambiguously what behavior is expected of him. And of course, if Kire1975 didn't do anything wrong, the rest of us need to be educated on where we went wrong in our assessment. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There you go posting a link to WP:BLP without stating your reasons again. Multiple people saying the same unjustified thing does not merit a ban, see WP:SATISFY. Nobody's accusing me of anything on reddit or anywhere else. You on the other hand [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. Random? I think not. Kire1975 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quartz is considered generally reliable for factual reporting, although some editors argue that caution should be used for science and bitcoin topics." Here they are accusing Guy Macon of distorting facts in Wikipedia has cancer. Kire1975 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question

In the following, I am asking an honest question without indicating what I think the answer should be. I really am not sure what the best course here is, and I don't trust myself to be unbiased in this matter.

Given the behavior we are seeing when Kire1975 is in the middle of an ANI discussion and presumably at his best behavior, is a topic ban from this particular musician enough? Should it be a full ban? Like I said, I can see good arguments either way. What do the other editors reading this think we should do? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken. You're definitely not out to get me. Wow.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

– Kire1975 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Special:Contributions/85.211.1.8 has made 6 edits adding "Zak Mahiz " to articles on various media, giving him roles in Roy, You, Me and the Apocalypse and other media. This has happened before with a similar IP Special:Contributions/85.211.14.18 a couple of months ago and yet another one Special:Contributions/89.242.25.60 here. Caius G. (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 3 months. Caius G., are there repeated target articles that could be protected? Do they always add the same text (for an edit filter)? You can also check about a rangeblock on 85.211.xx. xx with an admin familiar with this. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I just closed this SPI report, where WatanWatan2020 made bad-faith and baseless accusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry against Ahunt and The Bushranger (as well as some IP addresses). Looking at WatanWatan2020's user talk page, this user has a history of edit warring and other problems involving articles about airlines and similar article subjects. WatanWatan2020 has been talked to on more than one occasion regarding the addition of unreferenced or poorly referenced content, disruptive editing, and was recently blocked for making legal threats (although, after a discussion, he was unblocked after the presumption of good faith with what the user was trying to say). After declining the SPI report that WatanWatan2020 filed, and after looking through this user's talk page, I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that this user is just here to spam certain organizations on Wikipedia, as is evidenced by his edit history. As you can see, when his spamming is thwarted he resorts to accusing the long-term editors who revert him as "sockpuppets". I was accused of being the "puppet master" of an admin, User:The Bushranger who had previously blocked him for "outing" and making legal threats??? Even a cursory read through User talk:WatanWatan2020, show that is clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be quickly indef blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although this user may have been spamming, he’s not here for only that purpose. I came across him in two articles in recent months (Lebanon and Saudi Arabia). He wasn’t spamming on either - but he was heavy-duty POV pushing with some edit-warring. Not great, but I got the feeling it’s mostly new user naivety - there’s plenty of new users that are as bad/worse. Not a great defence (!) but I think that the main issue is not yet getting policy rather than NOTHERE. I suspects (in time) some blocks plus reprimand in this thread will put him straight. I could be wrong though... DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just note that baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are considered to be personal attacks, and move on with my editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user Josibald[76] and potential sockpuppet Brotherblog[77] are repeatedly accusing me of racism for my edits to provide balance on a the page of the political figure Shahid Malik.

Initial accusations were made in edit summaries, [78], [79], [80].

Further harassment has been made on the talk page in three separate incidents: [81], [82], [83].

A sockpuppet investigation into both accounts is currently open given the continued pushing of a purely self-promotional POV written in a similar style on the Malik articl1e, with sockpuppets making similar claims against other users as far back as 2011 [84] which is an extenuation of previous investigations from investigations here [85]

MrEarlGray (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted two of the edit summaries, redacted talk pages comments, and warned User:Brotherblog that if they continue to attack other editors, they will be blocked. They have already been warned for edit warring. I've also asked for input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shahid Malik. Fences&Windows 16:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support Fences and Windows :-) MrEarlGray (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saflieni is disruptive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The resumption by HoC and Buidhe of edit warring to get rid of my edits, even the old ones, and the continued posting of insults against scholars and me personally ...the posting of suggestive edit summaries accusing me of dishonesty, etc. I'm curious to learn what else the arbitrators expected would happen after handing them a free pass[86]
• They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule.[87]
• Please feel free to look at my edit summaries to see which ones are "suggestive" or accuse Saflieni of dishonesty. And feel free to compare Saflieni's edit summaries.HouseOfChange (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I'm filing this report because Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing and persistent POV-pushing on Balkan-related articles, more specifically on articles related to Serbs and Serbia, and has previously been blocked several times for POV edit-warring, promoting fringe theories and generally WP:NOTHERE behavior.

As a baseline, it's important to note that Mikola22 has expressed views supportive of the fascist WW2 Ustaše movement on meta.wiki:

• Backing Holocaust denier Roman Leljak : Diff
• Supporting the idea that "probably" 1,654 people died at the Jasenovac concentration camp (the academic consensus is that at least 83,000 were killed ) : Diff
• Saying: "Imagine that Yugoslavian history was based on historical documents about Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia, today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia" Diff
• Calling "'Yugoslav(Serbian) historiography" "a fairy tale based on nothing": Diff
• Supporting far-right hr.wiki admins: Diff
• Opposing the block of a LTA far-right hr.wiki admin, which received near unanimous support from established users: Diff

This matters because it explains Mikola22's editing behavior. The Croatian Wikipedia has unfortunately become notorious for its blatant promotion of fascist ideology, far-right historical revisionism and anti-Serb sentiment. [88] The problem has gotten so bad that the Wikimedia Foundation has recently had to post a job listing for someone to evaluate and identify all the disinformation on Croatian Wikipedia. [89] These far-right sentiments have bled into the Balkan topic area of English Wikipedia. This is the context in which Mikola22's compulsive editing on Serbs and Serbia articles is occurring, as seen by his contributions. I believe that just based on the sentiments expressed by Mikola22, WP:NONAZIS should have been applied to him a long time ago.

Mikola22 has referenced works by Krunoslav Draganović, an Ustaše official who organized the ratlines to smuggle Croatian fascist war criminals out of Europe after WW2, across multiple articles. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Mikola22 has also attempted to pass off the Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church as a legitimate religious organization, rather than as merely a tool of ethnic assimilation during their genocide against Serbs, which is what scholars agree it was. Diff Context on the Croatian Orthodox Church: [90]

Mikola22 has promoted the "Serbs are Vlachs" hypothesis, Diff 1 Diff 2 which is not only discredited by scholars but is also a common Ustaše trope whose entire point is to justify the erasure of Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia, see here and here. The existence of Serbs in these countries is precisely what Mikola was lamenting in his above-mentioned comment that "today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia". Accordingly, Mikola22 has also, through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Furthermore, since his last block, Mikola22 has advanced the theory that the word "Serb" is derived from "slaves" or "servants" on multiple articles, despite it being explained by multiple editors that this theory is fringe, Diff 1, Diff 2 and thread. This is clearly a form of ethno-nationalist trolling.

Mikola22 has been reported several times for tendentious behavior. Diff 1Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4.

Several Balkan and non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Diff 5 The latest example is an editor who was previously never involved but has expressed the same concerns on this talk page here. Mikola22's response is typical; hostile, disregard for other editors' concerns/views and persistent stubbornness. Diff 2 This attitude is also exemplified by his response to an earlier comment from another editor. Diff 3

According to this, a 1RR was indefinitely imposed on him as well. But he's violated it since at least once. Diff 1 Diff 2

In short, I believe Mikola22 is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for POV-pushing on articles related to Serbs and Serbia. He is interested in one topic and only for a single purpose. I'm certain that if some administrative action isn't taken, this tendentious editing will continue and will only create further disruption in an already contentious area sanctioned by WP:ARBCOM.

--Griboski (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

• Backing Holocaust denier Roman Leljak This is response from 17 December 2019 (edit) when I didn’t know the rules of Wikipedia, meaning of RS, fringe theory etc. In that debate, none of the 100 participants exposed RS which refutes some books etc of Roman Leljak and sources which say that he is "Holocaust denier". How should I know that?
• Supporting the idea that "probably" 1,654 people died at the Jasenovac concentration camp (the academic consensus is that at least 83,000 were killed. In diff I do not support this, see diff. Roman Leljak claims this based on the Communist archival documents from Belgrade.
• Saying: "Imagine that Yugoslavian history was based on historical documents about Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia, today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia" The academic Noel Malcolm claim this "To call someone a Serb today is to use a term created in the 19th and 20th centuries based on a common religion, language, history, and personal sense of national belonging. Today's Bosnian Serbs are free to present themselves as Serbs, regardless of their Vlach status origin", (Malcom, Noel (1995). Povijest Bosne : kratki pregled. p. 109; Erasmus Gilda : Novi Liber. ISBN 953-6045-03-6)
• Calling "'Yugoslav(Serbian) historiography" "a fairy tale based on nothing". Considering that I found a lot of forgeries in articles, this is my opinion, and these forgeries are also confirmed by Croatian historians in sources. Mikola22 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (Supporting far-right hr.wiki admins What should I tell you, whether write on his forehead that he is far-right???
• Opposing the block of a LTA far-right hr.wiki admin, which received near unanimous support from established users Yes and, as if I supported a mass murderer??? Mikola22 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply II

• You repeat( Krunoslav Draganović) source every time you write reports against me. That was in the first days of Wikipedia edits and I never heard that he had something to do with Fascists and Nazis. What I knew was that he was respected today in the Croatian Catholic Church and that his books were in every library and school system where he is exposed as source in various works(thesis etc).
• Mikola22 has also attempted to pass off the Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church There are Orthodox Croats in Croatian history and today, and what I should be ashamed for that. Why not know something about them too. My article is proposed for merge with article Croatian Orthodox Church and with the will of the majority neutral editors in the debate for deleting of that article (Orthodox Croats). Which means that my informationn's and sources had no problems with "Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church".
• Mikola22 has promoted the "Serbs are Vlachs" hypothesis. I said I followed an academic Noel Malcolm, Ilona Czamańska and her claim that "Majority of Serbs from the Republika Srpska of modern Bosnia is of Vlach origin", claim of historian Ivo Banac in best North American book for 1984 "Orthodox Slavicized Vlachs gradually acquired Serb national consciousness because most of South Slavic Orthodox Christians belonged to Serbian Patriarchate of Peć with whom these Vlachs assimilated" etc..
• Mikola22 has also, through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible This means to you and to me means that every information must be in NPOV, see my edit summaries where everithing is explaned. If historians state this information in the same context, I see no reason why only one context should remain in the article from the primary source and information that Serbs inhabit the large part of Roman Dalmatia?
• Furthermore, since his last block, Mikola22 has advanced the theory that the word "Serb" is derived from "slaves" or "servants" on multiple articles, despite it being explained by multiple editors that this theory is fringe That has not been determined as fringe information (FTN), I have exposed three quality sources as evidence, Italian, Serbian and British. British source said that half scholars claim this.
• Mikola22 has been reported several times for tendentious behavior Yes.
• Several Balkan and non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing Yes, we editing articles, this was also the case in previous reports. I haven't seen those editors in a long time and there have been problems before.
• According to this, a 1RR was indefinitely imposed on him as well. But he's violated it since at least once. Because I was a good editor this restriction is withdrawn. And so far I have not broken that rule.
• In short, I believe Mikola22 is only here In short this is probably a joint report against me. Every report I read the same accusations(I started dreaming of Krunoslav Draganović). Last time editor Sadko was much more imaginative because I was accused of putting links and edits which I didn’t do. What can I say, finally there is someone here (me) on Wikipedia who checks all the sources, puts countless new information's, reads the literature, edit article in NPOV etc.. although I am alone against them 5 or 6. Again insinuations and false accusations out of context. Mikola22 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Griboski When you mentioned the "latest example" and editor PajaBG, can you please tell him not to return a map that has no sources as evidence and on which is big part of the Balkans where Serbs allegedly coming in 7th century. It's called WP: OR. Explaned here [91] Article edit summaries [92]. Thanks in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What should I tell you, whether write on his forehead that he is far-right??? Um, if there are serious and credible allegations, including press coverage, of administrators peddling a Pro-Fascist worldview on an encyclopedia, then this would be obvious and should be looked at carefully. They shouldn't be given blind and enthusiastic support.

Yes and, as if I supported a mass murderer??? No. Just a far-right/neo-Nazi admin. In any case, these responses are telling. If you can't grasp what constitutes holocaust/historical revisionism and far-right ideology, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

In diff I do not support this, see diff. Roman Leljak claims this In the diff you clearly state: "Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct." And you clearly insinuate in your response that since no one has been able to challenge his "original document" then he must be right.

That has not been determined as fringe information (FTN), I have exposed three quality sources as evidence.. You provided three non-experts on the subject and it's been explained to you that it has been discounted in scholarship. Continuing to push it and deny it here doesn't help you.

What can I say, finally there is someone here (me) on Wikipedia who checks all the sources, puts countless new information's, reads the literature, edit article in NPOV etc.. Wow. Describing yourself as some kind of Great Wikipedian.. I don't even know where to begin with this. But it just demonstrates the arrogance you habitually exhibit and WP:NOTHERE attitude.

I compiled this report myself and only I am responsible for it. I've never reported anyone and I don't like to. But it comes to the point where prolonged tendentious editing shouldn't be tolerated. What others have said about you in past reports is not on me but it is concerning how many times you have been reported, by several different editors and for good reason. You are clearly here only to push a particular POV that is negative across Serbia and Serbs related articles and it's obvious. Aside from the fact that this sort of mentality isn't healthy, it's also not good-faith editing and you're not fooling anyone when you use edit summaries like "NPOV" each time. At some point this disruptive pattern and editing behavior has to be addressed. --Griboski (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaply III

• Um, if there are serious and credible allegations, including press coverage I don't know who that administrator is and many others supported him. I had never heard of him before and I suport administrator from Croatian Wikipedia not far-right/neo-Nazi admin.
• No. Just a far-right/neo-Nazi admin If you construct and accuse me out of context then you have to prove that I know at that point that he is far-right/neo-Nazi pro Fasistic etc admin. I now hear for the first time that he is far-right/neo-Nazi admin.
• " Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct... If someone writes a book and presents information about something, RS should tell us weather it is all fringe, propaganda, etc. Also there should be some procedure RSN and FTN and after that we know that his source is fringe or nor reaible. I can't at that moment(2019) when I don't know exactly what fringe theory term means or not reliable source to know that something is wrong. None of the 100 editors did expose this information's(fringe, not reliable etc) from RS. Also at that point I thought that his source passed all the checks on the Croatian Wikipedia. I didn't know how Croatian Wikipedia works.
• You provided three non-experts on the subject and it's been explained to you that it has been discounted in scholarship. Continuing to push it and deny it here doesn't help you. This information was part of article Serbia for several months, editor Sadko accepted it and he never said it was fringe information. Main source for this information is Colin Wells (historian) (2007, Sailing from Byzantium p. 211; Bantam Dell; ISBN 055338273X) and information that this is theory of half scholars, other half talks about the Iranian theory of the Serbian name. In addition I added two confirmatory sources. None of the editors addressed the issue on FTN to determine whether that theory is fringe. How would I know it was a fringe theory when this is theory of half scholars? That's what the Wikipedia procedure tells us.
• Wow. Describing yourself as some kind of Great Wikipedian... In each report always the same or mostly the same accusation. Next time when some of you again reports me I will know 80% of report without reading. For Krunoslav Draganović I had been report the first time(2019) and no one had told me anything. Now you are trying to go in the direction of editor Sadko and "Nazi" fact. You go for the impression again and out of context only you were more careful than editor Sadko. As we say in the Balkans, this is "hunting in muddy water". I hope the administrators see that as they have seen it before. Mikola22 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]