Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
TimothyBlue (talk | contribs) →Proposal: ądditional talk page evidence for consideration |
m →Kire1975's Response: Tweak |
||
Line 2,028: | Line 2,028: | ||
::I note the irony of Kire1975 doing the following: |
::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." |
::* 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 |
::* 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADwid_hellion&type=revision&diff=994930689&oldid=994833590][https://www.reddit.com/r/rareinsults/comments/bef39n/guy_macons_flame_to_end_all_flames_version_613/][https://www.reddit.com/r/RealWikiInAction/comments/iqdkur/guy_macon_invents_a_new_form_of_harassment/] |
::* Engaged in off-wiki "opposition research" by searching Reddit until he found someone who criticized me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADwid_hellion&type=revision&diff=994930689&oldid=994833590][https://www.reddit.com/r/rareinsults/comments/bef39n/guy_macons_flame_to_end_all_flames_version_613/][https://www.reddit.com/r/RealWikiInAction/comments/iqdkur/guy_macon_invents_a_new_form_of_harassment/] |
||
::* Claiming that he is trembling in fear because I posted this report. |
::* Claiming that he is trembling in fear because I posted this report. |
Revision as of 12:51, 6 January 2021
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bgkc4444 was warned in a previous report by Ivanvector to assume good faith in dealing with editors, such as myself, to which they responded, "I do apologise for assuming bad faith, and I will try keep a check on that." ([1]) Having been pinged to a discussion at Talk:Surprise album#Removal of sourced material, given my contributions several months ago, I noticed they are still making bad-faith accusations and suggestions toward other editors, Fezmar9 specifically, and I see these are similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before.
- [2] "no matter if you personally dislike those facts", is how they opened the discussion after their only series of changes to the article in recent memory was reverted yesterday
- [3] "And you do not own this page so how dare you tell me to 'leave well enough alone' because you personally don't want to accept or display these basic facts." ("own" was pipe-linked to WP:OWN)
- [4] "we shouldn't not be making articles encyclopedic because we personally don't want readers to know the full story."
- [5] "It's funny looking at what you're trying to force into the article."
- [6] "Watch your tone, and it would be great if you stopped with the whataboutism and actually responded to my points. And well, no. As much as you'd love it to be the truth, Swift's albums aren't the main events in surprise album history like Radiohead and Beyonce's albums."
- [7] "Again with the ignoring of my points? ... I hope you're not refusing to engage in discussion, because this isn't your article, and you should want to reach consensus to ensure it is encyclopedic." ("this isn't your article" was pipe-linked, again, to WP:OWN)
- [8] "I'm not the one reverting to force my contradictory opinions onto the page."
- [9] "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."
- [10] "The way editors on this page are trying to bury that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album in a "shared" paragraph really isn't helpful."
I gave own input on the content dispute, with comments focusing strictly on the editor's changes and the content, rather than the editor's conduct or intentions, and even restored a piece of information that had been undone from Bgkc4444's original edit, but with a more appropriate source. Bgkc4444 replied by quoting a remark I made several months ago about what I felt was toxic and condescending behavior by them, while accusing the editors in disagreement with them of "trying to bury" information and "hiding the significance" of a particular subject. In my own opinion, I did not see anything suggesting Fezmar9 or BawinV have behaved or intended to behave in the way Bgkc4444 has said or suggested.
Content disputes can get heated and emotional. But, considering Ivanvector's advice in the aforementioned report, for more diligence in reporting incidents, I feel obligated to report this activity. Perhaps it will deter this kind of behavior so the rest of us can feel comfortable and encouraged, rather than compelled, to comply with more civil and patient standards of discussion about content. And so potentially toxic or unfair comments do not become normalized or countered by similar accusations and suggestions in discussions that should not lose focus of the content. Thank you. isento (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, you say "similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before", but I believe you're referring to your continuous personal attacks despite final warnings from administrators, which caused you to be blocked just ten days ago. I also believe you admitted your personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), said you want no further interaction with me multiple times, and called this administrators' noticeboard a kangaroo court of hypocrites, so I genuinely cannot think of a good reason why you'd join a discussion that you know I started and then complain about my actions to the same noticeboard.
- Secondly, I do not see how these are "continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions". I certainly stick by my contributions to the discussion that I had made, unless I violated Wikipedia guidelines that I am not aware of. It is certainly true that both in the previous discussion and in the current one, editors explicitly agreed to ignore my points (especially you, when you said: "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.") and then consequently claimed that consensus was reached. I am happy to go through each of the out-of-context quotes you brought here one-by-one, but I don't want to waste time and would appreciate an administrator's POV. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
My conduct has already been addressed in the previous report. I have learned from and am over it. Nor will I be baited into further behavior of that kind -- as I clearly said above, I was pinged to that discussion and had contributed significantly to the article. WP:HOTHEAD makes it clear that project[ing] negative mental assumptions about someone you're in a disagreement with is wrong, and saying things like "no matter if you personally dislike those facts" or making repeated accusations of page ownership seemed to fit the bill to me. So I reported it. I think a more formal warning rather than a block is appropriate, especially since Bgkc444 responded so defensively and was quick to highlight my past transgressions rather than reflect on their own behavior. They have demonstrated a pattern of making inflammatory or unactionable accusations ([11], as warned by Escape Orbit, and elsewhere: [12], [13], as warned by the since-retired admin Ad Orientem). And believe they should be held accountable for it like anyone else. isento (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- How is this WP:BAIT? I believe bait would be something like - after being blocked for continuous attacks on an editor, pledging a personal intolerance of them and pleading to not have interactions with them again - joining a discussion that that editor started, "remaining superficially civil" (e.g. as you said, you "even" restored a small piece of the material that I added) and "then complain to an administrator". I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoped you had changed and wouldn't try and ruin my editing experience for me as you have continuously done for months, but unfortunately I took the bait and here we are. Fezmar9 and I were in a NPOV dispute and we both accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on both mine and Fezmar9's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here. The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not both editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate. Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday at the aforementioned discussion, while pointing out the source-integrity flaws in Bgkc4444's original edits to the article, I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail.
This editor appears to routinely attack the intentions and credibility of other editors who do not agree with their Beyonce-focused content changes, such as at Alecsdaniel's talk page here a month ago: All of this does not indicate you are acting to improve this article, and instead shows that you're trying to make the film seem "worse" ... As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles ... repeatedly trying to force your edits onto the article that you know violate Wikipedia policies related to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This is another example where the editor was disagreed with and overwhelmed the other editor with WP:HOTHEAD-like accusations and suggestions, and when the other editor gave a valid response addressing the issue and then bowed out, Bgkc4444 still continued with the same line of argument, accusing the other editor of "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and "pretending to not realise why your material was removed and repeatedly blame it on my intelligence or personal agenda (it's because it violates Wikipedia's policies, by the way)" while suggesting that they have not been "engaging in constructive discussion". isento (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I can honestly say my experience with Bgkc4444 was the worst on the English Wikipedia. "Black is King", a film by Beyonce, had the 'Reception' section filled only with overly-long praises from various sources and failed to address any criticism. In order to give the article a level of objectivity, I've added reviews or points made that weren't praising Beyonce, which the user removed. Despite having a conversation and a vote on the talk page of Black is King, in which other users agreed the points I raised were valid, he continued to remove anything he didn't see as good reviews. I've tried to talk to them, but, as seen from the answers given to Isento even here, they fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar. I truly believe this kind of attitude is toxic for people to interact with, which is why I left them to their device, and there is still only praise on the "Black is King" page. Furthermore, since they lack objectivity, it is really hard to say how much their contributions value on Wikipedia, as this is not a fan page. But not everybody gets that. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Isento: Seriously, are you not tired of this? And are you refusing to address my points even here?
- "I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail." - Very benevolent of you, but because Fezmar9 and I are currently in a discussion regarding this content, I did not want to add material without ensuring there was consensus on it. And I'm not having a discussion with you while you're trying your hardest to get me blocked on here. I learned my lesson from the first bait-taking.
- And seriously, why are you bringing up months-old content disputes? It's actually sad that you'd try pick out random out-of-context quotes from a content dispute I had with someone months ago while ignoring their same messages to me as well as their personal attacks on my intelligence, something you have also done for months. I'll bring it here again. Fezmar9 and I, and Alecsdaniel and I, were in NPOV disputes and we all accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on mine, Fezmar9 and Alecdaniel's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here (and, to add, a months-old discussion isn't an emergency either). The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not all editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate.
- This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, @Alecsdaniel: please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. When there is a pattern of conflict, we must see that there is fault in some behavior or aspect of our behavior that we keep repeating. And as harsh as it may appear to read, our comments have truth to them. isento (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Your condescending comments and faux psychoanalysis are extremely inappropriate. Please see your talk page. To stay focused on the actual discussion. What conflict do we currently have? The only thing I said to you was a comment last week saying that something "isn't helpful", and with another user I've had an NPOV dispute. These are not urgent or emergency matters that require administrators' discipline. The discussion here isn't going to go anywhere if you continue to ignore the points I raise. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- You have admitted to having mental health issues here and here, and my point was to try relating my own experience with mental health issues to you so you would stop compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD), and instead appreciate the good faith that is there. But this response tells me I failed to do that -- instead of seeing the effort through good faith, you completely misread it through a bad-faith lens, which betrays a problem. And this noticeboard is not only for "urgent or emergency matters". It is also for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." isento (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Where do I admit that I have "mental health issues"?? I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health. I never said I have "mental health issues", nor that I've lived in an "abusive household", nor that I "feel handicapped by it", nor that I "use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in". It is highly inappropriate and actually quite disgusting that you'd make those assertions about me. If you'd want to appear as acting in good faith, it would probably be best to avoid telling other editors that they are handicapped idolaters with mental health issues. And I don't believe you're stupid so I know that you know what the right thing to do is.
- Unsurprisingly, it's hard to see good faith in someone who has abused me for the better part of a year with horrible personal attacks and insults, which evidently hasn't stopped. It's hard to see good faith in someone who was blocked for this abuse against me just last week, who admitted their personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), and has said that they want no further interaction with me multiple times, but then reply to a discussion that I started and then when I reply, immediately report me to ANI. That doesn't indicate good faith. I assume you know that you yourself have problems with "compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD)" and making personal attacks, because every time I have to discuss this issue with you, either I write a note on your talk page under another note on your talk page about incivility directed against another editor, or other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them. If you know you have a problem with other editors so much, and especially me, and if you truly want other editors to view your actions as being in good faith, there are many options you can choose to do that. Interacting with editors when you know you shouldn't, reporting them to ANI and continuing with baseless personal claims about them are not some of those options. To that note, how would you know if those issues are "tractable" if instead of writing a polite message on my talk page, you either write uncivil or condescending comments or go immediately to ANI? Again, this makes it harder for me to see your actions as being in good faith, if that is truly what you want to gain from this discussion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- You have admitted to having mental health issues here and here, and my point was to try relating my own experience with mental health issues to you so you would stop compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD), and instead appreciate the good faith that is there. But this response tells me I failed to do that -- instead of seeing the effort through good faith, you completely misread it through a bad-faith lens, which betrays a problem. And this noticeboard is not only for "urgent or emergency matters". It is also for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." isento (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Your condescending comments and faux psychoanalysis are extremely inappropriate. Please see your talk page. To stay focused on the actual discussion. What conflict do we currently have? The only thing I said to you was a comment last week saying that something "isn't helpful", and with another user I've had an NPOV dispute. These are not urgent or emergency matters that require administrators' discipline. The discussion here isn't going to go anywhere if you continue to ignore the points I raise. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. When there is a pattern of conflict, we must see that there is fault in some behavior or aspect of our behavior that we keep repeating. And as harsh as it may appear to read, our comments have truth to them. isento (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences. Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally. As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning and getting accused of mocking them ([14]), merely because I said please don't restore the content again. These responses are consistently combative and distracting the focus from their behavior to mine when mine has already been addressed in the previous report. That is by definition intractable. That they respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue. isento (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for all the mean, intolerant things I've said to you in the past 😢 I'm sorry if they hurt you so much. I believe my concerns here are valid and of good-faith, but I am still sorry. isento (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- "I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences." - No, you said: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." Saying "know how it feels" means that you're making those assertions about me. That's obvious, Isento, and if you want to appear as acting in good faith then pretending you never said that doesn't help. "Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally." - Again, I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health, not that I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues.
- "As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning" - No you didn't. You just repeatedly placed warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replied sarcastically when I asked you to clarify. This clearly shows that you were not writing polite messages on my talk page, despite the fact that WP:UW clearly states that "issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with", not writing personal messages, and not clarifying yourself can all indicate that the editor is acting uncivilly. And even if you did write a constructive message on my talk page (which you didn't), we're talking about a discussion from this week, not 6 months ago.
- "respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue" - Telling me that you relate to me because I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues and you get where I'm coming from is not in any way an apology, and having an issue with such accusations is not being defensive nor "indicative of this long-term issue".
- Isento, it is not "past behavior" or "things I've said to you in the past" because this is very clearly an ongoing problem. Yes, your comment to me is highly inappropriate and I tried discussing it with you on your talk page, but you deleted it (as you always have done when I write personal messages on your talk page regarding your behavior) and replaced it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today". And you're clearly not sorry or bothered about ruining others' experiences on Wikipedia if, when I tell you the distress that you've caused me, you say that I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alecsdaniel was right. You're proving my point. And as for the song, not everything is about you - we all have our own lives and crises of conscience to which you have no relevance. I was rude and sarcastic in the past because I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego, since this noticeboard post isn't even a content dispute and since you have verbosely attacked the merits of this post, God knows why if you don't think it has any merit to begin with. I apologized and took responsibility for the past, but your continued aggression makes me feel regretful and foolish for doing so, since you seem incapable of considering or taking any blame on your part when multiple editors have pointed out to you that you've got a problem. I will now leave this in the more capable hands of administrators. Bowing out 🙏 isento (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see here, I wish users Isento and Bgkc4444 would WP:DISENGAGE. Both of you keep going back and forth, often more heated than the last. In my opinion, as an uninvolved third-party, both of your behavior toward each other is inappropriate and unacceptable. Regarding specific issues: Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out. However, Isento is a very experienced editor with over 120,000 edits and has been here since 2008. Given that breadth of experience, I feel that they should be more than capable of handling this type of issue without being so easily brought down to a level of interaction which is lesser than should be expected of them. (Personally, to witness this happening to such an experienced editor is disheartening.) ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 22:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gwennie-nyan, I am sorry for disappointing you. It was a very rough year, and I let it seep into my activity here sometimes. But I am healing. Hence the inspiration for posting the song. I'm not a machine. I've had issues too. And I really got to sympathize with what I sensed the editor was going thru because I've been there too. I hope my shortcomings have at least served to help another editor see theirs. Because they have positive potential that can help the project. isento (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your comment. Could I possibly ask you to clarify when I "ignore[d] local consensus on pages"? Is that regarding my quote that Isento brought saying: "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."? Because that sentence is certainly true. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, mostly, as you admitted to it, consensus is a complicated thing. If you're on a page and there's a total of four editors (yourself included) discussing things on a talk page, and three of them are in agreement and you disagree, you're facing growing local consensus. Now, if you don't think you and your arguments are being given a fair shake, that's why we have the RFC system and dispute resolution system, where third parties can be brought in from a wider scope to the page and help weigh-in on disputed matters. If you find yourself facing down three editors (concurring with the position you oppose) by yourself, without any other support, and you keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself without using some of those systems I just mentioned, that is definitely a fertile ground for problematic behavior, if not somewhat problematic in itself. I heavily disagree with you saying it is certainly true, as it is more likely to be untrue than true (in this context). ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your response. That isn't exactly what happened. Editor A started a discussion about various edits done by Editor B, and I tried to bridge the two and voiced my agreements and disagreements of points within both arguments, however this was met with intolerance (e.g. "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.". WP:CON states that "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.", so the conclusion of that discussion cannot be considered a consensus just because it's "3 vs 1" and especially if the "3 side" explicitly said to ignore the "1 side"'s concerns. I also believe that I do not "keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself". WP:CON further states that soliciting outside opinions should be done when there is a deadlock, but the discussion lasted for only ~12 hours before my opinions were told to be ignored and that request was heeded, so I didn't solicit outside opinions because we hadn't even had a proper discussion, let alone form any consensus. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, thank you, but I've already gone through plenty of pages related to the contributions of both you and Isento so I can make informed comments.
- Regarding the incident you linked, I would also like to point out your comment. Both of you have been editing music-related pages (most notably Beyonce-related), so it makes sense for you to end up in the talk pages thereof. Things really didn't become personal until that comment, which targeted Isento with an implication of WP:HOUNDING. (Such that BawinV discouraged you from that behavior.) If you feel that they are, then you need to report that, you don't escalate the confrontation. Reading through the talk pages, it seems that after Isento appeared you become much more disagreeable and your statements became pointed.
- Both here and in examples that have been pointed out, you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering which isn't very constructive for the purposes of the project in my opinion. The number of other editors who have expressed their dissension with your interactions is concerning. While trying to assume good faith, I am also inclined to point out that someone more cynical might think you're gaming the system, as Isento likely does, as they have accused you of making bad-faith accusations.
- I would also like to point out that when Isento has posted a good list of diffs regarding your content, you have been misdirecting the conversation. While I appreciate the link to Isento's statement, they have already been disciplined for it. This AN/I is not about them, it's about you. To ignore the accusations of misconduct by you by pointing out the misbehavior of others is whataboutism and not a very good-faith tactic to engage in.
- These are the reasons Isento and Alecsdaniel have said that your statements prove their points and I have to agree with them to a certain degree, which I don't necessarily want to. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 23:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that consensus was reached on that page even though WP:CON states that consensus is not when editors ignore others' concerns nor when there's 3 vs 1? And apologies that I made a suggestion of possible hounding on that talk page three months ago, but Isento's personal attack to me is not justified because of that, in the same way that my suggestion wasn't justified by his preceding personal attacks to me. And I don't understand why you're pinging other editors....
- Please explain in what way I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" (and gaming the system)? That's a pretty serious claim to make and one that is considered an insult if it doesn't address a specific argument.
- Which brings me on to this. I still don't understand exactly what my supposed violation of Wikipedia guidelines that warranted this ANI report was, any more than I was in an NPOV dispute which I don't understand why it would warrant such an approach. In my first response to this discussion, I said so, and have said so repeatedly throughout this discussion, but I am none the wiser. Also, there's nothing wrong with giving the full story to any administrator reading this because there is no "immunity" for reporters (WP:SHOT). Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The far more serious claim that I took serious offense to and ended up losing faith and seriousness for you was being accused of racism and misogyny: To quote Ivanvector in the previous report: "I read isento's comment from August (this one) criticizing a source as "just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing"", which in the next edit you described as "[isento] dismissing this article by saying "it just isn't a serious piece of commentary" because the work of a black female writer "is just some neurotic vapid lecture" and said it "sounds extremely misogynistic and racist"." When I warned you about it in August as a personal attack, you doubled-down on the claim: "Calling out your racism and misogyny is not considered a personal attack, because there is evidence of this behaviour" Now, I was going thru a lot at the time in my life, so I was bone-headed enough to talk down to you in response, and from there, I ended up stooping to your level further, as Gwennie-nyan suggested. There was no legitimate reason for accusing me of that. And you never owned up to it. I don't want to be a hypocrite and assume bad-faith as to why you'd accuse me of that, or why you'd continue denying that you have demonstrated a problem. So I am left with no other conclusion than it has been a mental health issue. To avoid the complication of improving an article we both have an interest in, for instance, I really hope we don't need an interaction ban, but it seems from your responses that you still don't get the problem, which resigns me to leaning toward Gwennie's proposal, sad to say. isento (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, for your understanding, consensus is a variable thing. If you're facing superior numerical resistance, the strength of the argument you need is much stronger than if otherwise. However the spirit of consensus is plurality is probably the best, not always, but probably. One of the biggest factors in gaming and wikilawyering is trying to cite policy to go against the spirit of policy, cherry-picking arguments, or such that make you look better without actually improving your case.
- Regardless, you just did it again, we're not talking about Isento's conduct, we're talking about yours. They already received their 3-day block for it. In fact, this AN/I report is directly a result of their admonition by the admins, recommending they file more reports instead of fighting you on talk pages if they have a concern. (Additionally, I ping other editors when I reference them in case they want to comment on or correct my portrayal of their comments.)
- Full stories are fine, but it's quite clear you cherry-pick Isento's comments out more than you defend your own. There's not immunity for reporters, no, but unless it's extremely evident that a report is made in bad faith, part of assuming good faith is to assume the reporters have the best of intentions. Equally another part is to discuss and try to have the accused explain their actions. Isento has owned up to their bad conduct, admitted it, accepted their punishment, and is trying to follow admin recommendations for the future. No one expects an editor to be perfect, heck I'm not, but we do expect some modicum of self-awareness and self-critique. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: I do not understand how I can explain my actions if no-one explains their problems with them to me. Am I right in saying that you're claiming that I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" solely because I said that reaching consensus involves incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns, and that you believe the spirit of consensus is not based on incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns? If so, I'd have to strongly disagree. Further, I'd appreciate more examples that warranted the unsubstantiated claim of a "significant amount of wikilawyering" and gaming the system, and tenditious editing. And that's not what the administrator said; they said that they should report "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if an editor is having an NPOV dispute with someone. And Isento has not "owned up" to it because they continue to tell me that I have mental health issues. I don't see why you expect me to be okay with these insults. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Having had some interactions with Isento, it is my fair opinion that he is the problematic one, not Bgkc4444. In regards to Beyoncé's 346 ASCAP-registered songwriting credits, Isento typed : "If I were to compile 346 parking tickets, that would not make me a professional criminal.", "It is up to editors to make judgement calls." All editors were calm, but he increasingly got emotional and argumentative. In my observation, he's the one that showed tendentious and POV pushing issues, even editing my own post and repeatedly using the history page to antagonize other editors. Yes, Isento was disciplined for his actions, but he did not show much remorse, calling ANI a "kangaroo court" [15]. Also, on one occasion, Bgkc4444 questioned consensus in regards to the lead of Beyoncé's article but did not edit the lead to reflect her position. There was then another RfC in regards to the infobox, and consensus was reached. Israell (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted that when having a disagreement with Bgkc4444 over the "Black is King" article, as seen here [16], a strange thing happened, which I am not sure if it's notable or not. I've added a review in that article in which I mentioned that some African people didn't like their portrayal in the film, to which Bgkc4444 replied that "Also you previously said that it was "Africans" who said your criticism, and yet you're Romanian" - my nationality, ethnicity or any other part of my identity, I think, shouldn't matter, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Futhermure, he continued by mentioning that "As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles.", which, frankly, seems to accuse ME of racism, as I was a fan of a white artist (as he clearly pointed out several times during our conversations) who added negative content in that article - even if properly sourced. I believe that is very serious suggestion which shouldn't be treated lightly, Gwennie-nyan. I've let it slide, but after reading what Isento had to say, it seems that this is not the only time he has done so. It further affected my personal time on Wikipedia, as I was now debating if adding a negative review meant I was contributing in some way to the micro or macro aggressions that Black people have to face every day. Please take notice of this comment as well. Thank you! Alecsdaniel (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believe Alecsdaniel knows that's not what happened and that they shouldn't misrepresent what I said or the case. They added three positive reviews, two from Black Americans and one from Africans, but picked out-of-context negative-sounding sentences from the reviews and put it in the article, despite all three reviews refuting those negative points. They said it was because they wanted to represent the views of "actual Africans", but the one sentence that they did bring from a review written by Africans wasn't written by the reviewers, but was by a Twitter user that the reviewers quoted and said they disagreed with. I tried to clearly explain how this violated the policies related to issues such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but was told by Alecsdaniel right from the beginning: "you are showing a clear bias" and that "often fans of singers like Beyonce and Lady Gaga take control of an article". These are claims they stuck by, even though I have said many times both before Alecsdaniel said that and after that I welcome negative points in this article and this is not what the content dispute is about and have added a policy-compliant summary of negative points to the article as well. They then told me "it is not a personal attack, my comment about those fandoms come from my direct interaction with those fandoms", which is not a justification for their actions. Isento then joined in against me and started an RfC. Alecdaniel's one of only two contributions to this was, after Isento told me "Five paragraphs of regurtitated praise and you're quibbling over a few measly sentences suggesting less-than-flattering yet valid thoughts? Forget personal attacks. We're dealing with a Beyhive attack.", they replied "So it would seem ...". The unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that Alecdaniel's additions violated the policies about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and that editor, Isento and I were having a lengthy and (mostly) constructive discussion about the material.
- Months later, Alecsdaniel then readded the exact same material that they knew violates Wikipedia guidelines without further discussion, and acting against what was spoken about in the discussion, saying "There was a vote, the paragraph stays" despite the fact that polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the main conclusion from the discussion was that the material violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, something which they haven't recognised (eg. they then told Timeheist: "I can't even imagine what you consider "material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia" if reviews from trust-worthy sources fall into that category for you".) Then I started a section on their talk page so that we could discuss this. Alecsdaniel unfortunately met me with claims of "You simply want it buried", "If you cared about being objective", and "I am afraid you don't understand what an encyclopedia is", as well as "some fandoms are notoriously ... difficult, even here, and you only seem only too willing to push that narrative". I raised the issue of their personal attacks, but I was told "I feel like you are reading too much into what I say or do - and not even paying attention to everything". Alecsdaniel then also said that they added those negative points because these were things that they personally believed when watching the film. That is when I highlighted the fact that they're not African, not to say that their concerns should be ignored (and I obviously think the opposite because I was the one taking part in a lengthy constructive discussion on their suggestions, not them, added material to the article to match what they wanted, and started a discussion on their talk page), but to highlight that their argument changed from that the material that violates Wikipedia guidelines should be added because it was written by "actual Africans" to because those were their personal beliefs. And no, I never called them a racist or said they were engaging in micro or macro aggressions, but I apologise if my comment suggested that or if they felt that I was making personal attacks. Again, if I believed Alecsdaniel was only making these edits because of some malicious agenda, I would not have constructively engaged in the RfC discussion, tried to reach consensus, edited the article to accommodate their views, or written a message on their talk page. In fact, the opposite of these 4 points applies to Alecsdaniel's actions. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted that when having a disagreement with Bgkc4444 over the "Black is King" article, as seen here [16], a strange thing happened, which I am not sure if it's notable or not. I've added a review in that article in which I mentioned that some African people didn't like their portrayal in the film, to which Bgkc4444 replied that "Also you previously said that it was "Africans" who said your criticism, and yet you're Romanian" - my nationality, ethnicity or any other part of my identity, I think, shouldn't matter, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Futhermure, he continued by mentioning that "As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles.", which, frankly, seems to accuse ME of racism, as I was a fan of a white artist (as he clearly pointed out several times during our conversations) who added negative content in that article - even if properly sourced. I believe that is very serious suggestion which shouldn't be treated lightly, Gwennie-nyan. I've let it slide, but after reading what Isento had to say, it seems that this is not the only time he has done so. It further affected my personal time on Wikipedia, as I was now debating if adding a negative review meant I was contributing in some way to the micro or macro aggressions that Black people have to face every day. Please take notice of this comment as well. Thank you! Alecsdaniel (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Having had some interactions with Isento, it is my fair opinion that he is the problematic one, not Bgkc4444. In regards to Beyoncé's 346 ASCAP-registered songwriting credits, Isento typed : "If I were to compile 346 parking tickets, that would not make me a professional criminal.", "It is up to editors to make judgement calls." All editors were calm, but he increasingly got emotional and argumentative. In my observation, he's the one that showed tendentious and POV pushing issues, even editing my own post and repeatedly using the history page to antagonize other editors. Yes, Isento was disciplined for his actions, but he did not show much remorse, calling ANI a "kangaroo court" [15]. Also, on one occasion, Bgkc4444 questioned consensus in regards to the lead of Beyoncé's article but did not edit the lead to reflect her position. There was then another RfC in regards to the infobox, and consensus was reached. Israell (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: I do not understand how I can explain my actions if no-one explains their problems with them to me. Am I right in saying that you're claiming that I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" solely because I said that reaching consensus involves incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns, and that you believe the spirit of consensus is not based on incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns? If so, I'd have to strongly disagree. Further, I'd appreciate more examples that warranted the unsubstantiated claim of a "significant amount of wikilawyering" and gaming the system, and tenditious editing. And that's not what the administrator said; they said that they should report "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if an editor is having an NPOV dispute with someone. And Isento has not "owned up" to it because they continue to tell me that I have mental health issues. I don't see why you expect me to be okay with these insults. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your response. That isn't exactly what happened. Editor A started a discussion about various edits done by Editor B, and I tried to bridge the two and voiced my agreements and disagreements of points within both arguments, however this was met with intolerance (e.g. "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.". WP:CON states that "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.", so the conclusion of that discussion cannot be considered a consensus just because it's "3 vs 1" and especially if the "3 side" explicitly said to ignore the "1 side"'s concerns. I also believe that I do not "keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself". WP:CON further states that soliciting outside opinions should be done when there is a deadlock, but the discussion lasted for only ~12 hours before my opinions were told to be ignored and that request was heeded, so I didn't solicit outside opinions because we hadn't even had a proper discussion, let alone form any consensus. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, mostly, as you admitted to it, consensus is a complicated thing. If you're on a page and there's a total of four editors (yourself included) discussing things on a talk page, and three of them are in agreement and you disagree, you're facing growing local consensus. Now, if you don't think you and your arguments are being given a fair shake, that's why we have the RFC system and dispute resolution system, where third parties can be brought in from a wider scope to the page and help weigh-in on disputed matters. If you find yourself facing down three editors (concurring with the position you oppose) by yourself, without any other support, and you keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself without using some of those systems I just mentioned, that is definitely a fertile ground for problematic behavior, if not somewhat problematic in itself. I heavily disagree with you saying it is certainly true, as it is more likely to be untrue than true (in this context). ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Israell, I agree some of their behavior has not been acceptable. They have been (to some extent) and will be held to account if it becomes problematic. I have heard similar opinions from other editors regarding Bgkc4444 as you have regarding Isento, I think a general two-way interaction ban is the most fair to two editors. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 23:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: To reply to your point in the other thread, I've repeatedly asked you and Isento to explain your assertions about my behavior, but still I receive no reply - I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "Don't just wiki-link a bunch of policies... Quote what you mean." and also "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'." Further, "bringing up that again isn't always the best thing to do" and "if it becomes problematic" aren't the best comment to make on a case where an editor who had just been blocked for personal attacks against an editor repeatedly tells that editor that they have mental health issues. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, understanding is important and since you and I are having trouble seeing eye-to-eye, let's try changing the format to be more clear. Please respond to this message with specific assertions you need explained (preferably one per line) and I will do my best to reply to them in an itemized fashion (as I've done elsewhere).
- (Also, side note which is optional but helpful, consider putting quotes in {{Talk quote inline}} or {{!xt}} templates depending on venue. This can make it much easier to read by separating quotes from message text.) ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gwennie-nyan Thanks. Just starting on two points, you said:
- "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering"
- "Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out"
- I do not believe either assertion is correct. I went to the help desk to ask about wikilawyering because the way you were describing it didn't make much sense and seemed to go against Wikipedia's guidelines itself. I was told "Wikilawyering tends to give me a certain vibe that a person thinks they are clever, and above the rules due to their cleverness. You did none of that." You repeatedly claimed that the spirit of consensus isn't about reaching some conclusion together (which is what the "con" part of consensus refers to) but instead about whether it's 3 vs 1; however, this is not based on the policy itself (and again, I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'.") and this actually goes against what the policy specifically says. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, thank you for listing this plainly (apologies for the delay, life has been very busy for me)
-
- regarding wikilawyering: In some of your general talk posts, you seem to constantly try to cite policy or guidelines in a very copy-paste-link manner and try to argue them like this is a court of law or tribunal, it's not. While policies are more rigid and there's WP:IAR waiting in the wings too, ultimately rules on the Wiki are mostly fluid (except for certain legally-required rules WMF enforces). Additionally you seem to apply them mostly to excuse yourself but not others. Unequal application is not a practice that is typically found among those arguing in good faith.
- regarding tendentious-ness and POV-pushing: you tend to edit in a way that (assuming good faith) is poorly-worded from a social point-of-view. It seems to imply that your edits and perspective are best in certain situations, and the core focus on tendentious-ness is repeated WP:NPOV issues.
- I would like to point out that the ANI Advice you linked isn't a policy or guideline, but an essay. It's not considered authoritative. It is a single user's perspective. Additionally, that quote about WikiLawyering is, again another editors perspective on the issue. These perspectives above, however, are mine. The aggregation of perspective is the basic element of consensus. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 06:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gwennie-nyan Thanks. Just starting on two points, you said:
- @Gwennie-nyan: To reply to your point in the other thread, I've repeatedly asked you and Isento to explain your assertions about my behavior, but still I receive no reply - I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "Don't just wiki-link a bunch of policies... Quote what you mean." and also "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'." Further, "bringing up that again isn't always the best thing to do" and "if it becomes problematic" aren't the best comment to make on a case where an editor who had just been blocked for personal attacks against an editor repeatedly tells that editor that they have mental health issues. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- As someone shared their experience with this user, I also want to. Particularly gatekeeping "Savage (song)", in which I removed content from bad sources months ago, citing the reasons, several times. I've checked the article again after all this time, and he put it back again. There's a considerable level of wp:fancruft with his edits, saturing articles... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Removing well-sourced material (Billboard isn't a "bad source") and making trivial edits (random spaces, removal of full quotes) is not constructive editing, and I've tried starting a discussion with you four times here, here, here, and here, but for some reason you don't engage. It'd be preferable for everyone if you pick one of those to continue the content dispute instead of ANI where your actions will be scrutinized also. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was pinged so I thought I'd chime in. It looks like my interaction with Bgkc4444 at Surprise album has already been brought up. I felt their edits of up-playing Beyonce and downplaying all other artists on that page demonstrated a clear bias. There's a lot to read here, so I admit I didn't read all of it, but I hope it has not gone unnoticed that this discussion is about Bgkc4444's bad-faith assumptions and the majority of their responses here seem to assume bad faith and take a defensive tone. My interactions with Bgkc4444 have been meandering and loaded with aimless whataboutism tangents that don't actually go anywhere, so I do not wish to comment here further. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Resolution Proposal
(Non-administrator comment) As a non-admin who has dug into this issue, I would like to propose the admins implement the following proposal:
- Talk/Interaction Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 interacting with the other, anywhere, unless required by policy, enforced by blocks. (This would hopefully resolve the ongoing issue between the two editors.)
- Topic Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 from Beyonce-related pages, broadly-construed. (Recommended by Levivich)
- Formal Admonishment
- of Bgkc4444 for tendentious editing, wikilawyering, and periodical whataboutism.
- of Isento for tendentious editing, hounding Bgkc4444, and casting aspersions.
- Mentorship for both Isento and Bgkc4444 to help them learn from this incident and to move forward in more productive fashion for the project.
Respectfully, ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 23:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) (Updated: 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC))
- After reading this thread and some of the talk page discussions linked therein, I think this proposal is too weak. Warnings have already been issued; this isn't the first ANI thread. As far as I can tell, both editors are creating disruption in the topic area that is wasting other editors' time. A 2-way interaction ban will stop them from disrupting each other, but not from disrupting everyone else (plus, ibans are a pain to enforce for editors who edit in the same topic area). I think tban them both from Beyonce, broadly construed. Maybe also an iban, but an iban alone won't help. Levivich harass/hound 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, added your suggestion above. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- So how long is this block gonna be this time? isento (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, it hopefully won't be necessary, provided you both abide by the iban, provided it's implemented. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 07:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Cool. I'm down for an iban. I'm also down for simply disengaging from "poorly worded" remarks by editors. I am down for healthier activity and conduct. isento (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, I'm glad you're beginning to take this route. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- [17] isento (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- So how long is this block gonna be this time? isento (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, added your suggestion above. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Responses
- I haven't been involved in any Beyonce-related articles since my block four weeks ago and I hadn't planned to. I was pinged to the talk page of Surprise album a few weeks ago by a different editor because I had contributed there in the past, and Bgkc444 was there, on a Beyonce-related matter. I responded appropriately and strictly to the content, and they responded back tendentiously, as much on editors as on the content. And I felt obligated to report it as an instance in a long-term pattern, regardless of whether I had been involved in that pattern, because that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report. I would really rather they see the light too, so to speak, and tbh, a topic ban feels embarrassing, almost as embarrassing as my past interactions with them. As Gwennie suggested before, I brought this on myself by stooping to their level and I should've known better. But I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles. Tackling the content disputes, I will admit, was more inspired by offense to observing biased and tendentious editing. I did not intend to cause them distress or to offend them, but I did end up doing so out of my own distress and offense with them. And whether I should've tackled those disputes or not, doing so the way I did was never constructive in the big picture - it was always going to depend on the cooperation of more editors than just me or them, and the infighting simply alienated that process. I do believe I had a problem with civility even before this at times, and I am grateful this process has helped me evolve and become more patient and self-aware, and less ego-driven. I hope you can trust I won't pursue or indulge in an interaction with them, by the off-chance an opportunity presents itself, and settle on an iban. Unfortunately, Bgkc4444 and one of their cohorts appears to be in complete denial still about the former's problematic behavior and in denial of the fact that I have taken responsibility for my behavior, judging by this recent remark. So it's hard to blame whatever choice you make. But these are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. isento (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Thank you for your comment. I tried reading up on WP:DE and I don't see why my actions warrant a topic ban. For point 1 ("continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors"), as soon as I made an edit that was reverted quoting my "fetishism", I started a discussion on the talk page. And that is what I now do for any content disagreement, and I always reply to Isento's and other's points in discussions, but Isento typically ignores mine, sometimes explicitly. For point 2 ("fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research"), I am also not doing that, as everything I included was cited and not misrepresenting the source, and in fact I tried to make two different sentences fit this requirement because they were heavily misrepresenting the sources, but those too were reverted. Point 3 ("Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging") haven't done either. For point 4 ("Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.) again I have not done so, and in fact Isento explicitly said to ignore my opinion in a discussion and then falsely claimed that a consensus was achieved. And finally point 5 ("Rejects or ignores community input") I have said many times that it would have been much more preferable to go through the correct routes of dispute resolution instead of reporting me straight to ANI.
- Further, I do not see how my actions can be seen as disrupting "progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" in general. I have always edited to improve the encyclopedia and have always engaged in discussion when Isento and others disagree with something in content I've added and, again, start those discussions myself because I truly want these articles to be encyclopedic. Yes, this is a topic I edit a lot in, and believe I've always been making constructive edits to articles in this topic, such as writing over 90% of Black Is King, 70% of Black Parade (song), and so on. A topic ban seems to me to be a severe sanction for this.
- And just quickly on Isento's points (because his behavior is being discussed in a later thread) "that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report" is an incorrect statement because what the admin advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute. I am happy to see Isento admit that he was editing Beyonce-related articles because of me personally (to note it wasn't just questioning my edits because Isento added a whole new "controversy" section to the main Beyonce article), so thank you, and if Isento did not do so to intentionally cause distress then I apologise for previously saying that. (Later edit:) On second thought, I don't believe I can fully say that. Isento says that he only edits on Beyonce topics because of me, but not all of those cases were "content disputes". For example, a week after Isento received a formal warning for his attacks on me regarding a Beyonce-related content dispute, Isento wrote a section dedicated to a "controversy" on the main Beyoncé article. This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on, and by Isento's own admission he edits on Beyonce-related articles specifically because of me, so this suggests to me that that edit was some form of 'payback' for the content disputes not going in the way he wanted and him being sanctioned. Again, I cannot be in denial if I repeatedly ask to be explained my wrongdoings and receive no reply (however Gwennie-nyan has now agreed to offer her opinion, so thank you) and it cannot be said that you have taken responsibility for your behavior when you still repeatedly tell me I have mental health issues and continue to stand by that assertion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in any Beyonce-related articles since my block four weeks ago and I hadn't planned to. I was pinged to the talk page of Surprise album a few weeks ago by a different editor because I had contributed there in the past, and Bgkc444 was there, on a Beyonce-related matter. I responded appropriately and strictly to the content, and they responded back tendentiously, as much on editors as on the content. And I felt obligated to report it as an instance in a long-term pattern, regardless of whether I had been involved in that pattern, because that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report. I would really rather they see the light too, so to speak, and tbh, a topic ban feels embarrassing, almost as embarrassing as my past interactions with them. As Gwennie suggested before, I brought this on myself by stooping to their level and I should've known better. But I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles. Tackling the content disputes, I will admit, was more inspired by offense to observing biased and tendentious editing. I did not intend to cause them distress or to offend them, but I did end up doing so out of my own distress and offense with them. And whether I should've tackled those disputes or not, doing so the way I did was never constructive in the big picture - it was always going to depend on the cooperation of more editors than just me or them, and the infighting simply alienated that process. I do believe I had a problem with civility even before this at times, and I am grateful this process has helped me evolve and become more patient and self-aware, and less ego-driven. I hope you can trust I won't pursue or indulge in an interaction with them, by the off-chance an opportunity presents itself, and settle on an iban. Unfortunately, Bgkc4444 and one of their cohorts appears to be in complete denial still about the former's problematic behavior and in denial of the fact that I have taken responsibility for my behavior, judging by this recent remark. So it's hard to blame whatever choice you make. But these are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. isento (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- It was not incorrect. Bgkc4444's response at the talk page, cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago and accusation of editors of "bury[ing] that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album", was an inappropriate post, which is what Ivanvector had advised to report.
- I did not specify Bgkc4444 as the exclusive cause of my presence in those articles. I specified "biased and tendentious editing" as what had "more inspired" me to tackle the articles. It would be unfair to say Bgkc4444 was the cause of inaccuracies and misuse of sources crediting the subject with more than was true, such as this and this, that I rectified.
- Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised, disputing the source-integrity of the section in this edit and suggesting in another comment that I was "so hell-bent on trying to paint Beyonce as a thief then of course the editor would insert an indiscriminate collection of opinions that support their belief from every random musician or journalist they can find."
- I would have kindly responded to content-specific points had they not been overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me or bad-faith accusations such as those I've highlighted. isento (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating in full one of the two comments Isento made in the original discussion that was directly stated about the issue in the later discussion is not "cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago" and the discussion wasn't "overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me" either as the large majority of what I wrote wasn't anything to do with what Isento said in the previous discussion. And, yes, I was in an NPOV dispute where Fezmar9 and I said that each other were respectively trying to exaggerate or downplay issues in the article (e.g. comments made against me include "fetishism" [18], "One look at your edit history suggests your motivations in beefing up Beyonce content here are extremely biased based on your personal perception of the facts. The page already mentions Beyonce plenty as is, leave well enough alone." [19], "you're extremely biased" [20], and so on) - I have said that throughout this discussion.
- Again, what Ivanvector advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute, and not if someone makes inappropriate posts. This shows how quoting things out-of-context can completely change the meaning of the material. Apologies for misunderstanding that comment about Isento's editing habits on Beyonce-related articles. "Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised" is an incorrect assertion, because I didn't claim that I never disputed Isento's edit, I said "This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on", meaning at the time Isento wrote the controversy section. And I didn't assert that that quote was what Isento was doing, in fact I said "I hope that's not what you're doing here and, again, hope that you do the right thing for this topic." Finally, no excuse should be made for telling another editor they have mental health issues, especially not after being blocked for making personal attacks on that same editor the same month. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would have kindly responded to content-specific points had they not been overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me or bad-faith accusations such as those I've highlighted. isento (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
That they responded in kind to Fezmar9's suggestions indicates a problem on their part too, a problem they still deny, which is likely why an admin will just lean toward a topic ban instead of showing faith with an iban. That they continue to misconstrue my revelation of mental health issues in connection to their admission in the oast of an issue is further indication that such bad-faith attitudes won't cease. My mental health suffered too in part from these attitudes. isento (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- What I said in my response to Fezmar9 was inappropriate and unnecessary and responses to incivility should always be non-retaliatory. I don't have a problem saying that. I am not misconstruing anything and I am tired, to be honest, of repeating this. Isento condescendingly told me: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." I wrote a message on his talk page regarding this, but he "replaced" it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today" without responding. He then replied on ANI, claiming "You have admitted to having mental health issues" and then bringing links to when I said that his incivility and personal has affected my mental health and explained how that made me feel, which is not admitting I have mental health issues (and also doesn't mention growing up in an abusive household, being handicapped by it or engaging in idolatory), and is also a topic on which he previously said I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Isento then says that me trying to discuss his incivility with him on his talk page evidences "a problem", despite the fact that WP:CIVIL lists talk page discussions as the first port of call to address an incidence of incivility, not ANI. I explain all of this to him, but he then denies he ever said it and again makes incorrect claims about me. I again respond explaining how his claims about not making personal attacks are incorrect. He then replied saying: "I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego". He also doubled down on the assertion that I have mental health issues. I have now just seen that Isento replied to Timeheist in the thread below, after Timeheist mentioned Isento's claims of me having mental health issues, saying that Timeheist only called him out on his personal attacks because Timeheist is prejudiced, writing: "If you had read my original comments and set aside your prejudices, you might have seen that." Isento says "I've apologized either way", but unfortunately this is evidently untrue from this conversation. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, I went back through the posts you linked and the links in those posts as well. You, for good or ill, their post. They were saying your actions affected their mental health in context, not that they have mental health issues in general.
- Bgkc4444, I'll take it from here as a third party. If you make something known and Isento needs to be confronted or rebutted, I'll take care of it. It doesn't serve purpose for you to rebut further because it continues/escalates the back and forth between you and Isento. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 03:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly did I do to their mental health? Because their editing has been consistently tendentious before and since then. isento (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Phrasing like "your constant need to make my editing experience less enjoyable" makes it seem like it's a mental health problem, particularly when they use such phrasing in reference to their mental health ([21]). They are combative and tendentious, yet playing the victim; hypersensitive to themselves but insensitive under the guise of politisse (a loud "Thank you!" following a false accusation of racism and misogyny?) to others in the way of their content changes, suggesting I am personally out to get them for the sake of ruining their enjoyment, when it's clearly been the biased nature of their content changes that has been the real issue in those content disputes. Just recently they referenced other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them, when in fact those other editors is one collaborator in favor of their Beyonce-article changes, for which I'm seeing now they've been reported about back in April (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Bgkc4444) by JzG, to which Bgkc4444 showed early signs of accusing others of mischaracterising them. I honestly cannot keep up with responding to all of their points, and often I feel demoralized by the bad-faith nature of said points. It is daunting communicating with them. At some point, if I have a deeply vested interest in a content change that conflicts with what they want, I am not sure if I will not likely lose my nerve or simply bow out. Which is why I am in favor of an interaction ban. If a topic ban for us both it must be, so be it. At this point I have nothing here to fight for or defend myself against. I think their behavior speaks for itself, and other editors have confirmed that. isento (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, both of you are clearly off-base when it comes to this specific interaction. Bgkc4444 feels and has repeatedly expressed a feeling that you are dogging them across the wiki. They're trying to contribute, albeit in a possibly misguided or inexperienced way at times. You are both accusing the other of things which aren't true via mischaracterization. I attribute this to the total breakdown between you two. Good faith doesn't exist between you two anymore. As a result, every interact is met by increasing hostility and emotion-laded responses. Like I told Bgkc4444, if you need to respond to anyone, respond to me, and I will mediate this, lest the responses get more uncivil. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 03:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for offering to help. It's important to note that I actually haven't "repeatedly expressed" that Isento is hounding me in this discussion and I apologised for previously saying that he did, so I feel that this claim is false. (Side note: I wrote a message here so that you could explain your other claims against me that I feel are false such as "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering". I hope that you can respond to it if possible because it might help move the discussion forward, thank you.) I'm not sure how bringing that old report here is constructive or meant to prove something when evidently it was a misunderstanding that could've easily been resolved with a polite talk page discussion (as with this case), with Mazca immediately dismissing the report. Unfortunately, Isento's comments even here and now indicate that the personal attacks will not stop. It is also not just a problem that Isento has with me, because I am reminded of one of the times I wrote a polite message on his talk page about his incivility, where my message was under a message from Tony1 from the day before about Isento not following Wikipedia's rules, to which Isento replied asking Tony1 if they had mental health issues (specifically Asperger's), as Isento repeatedly told me I have. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was a joke, from The League, season 2, episode 10. It's on Hulu. Check it out. isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am on the spectrum too tbh. Perhaps that has been a source of misreading certain remarks of mine as negative. isento (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, wanted to point out that you should understand that even if you have x it's not okay to speculate or asperse other editors as x ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- So, for example, no aspersing Asperger's? EEng 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- ^As per him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This has been exasperating. Let's just move on. isento (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, if you're experiencing this much wikistress, why not take a wikibreak? ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am not really. That was more a takeoff on the other Asperger puns above. (ex-asper-ating) But yes, enough of this issue. isento (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, if you're experiencing this much wikistress, why not take a wikibreak? ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- This has been exasperating. Let's just move on. isento (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- ^As per him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- So, for example, no aspersing Asperger's? EEng 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, wanted to point out that you should understand that even if you have x it's not okay to speculate or asperse other editors as x ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am on the spectrum too tbh. Perhaps that has been a source of misreading certain remarks of mine as negative. isento (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have the wherewithal to care about this anymore. I want to put the past behind me, let bygones be bygones, and continue focusing on content rather than editors at articles. You guys can too if you really want... isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was a joke, from The League, season 2, episode 10. It's on Hulu. Check it out. isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for offering to help. It's important to note that I actually haven't "repeatedly expressed" that Isento is hounding me in this discussion and I apologised for previously saying that he did, so I feel that this claim is false. (Side note: I wrote a message here so that you could explain your other claims against me that I feel are false such as "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering". I hope that you can respond to it if possible because it might help move the discussion forward, thank you.) I'm not sure how bringing that old report here is constructive or meant to prove something when evidently it was a misunderstanding that could've easily been resolved with a polite talk page discussion (as with this case), with Mazca immediately dismissing the report. Unfortunately, Isento's comments even here and now indicate that the personal attacks will not stop. It is also not just a problem that Isento has with me, because I am reminded of one of the times I wrote a polite message on his talk page about his incivility, where my message was under a message from Tony1 from the day before about Isento not following Wikipedia's rules, to which Isento replied asking Tony1 if they had mental health issues (specifically Asperger's), as Isento repeatedly told me I have. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isento, both of you are clearly off-base when it comes to this specific interaction. Bgkc4444 feels and has repeatedly expressed a feeling that you are dogging them across the wiki. They're trying to contribute, albeit in a possibly misguided or inexperienced way at times. You are both accusing the other of things which aren't true via mischaracterization. I attribute this to the total breakdown between you two. Good faith doesn't exist between you two anymore. As a result, every interact is met by increasing hostility and emotion-laded responses. Like I told Bgkc4444, if you need to respond to anyone, respond to me, and I will mediate this, lest the responses get more uncivil. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 03:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Related tendentious behavior from Beyonce-related coterie of editors
By Israell: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]... as you can see, this is not exclusive to Bgkc4444. The aggression continues without incentive for reform. isento (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- More suggestions of racism or sexism from this Beyonce-related coterie (Xurizuri: [28], Israell: [29]). Thoughts, @Gwennie-nyan:? isento (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- In all those edits, I was always very polite, and I stand by everything I wrote. BawinV explained that the debate is about whether or not songwriting is a noteworthy profession of Beyoncé's, NOT the authenticity of her songwriting. isento opted to ignore it altogether and to solely focus on allegations of stolen or bought credits, ignoring many valid points other editors and I have made. By filing this report, isento is proving his behaviour is problematic. And there is nothing wrong in alerting involved editors about an RfC. Timeheist, Binksternet, TruthGuardians, Bgkc4444, Xurizuri, what do you honestly think? Israell (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Israell might be guilty of a trifling amount of WP:CANVASSING but Israell's defense of Beyoncé's songwriting ability is perfectly on target. I have no idea why Isento cannot allow Beyoncé to enjoy credit as a legitimate songwriter, but this stance of Isento is a problem that needs to go away. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Once again, it is acceptable to ping other editors for consensus; I did ping editors of different sides of the debate. And once again, there is nothing wrong in alerting involved editors about an ongoing RfC, how it is developing. Davey2010 has just cast a vote, and that's an editor I had never ever come across before on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). And I agree that Isento's stance is problematic, esp. now that he is accusing me and Xurizuri of browbeating when we did not display such demeanour. All of our posts are logged, so we have nothing to hide. All I did was create the RfC and put forth valid arguments (as noted by Binksternet, and other editors agree w/ me). The RfC is about whether or not Beyoncé's songwriting is noteworthy enough; that's all! An editor has just posted a Billboard magazine article [30] entitled 'AWARDS - Taylor Swift & Beyonce Are Among the Top Songwriters in Grammy History: See Where They Rank'; it is a very recent article posted just two weeks ago. Beyoncé won Best R&B Song four times (a record) and Song of the Year once, and both awards go to the songwriters. Israell (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- So it is acceptable to suggest editors are racist or sexist and to browbeat when they question your stance? (My vote btw was "probably not" at the RfC, and my last comment there was to let the majority speak for itself)... @HĐ:, @Bluesatellite:, @BawinV:, what do you honestly think? isento (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- You first voted "Probably not", then changed your vote to "No": "If you open the pandora's box of her songwriting role, you'd have to mention the controversy too. So, all that remains is editorial discretion, which leads me to say no." The allegations are mentioned in the body of the article in the "Songwriting credits" section, and that RfC is not about the authenticity of Beyoncé Knowles' songwriting! Other editors and I have made a strong point the music industry (Grammy Awards, Ascap Awards, Billboard magazine and so on) do regard Beyoncé as a legit songwriter, and there are many articles that make mention of her songwriting and/or song production, showing how involved she is. Constantly bringing up those allegations is disrupting the RfC. Israell (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Binksternet, I agree, while there does appear to be canvassing going on, provided that I AGF, that's all I can see. I can understand a little of Isento's perspective, however. Canvassing can be used to WP:POVPUSH. However, unless it's incredibly obvious and tendentious, I wouldn't being AGF if I immediately thought canvassing was pov-pushing.
- I agree heavily with Xurizuri (which Israell concurred to) on the specific point about checking our internal biases. As Xurizuri pointed out, many things which aren't a debate for white individuals are debated for non-white individuals. Similarly things which aren't debated for men are debated more for non-men. That's not a personal accusation of racism or sexism, that's the bedrock of NPOV.
- In this section, I suggest you, Isento, to disengage. It's quite clear that the laborious, tedious, and often confrontation-laden discourse surrounding this issue to be weighing a bit heavily on you. In my opinion, you're not exercising your best judgment on these matters. (Note: This is AGF. A cynic or something who isn't AGF might think this new section as something less noble, perhaps a bad-faith redirection of grievance after going after Bgkc4444 failed to repeat desired results.) ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- So it is acceptable to suggest editors are racist or sexist and to browbeat when they question your stance? (My vote btw was "probably not" at the RfC, and my last comment there was to let the majority speak for itself)... @HĐ:, @Bluesatellite:, @BawinV:, what do you honestly think? isento (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've had a consistent track record on articles about musical works by musicians of color and the opposite sex, where I've given the artists their props as songwriters (even Beyoncé's own sister's Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams). So I'm pretty confident I have no more a bias on those grounds than the editors of this particular group. It feels sad I have to dignify this idea. isento (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Isento, this isn't specifically about you and they didn't make it about you. You're taking offense to something not specifically direct at you. Do you understand that? This defensiveness isn't very becoming of an editor of your experience. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- "...and editors are people..." (placed right below my last comment approving of Israell's sources, with no connection to that theme, in an inactive RfC section from several months ago)... but yes, you're right. I shouldn't have dignified it. isento (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't nested to yours, and I even literally asked for feedback on both appropriateness and placement. I assumed that an RfC isn't inactive until it's closed (genuinely, part of why I asked for feedback). I also don't view mentioning a possible source of bias as an attack, but I understand that others do (hence asking for feedback both in the original comment and in the one I made here). I intentionally avoided stating that specific actions were definitely racist or sexist, because it'd be patently false to claim that everyone that disagrees with you is doing so because of their bias. My point was that, given who we were discussing, it's very possible for any of us to be affected by bias and to be mindful of this when considering our and others' positions. I'm really sorry that my comment seemed targeted, but I'm not sure how I could've approached this differently. --Xurizuri (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've had a consistent track record on articles about musical works by musicians of color and the opposite sex, where I've given the artists their props as songwriters (even Beyoncé's own sister's Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams). So I'm pretty confident I have no more a bias on those grounds than the editors of this particular group. It feels sad I have to dignify this idea. isento (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Its okay. We all make mistakes. isento (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Xurizuri did not make any mistake. Their comment was a general one in regards to some people's scrutiny of Beyoncé's songwriting. To quote a post by Bgkc4444: "What reliable sources do say is that a) Beyonce is a songwriter, b) having co-writers does not affect a songwriter's status and is perfectly normal, and c) trying to downplay or deny Beyonce's status as a songwriter because she has co-writers is incorrect, sexist and racist (as the source that HĐ brought above explained, for example)." For instance, I've noticed a long time ago female singers' vocals are under much more scrutiny than those of male singers. Israell (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Their comment indicated editors, not just reliable sources. Given the baseless accusations of racism and sexism directed at editors in the past from another editor affiliated with you, forgive me if I was overly conscious and sensitive of that possibility. isento (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Isento, yes. None of this needed to be brought up in this venue. In fact, the sensitivity gives me pause. I really suggest you take a good wikibreak to reflect on these behaviors. These kind of outbursts can look negatively on one's character as an editor and can, given the other circumstances of this situation, result in admonishment or sanctions. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The only mention I made of racism/sexism was not directed at any person, it was a general comment that as a group we should take into account the internal biases that we all have. If something in my comment suggested otherwise, please let me know what it was so I can adjust it in the future. Separately, it is also my understanding (although I will accept that I may be wrong, I am quite new to WP) that it is normal to let relevant WikiProjects know about discussions that are occurring. I came to the discussion via one of those notices. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. Xurizuri made the following remark: "I'm not sure if this is a reasonable place to put this as its my own opinion but I think its relevant to this discussion. LMK if this is inappropriate. But often people (and editors are people) will overvalue criticism/undervalue contributions of women and people of colour. It may be worthwhile to seriously consider whether your position would change if Beyonce was a white man." Xurizuri was, as you can all see, very tactful, sensitive in the way they formulated their observation, and it was not aimed at any editor in particular. An observation to which I replied: "You may have a point."
- My full response: "Xurizuri, yeah, you may have a point! We've made a very strong argument that Beyoncé is indeed known to be a songwriter, having co-written 346 of her songs (most of them) and having received prestigious awards and mentions for her songwriting. And she not only writes but produces as well. And just because of criticism/suspicions raised by a few (that then gained some traction online), some editors object to "songwriter" being in the lead sentence... As you noted, such criticism is overvalued and her rightful contribution is undervalued. Not fair, and it is certainly not encyclopedical." Note: Once again, the RfC is not about the authenticity of Beyoncé's songwriting.
- And yes, I did ping some involved editors for consensus incl. Xurizuri. I pinged Xurizuri since they had responded to the previous RfC isento initiated in regards to the infobox. The consensus allowed for "songwriter" to remain in the infobox. Three weeks later, I started another RfC, this time in regards to the lead. Israell (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- The only mention I made of racism/sexism was not directed at any person, it was a general comment that as a group we should take into account the internal biases that we all have. If something in my comment suggested otherwise, please let me know what it was so I can adjust it in the future. Separately, it is also my understanding (although I will accept that I may be wrong, I am quite new to WP) that it is normal to let relevant WikiProjects know about discussions that are occurring. I came to the discussion via one of those notices. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
"Tactful" bad-faith suggestions are still bad-faith suggestions. Aggressively repeating your point of view as a response to dissenting editors is still tendentious behavior. Have you ever considered your aggressive stances and politely constructed suggestions of bias might cause other editors to tune you out and reaffirm whatever position they were leaning toward? No Bey-hive pun intended, but you can catch more bees with honey that you can with vinegar. isento (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sadly, I stand with Isento on this issue. Bgkc4444 implicitly called me (and other editors that voted "no") out for "racism and sexism", which is not assuming good faith by any means. It appears as if this editor (and any other that is related) wishes to put "songwriter" in the lead just to prove a point. HĐ (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm extremely confused. HĐ recommended that an article should use a source titled "From 'Mine' to 'Ours': Gendered Hierarchies of Authorship and the Limits of Taylor Swift's Paratextual Feminism", which as the title states, is about how views on authorship over music is different for men and women (and later states that race is a factor as well). When I stated that that is what the source said (not directed against any editor), they accused me of calling other people sexist and racist. I really don't understand why. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see no sexism or racism in that last link that BGKC is supposed to have done. All I see is a discussion about songwritership. Mans confused right now. Games of the world (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Only one person here was rightfully blocked for aggressive behavior. That behavior continues even now. Unduly dragging the falsely accused(Israell), Bgkc4444, and Xurizuri to the noticeboard is yet another example of this aggression.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HĐ:, I strongly suggest you withdraw this complaint, as you've completely misread Bgkc's comment. I'll reproduce it here (emphasis mine):
The paper explicitly says that Beyonce is an example of an artist "who also serve as writers and producers of their own work", that criticism of Beyonce for not being an authentic songwriter because she has co-writers is wrong, and that this criticism stems from sexism and racism directed against her.
- Bgkc is not calling critics sexist and racist, they are pointing out that the article makes such a statement. Nothing Bgkc has said can be construed as calling you, or anyone else, sexist or racist. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenebrae
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Talk:Amanda Kloots (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tenebrae's activities toward editors that disagree with them in an RFC Talk:Amanda Kloots#RFC about including sons name and their usertalkpage have been downright WP:BATTLEGROUND. They apparently filed a retaliatory SPI against two of the editors[31] and continue to make comments and condescending strawman conjectures about editors who assert BLPNAME [32][33][34][35][36] after being asked not to.[37][38] The most bizarre strawman was the unsolicited mention of Trump and his supporters [39][40] as some sort of perjorative attack. I am actually a Justin Trudeau supporter. :) Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- e/c:
- Retaliatory action by an editor who posted deliberately provocative and inciting claims such as that NBC News' Today show could not be used as reliable source since it — and the venerable theater magazine Playbill — were "pop-culture sources" and could not be cited for a WP:BLP. This editor also claimed an opinion essay was a policy/guideline that had to be followed. This editor has been uncivil and baiting, such as an edit summary that read simply, "Yawn." And now this — a last resort after none of his arguments have withstood logic and such reality as, literally, a textbook definition that he refuted because ... well, just because, apparently. I could tell you more.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your continuing to mischaracterise my BLPNAME argument[41] just show that you just refuse to WP:LISTEN despite another editor making a very similar argument earlier.[42] You've been at this for at least 6 years and were even blocked over edit warring over the insertion of children's names into celebrity articles without gaining consensus[43][44] showing that you still don't understand WP:ONUS to this day.[45] Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Retaliatory action by an editor who posted deliberately provocative and inciting claims such as that NBC News' Today show could not be used as reliable source since it — and the venerable theater magazine Playbill — were "pop-culture sources" and could not be cited for a WP:BLP. This editor also claimed an opinion essay was a policy/guideline that had to be followed. This editor has been uncivil and baiting, such as an edit summary that read simply, "Yawn." And now this — a last resort after none of his arguments have withstood logic and such reality as, literally, a textbook definition that he refuted because ... well, just because, apparently. I could tell you more.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- e/c:
- Yup. IP named in Tenebrae's evidence-free SPI here (under a different IP - my ISP changes it frequently for no good reason). I recommend everyone to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KyleJoan, and see just how silly it got. And note that this was the second SPI my IP had been raised in as supposedly connected to KyleJoan - Tenebrae knew even before he/she started it that there was no prospect of it going anywhere. It appears that simply disagreeing with Tenebrae is seen as sufficient grounds to make socking accusations. And that anything whatever done after that is further 'proof'. Editing occasionally as an IP these days (used to have an account - lost my password) I have come to expect the occasional accusation of socking if I show any signs of understanding Wikipedia policy etc, but this was beyond the pale. Anyone who thinks that e.g. starting editing within two years of another editor (a decade ago), and disagreeing with the person you are supposed to be a sock of [46] is valid 'evidence' for a SPI should probably be topic-banned from filing SPIs entirely. A total waste of time better put to use elsewhere. I was inclined to leave the whole thing behind me, but having seen how Tenebrae has continued their badgering on the Kloots talk page, I can fully understand why Morbidthoughts has called for something to be done. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- This anon IP is telling blatant untruths. Plenty of evidence was presented in the SPI. The entire reason it's called "evidence" and not "proof" is that we don't know but have reasonable suspicion of sock activity. And as this anon IP itself notes, another editor had the same suspicion of this IP being a sock. (And to address this IP's italicized remark, in my 15 years here I have personally seen socks pretend to argue with themselves on talk pages as a way to try to throw off investigators.)
- I will also say this anon IP and its predecessor have a record anyone can see of being hostile and aggressive, and is taking this opportunity to air unrelated grievances as payback for the SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the editor responsible for the previous SPI involving my (then) IP has been blocked - for socking. As for hostility and aggression, see Talk:Amanda Kloots, and see for yourself where the aggression was coming from. And as for 'unrelated grievances', I haven't a clue what Tenebrae is referring too. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've presented my views about Tenebrae's conduct in an ANI report not too long ago, which you can read in full here. It should also be noted that in said report, an administrator asked both Tenebrae and me to
stop making contentious edits
at Amanda Kloots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd call this edit contentious. KyleJoantalk 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:KyleJoan filed false and malicious 3RR and SPI accusations against me that admins summarily threw out within hours: [47] and [48]. This is all tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system.
- And ohmigod, I've just looked at what KyleJoan calls a "contentious" edit ... and it's this absolutely straightforward and factual actor's credit: "...and was billed as Amanda-Kloots Larsen for the Broadway productions Follies (2011-2012) and Bullets Over Broadway (2014)." KyleJoan's claim is as bad-faith as anyone can ever get.
- For perspective on User:Morbidthoughts, read his or her extended rant on my talk page falsely insisting The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. That is the kind of bizarre and deliberately argumentative mindset at work here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- So, it's all "tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system" unless Tenebrae does it? Fascinating... 109.158.199.97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- The malicious filings by KyleJoan, whom I believe you know, were each thrown out summarily within hours. See links in my post above. Whereas the SPI against you that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory" was not; it warranted and received investigation.
- MorbidThoughts' arguments at Talk:Amanda Kloots and on my talk page were so easily refuted that MorbidThought resorted to arguing that NBC News' Today and the venerable theater magazine Playbill were not RS for biographical information, and that The Broadway League was not RS for Broadway credits. I countered those claims, and with no coherent argument in response, MorbidThoughts comes here, apparently because someone countering his or her claims is "battling." This filing is unwarranted and, I believe, a waste of admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the
false and malicious 3RR
, Nil Einne wrote thatcalling it "false" seems a bit of a stretch
; regarding theSPI against [109.158.199.97] that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory"
, the closing administrator also called it retaliatory here. KyleJoantalk 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the
- MorbidThoughts' arguments at Talk:Amanda Kloots and on my talk page were so easily refuted that MorbidThought resorted to arguing that NBC News' Today and the venerable theater magazine Playbill were not RS for biographical information, and that The Broadway League was not RS for Broadway credits. I countered those claims, and with no coherent argument in response, MorbidThoughts comes here, apparently because someone countering his or her claims is "battling." This filing is unwarranted and, I believe, a waste of admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, I only 'know' KyleJoan to the extent that I've disagreed with them on Talk:Amanda Kloots. And the 'evidence' you submitted for the SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you. It should have been self-evident to anyone who has been around Wikipedia as long as you have that it was going to convince nobody. You seem utterly incapable of seeing honest disagreement as anything but evidence for some sort of conspiracy against you. And while clearly you weren't the only one causing problems on that talk page (see e.g. the sock who got banned for filing the earlier SPI), your continued refusal to let the RfC take its course without engaging in endless argumentation, together with your repeated claims that being a journalist makes you an expert with the last say, is the prime reason that the Kloots biography has remained the poorly-written fluff it is. It would probably be better for the reputation of Wikipedia if the whole thing was scrubbed, everyone involved told to go away and do something useful, and new volunteers who understood how to read sources and then create an appropriate encyclopaedic entry per Wikipedia guidelines were to start from scratch. Wikipedia doesn't deserve this nonsense. Kloots doesn't deserve this nonsense. The readers don't deserve this nonsense. Not over a minor 'celebrity' that a year ago nobody had heard of. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- RE:"SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you": I've hesitated to use the word, but you are now lying in the face of evidence that anyone can see for themselves here, including a lengthy list of time-stamps, two points below them, and two additional points added later. I invite anyone reading this to see for themselves that this IP is being blatantly untruthful.
- This IP as well, here and on the contested page, continues to make remarkable and yet contradictory claims: Amanda Kloots is a cohost of CBS' major daytime talk show The Talk, and so clearly notable and not "a minor 'celebrity'" below this IP's standards for an encyclopedia. Yet the same IP wants to whitewash the article to not include the pertinent biographical fact of Kloots' child's name, which Kloots and her late husband released to the media and of whom Kloots has written frequently, with coverage by major programs like NBC's Today. Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone.
- In any case, tomorrow is Christmas. I don't know about anyone else, but I have family. May I suggest we take a respite until after Christmas?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your "lengthy list of timestamps" proved precisely nothing beyond the fact that I had been editing on the same day as KyleJoan, and your remaining 'points' amount again to nothing beyond further indications that you cannot respond to people disagreeing with you without seeing some sort of ridiculous conspiracy.
- And if you really wanted to 'take a respite', you always had the option of not responding here yourself. But no, here as on the Kloots' talk page, you have to have the last word. Complete with personal attacks you seem not to want replied to. That isn't going to happen. Call me a liar and I'll respond as an when I like.
- I'll wish everyone else here a Merry Christmas and/or other seasonal greetings as appropriate. And restate, as I already have, that ample evidence for Tenebrae's battleground behaviour can be found on the article talk page, and at the rejected SPI. And for that matter, here on WP:ANI. If anyone is looking for an excuse to hide from relatives, or wants to spoil their Christmas, they are welcome to read it all now. Otherwise, it might be better to do so when the festivities are over. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well you did lie by saying I presented no objective evidence. And if you're going to be boldfacing your points, well, I guess I should as well , or balance/
- I don't believe there are any ANI-level issues here. A couple of editors — one of them an anon-IP, now on his/her second anon IP since the recent SPI, who says they've lost their registered-ID password — are arguing their gut emotions over "right and wrong", and when faced with logic turn belligerent and now "go to the courts." It's no wonder I used a Trump-supporter analogy once — jocularly and tongue-in-cheek. I'd like now to suggest WP:BOOMERANG against the initial complainant for this misuse of Wikipedia resources and all of our and admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- And yet again, you present yourself as sole the arbiter of what constitutes 'objective evidence'. While refusing to acknowledge that there has been absolutely no support whatsoever for your bogus SPI offered offered by anyone, either here or on the SPI itself: a SPI that User:Sro23 closed stating that "These are clearly two different people", and that "Maybe it's time to start handing out sanctions for bad-faith SPI's because I'm about ready to call it quits". [49] Your abject refusal to acknowledge that people can hold good-faith differences of opinion with you, and your subsequent endless attempts to present yourself as the final judge of who is right, who is wrong, and who is conspiring against you, on the basis of such ridiculous claims as a suggestion that beginning editing within two years of another editor - a decade ago - is proof of socking, while accusing others of 'Trump-supporter'-like behaviour is utterly laughable, and beneath contempt.
- As for my account, I am clearly going to have to make further attempts to find the password, since the logical follow up, if this isn't settles satisfactorily here, may well involve ArbCom, and may possibly also include other aspects of your questionable editing history. You seem, as a prolific editor, to have some degree of protection here, but counting on that to remain the situation indefinitely would be entirely unwise. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Annnnd here come the threats. I have not asked for for ever even implied I wanted any "protection," as you call it. And I would suggest you look up the dictionary definition of "objective." A plain list timestamps is a series of objective facts. It was nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, but is simply neutral, objective evidence of a pattern showing you and KyleJoan's editing never overlapped. No one know how the admin ultimately will rule, but that doesn't mean we don't present objective, factual evidence.
- I'll also note this piece of behavioral evidenceL how you both dig through years of the paper trail of an editor with whom you disagree, in an effort to uncover "dirt" to sling mud at him. I provided factual, objective links to concretely demonstrate that you and KyleJoan both took this unusual tack. Evidence doesn't have to be proof: It only has to be objective, demonstrable fact -- such as timestamps and links.
- As the admin below states, "I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution." I'm happy to follow Fences&Windows advice.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- A list of timestamps may well be objective fact. Your suggestion that it constitutes 'objective evidence' for socking is however complete and utter bollocks. Nobody who looks at the so-called evidence presented at the SPI could possibly mistake it for objectivity. And if you really want to follow 'dispute resolution' I suggest you stop calling people liars.
- And yes, I've been 'digging'. I didn't need to dig far, given that your block log made it clear that the gratuitous off-topic comments you made at Talk:Amand Kloots regarding the first bogus SPI for my (then) IP came from someone who had personal experience on the matter. It was you who started digging first.
- If I was you (thankfully I'm not), I might well consider it wise to consider another alternative to 'dispute resolution', and walk away from the Kloots article entirely. Wikipedia has an article on the First law of holes: it is something of a stub, and could probably be usefully expanded. I'm sure that someone with your experience would be able to do so. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I see. You actually take pride in going back through years of an editor who disagrees with you in order to throw dirt and muddy the waters with attacks that have nothing to do with your own behavior. And you can't have it both ways: Something is either a list of objective facts or it's not. My timestamps showing no overlap between you and KyleJoan is objective evidence. I called it evidence from the start — not "proof." Anyone who present any SPI case can only provide evidence, not proof. That's how it works. One cannot say, "Oh, it wasn't objective because it wasn't proof." The timestamps and the similar dirt-digging behavior of KyleJoan were properly presented evidence.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't take 'going back through years of an editor' who brings up off-topic clearly bogus SPIs in a talk page discussion (contrary to WP:TPG) to look at a block log. A practice I'd freely recommend to anyone facing false socking accusations in such circumstances, given how often those given to making such false socking accusations seem to be caught socking themselves. Not 'proof', of course, but evidence. And furthermore, when someone repeatedly asserts, during what should have been a collaborative attempt to solve a content dispute that their profession - as a journalist - makes them the final arbiter of what an article should contain, it is entirely reasonable to look at what else said editor has been doing, in order to see whether they have actually disclosed who they are, and if they are indeed a journalist. Not that WP:IMAJOURNALISTSOIGETTHEFINALSAY is policy anyway. If you don't want people looking at your editing history, I suggest you try not engaging in behaviour that will actively encourage people to look into it. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- General advice - comment on content, not each other. I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution: use appropriate noticeboards like WP:BLP/N, get a WP:3O, start an RfC. Fences&Windows 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- While I'd agree in general with your suggestion that dispute resolution rather than 'point scoring' would seem advisable, it is worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I got involved at all was because I responded to an RfC. 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.199.97 (talk)
- I have gone ahead and notified BLPN about the RFC per the suggestion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- How many times can an editor continue to make snide comments about other editors before it becomes WP:UNCIVIL and meet the WP:NPA threshold for administrator intervention?
- "An insurance salesperson or plumber or surgeon who doesn't know what The Broadway League is should not be writing about theater."[50]
- "It's about self-appointed censors trying to prove they know better..."[51]
- "For someone with no experience or background but instead a "righting great wrongs crusader mentality..."[52]
- "You hubristically think you know better"[53]
- "...read his or her extended rant on my talk page"[54]
- "Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone."[55]
- How are these ad hominem comments even acceptable in discussion space? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Like Fox News, you take comments out of context. If, instead, you would link to the entire particular post where these comments appear, and where readers here could view ent entire context, then that would be more conscionable and honest. Let's remember, you are the person who claims that The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. I urge anyone: Go to the context to see exactly what in Morbid's eccentric claims that I'm responding to with, I think, relative restraint.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The diffs were indeed linked to provide proper context. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- OK, Tenebrae, you do seem to be insistent on continuing to cross a line in your posts here ("Like Fox News") so I am now specifically warning you, as you didn't take the hint to "comment on content, not each other" - outside of formal reports on the appropriate noticeboards, you must stop making ad hominem comments about other contributors, including IP contributors. You need to re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in full to understand how your comments are breaching policy, because I think you've become too comfortable talking to other editors in this manner. Your arguments do not need to involve discrediting others. Fences&Windows 12:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that with going both ways. Morbidthoughs, KyleJoan and the IP have all used aggressive, sarcastic, uncivil language toward me from the start, with Morbidthoughts in particular baiting me with nonsensical arguments like "the Today show is pop culture and not a reliable news source" and "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits." Would that not be fair and equitable?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- What is not fair or equitable is your attributing quotes that I have never made to draw up a straw man. I challenge you to provide the diffs for those exact quotes. This misattribution is just another example of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I already linked to your claim that The Broadway League wasn't RS for Broadway credits, here. What else was there? At one point you claimed an opinion essay as policy. Just let me know, and I'm happy to provide links. That said, I'm getting the impressions admins here are, understandably, a little tired of our back-and-forth.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The exact quote is not in that link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Really. Because I see you saying "no" to it twice: "Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020) ... "Standard legal boilerplate that disclaims any accuracy of their content. I don't see that with newspapers, magazines, academic journals or even the unreliable IMDB, an Amazon company. Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2020). Let the record show that I pointed out to you the same standard legal boilerplate at The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and The Television Academy.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- You see the verbatim text "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits" anywhere? You do realise what a WP:QUOTE is, right? I shouldn't have to tell a "professional journalist" this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Really. Because I see you saying "no" to it twice: "Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020) ... "Standard legal boilerplate that disclaims any accuracy of their content. I don't see that with newspapers, magazines, academic journals or even the unreliable IMDB, an Amazon company. Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2020). Let the record show that I pointed out to you the same standard legal boilerplate at The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and The Television Academy.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The exact quote is not in that link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I already linked to your claim that The Broadway League wasn't RS for Broadway credits, here. What else was there? At one point you claimed an opinion essay as policy. Just let me know, and I'm happy to provide links. That said, I'm getting the impressions admins here are, understandably, a little tired of our back-and-forth.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- What is not fair or equitable is your attributing quotes that I have never made to draw up a straw man. I challenge you to provide the diffs for those exact quotes. This misattribution is just another example of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that with going both ways. Morbidthoughs, KyleJoan and the IP have all used aggressive, sarcastic, uncivil language toward me from the start, with Morbidthoughts in particular baiting me with nonsensical arguments like "the Today show is pop culture and not a reliable news source" and "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits." Would that not be fair and equitable?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- OK, Tenebrae, you do seem to be insistent on continuing to cross a line in your posts here ("Like Fox News") so I am now specifically warning you, as you didn't take the hint to "comment on content, not each other" - outside of formal reports on the appropriate noticeboards, you must stop making ad hominem comments about other contributors, including IP contributors. You need to re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in full to understand how your comments are breaching policy, because I think you've become too comfortable talking to other editors in this manner. Your arguments do not need to involve discrediting others. Fences&Windows 12:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The diffs were indeed linked to provide proper context. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Like Fox News, you take comments out of context. If, instead, you would link to the entire particular post where these comments appear, and where readers here could view ent entire context, then that would be more conscionable and honest. Let's remember, you are the person who claims that The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. I urge anyone: Go to the context to see exactly what in Morbid's eccentric claims that I'm responding to with, I think, relative restraint.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- While I'd agree in general with your suggestion that dispute resolution rather than 'point scoring' would seem advisable, it is worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I got involved at all was because I responded to an RfC. 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.199.97 (talk)
Your denial and deflection is remarkable: The whole discussion was about you removing Kloots-Larsen's credit from Amanda Kloots, and then saying "naw," The Broadway League's Internet Broadway Database was not RS for Broadway credits. I shouldn't have to tell a "presumably literate person" this.
Your harassment of me is never going to end, is it?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just keep WP:GASLIGHTING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Familiar: Accusing someone else of that which you are doing. Anyone can read the thread on my talk page and see for themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's clear from that talk page, the RFC, the SPI, and this ANI that the differences in opinion over content were so "deliberately provocative and inciting" that they triggered a pattern of your making ad hominem comments and drawing up straw men to argue against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I leave that to other editors. I think they'll see your comments and edit summaries were unnecessarily rude and dismissive ("Yawn." "Naw."), uncivil, ill-informed and, most of all, deliberately baiting ... as have been some of your comments above in which you tried to deny things you said. Your behavior I find to be textbook harassment, and I implore admins to end this.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Histrionic. "If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you". (WP:CIVIL) Another recent example: [56]
- I leave that to other editors. I think they'll see your comments and edit summaries were unnecessarily rude and dismissive ("Yawn." "Naw."), uncivil, ill-informed and, most of all, deliberately baiting ... as have been some of your comments above in which you tried to deny things you said. Your behavior I find to be textbook harassment, and I implore admins to end this.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's clear from that talk page, the RFC, the SPI, and this ANI that the differences in opinion over content were so "deliberately provocative and inciting" that they triggered a pattern of your making ad hominem comments and drawing up straw men to argue against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Familiar: Accusing someone else of that which you are doing. Anyone can read the thread on my talk page and see for themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just keep WP:GASLIGHTING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- See below under "A small request": I have gotten along wonderfully well with responsible editors across more than 15 years, 150,000 edits, and all the acknowledgments in my user page's awards section.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- And incidentally, "like Fox News" aside, I think we should address the point of my statement, which is Morbidthoughts cherrypicking quotes out-of=context. Morbidthoughts' behavior, including this ANI, has been unconscionable.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
A small request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If nothing else comes out of this (which seems likely at this point), can we at least get some outside comment, from admins or otherwise, on the appropriateness of Tenebrae making posts like these [57][58], where he/she seems to be suggesting that being employed as a journalist places someone in a position to be able to have the final say regarding article content?
To my mind, there are three problems with this. Firstly, as far as I'm aware there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that having expertise in a topic area gives automatic authority over content decisions. To be sure, someone with actual experience in a field directly relevant to a discussion should be better equipped to explain things, and to point to relevant sources to back up what they are saying. The purpose of doing so should however be to convince others, not to assert authority.
Secondly, it should be noted that what Tenebrae appears to be doing is asserting that because the sources being cited are from the mass media, a journalist is in the best position to determine their use. To my mind, that is a dubious proposition when discussing whether a particular source should be used, and to what use it should be put. The mass media don't include every last detail from every valid source in their own publications, and neither, I would suggest, should an encyclopaedia. Instead. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which affect such decisions over inclusion of content, and beyond that there will inevitably be times where contributors collectively arrive at such decisions after considering what they consider appropriate in the encyclopaedia, based on their own best judgement. Judgement of what they consider best for that situation, not for what a hypothetical journalist might have done in another context. Journalists aren't encyclopaedists.
Third and last, it should be noted that as far as I can tell, it isn't actually possible to directly verify whether Tenebrae is a journalist anyway. One could make a guess, from looking at their extensive output and the subject matter covered, but that surely isn't appropriate (and indeed is highly discouraged in as far as trying to identify individuals who chose not to make their identity publicly known). Making claims to expertise that nobody else is in a position to actually verify is surely not something that should be encouraged on article talk pages, if the object is to arrive at collective decisions in a collegial manner. Because that is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Consensus, not because-I-say-so assertions based on unverifiable claims to authority. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Those types of arguments are indeed condescending, but the bigger concern is whether there are any conflicts of interests that Tenebrae may have with the subjects or sources being debated.[59] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I feel it is not appropriate for Tenebrae to make such claims of authority. I also have concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from him, and going by his block log, I'd say it's time to end this. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're looking for WP:EXPERT. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- First, Morbidthoughts' desperately false and completely non-evidenced claim of conflict of interest is just one more throw-everything-and-see-what-sticks attack. Why the uncivil, harassing behavior that Morbidthoughts has shown here has not resulted in WP:BOOMERANG astounds me.
- Second, I've been here more than 15 years, with more 150,000 edits, and have created a couple hundred articles. If WP:BATTLEGROUND were an issue, I'd have been booted long ago. I get along wonderfully well with responsible editors, as evidenced by their acknowledgments here.
- Finally, I never said only professional journalists and academic researchers should edit, or that anyone has "final say." But allow me, please, to use this metaphor, which is not to be taken a literally: When the editorial equivalent of an anti-vaxxer insists on making medical claims in Wikipedia that are just not true, but which other editors may believe, then any physician would present evidence to the contrary. And when the anti-vaxxers dug in their heels, any physician would say, "Please, listen, I'm a doctor and what you're claiming is not true." In more than 15 years, I have almost never had to say that, metaphorically. But anyone can see what we're up against when Morbidthoughts claims the Todayshow and Playbill are not RS for BLP because they are "pop-culture sources", and otherwise confidently makes claims about biographical research that are just untrue.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fascinating. In order to counter suggestions of battleground behaviour, Tenebrae resorts to metaphors about 'anti-vaxxers'. In the middle of a global pandemic causing thousands of fatalities. Evidently the 'Trump supporter' stuff wasn't working... (N.B. This is the same person as User:109.158.199.97 and User:165.120.15.66 - my ISP has decided to reset my IP yet again) 109.156.239.119 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- First, you deliberately ignore the fact I said I was using a "metaphor, which is not to be taken a literally". That is highly bad-faith behavior on your part. Secondly, it doesn't surprise me that you would simply attack, rather than address the central content of my post: that among other things, Morbidthoughts claims NBC News' Todayshow and the venerable theater magazine Playbill are not RS for BLP because they are "pop-culture sources". (Note: I'd inadvertently left out the last 10 words from my post above, and have added them, but this point has already been made clear in this conversation. Why don't we discuss that substantive point, rather than your purposefully deflecting nitpicking about a metaphor.)--Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, I'm not the slightest bit interested in lectures on 'bad faith behaviour' from someone who can, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever, make completely off-topic personal remarks about my potential employment prospects. [60] Or do you really think such commentary is somehow appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages?
- And yes, obviously your previous comment about anti-vaxxers was a metaphor. That would have been entirely clear even without you telling us that. As a journalist (or someone who claims to be) I would have thought that you should be able to write clearly and concisely, and respond directly to a post without bringing up off-topic metaphors relating to issues which are currently causing distress throughout the world. The metaphor was not only unnecessary (or should be, if you actually have a point to make) but utterly obnoxious. As should be entirely clear to absolutely anyone with an ounce of common sense, journalist or not.
- And no, I didn't 'address the central point of your post'. Why the hell should I, since you didn't address mine, except by repeating the behaviour I was complaining about in the first place - personalising battleground behaviour making collegial discussions impossible. I have offered no opinion either way on the debate between the two of you regarding what is or isn't 'pop culture'. Not because I'm not qualified to do so (I'd like to think that in a small way I am, though unlike you, I don't see that as particularly relevant, in a Wikipedia context), but because it wasn't the issue that brought me here, and because WP:ANI isn't a forum for content disputes. What it is for, however, is for discussions over whether contributor's behaviour has been appropriate. So a simple question, do you think that such personal-attack commentary as "By your very own comments, you show you have no training or expertise in biography. If you were applying for a job at a magazine or a biographical reference publisher, the interview would not last five minutes: You are unqualified to write for a professional organization" is actually appropriate for a talk page discussion? Because if you do, I can only suggest that regardless of your (so far unverifiable) qualifications as a journalist, you lack the necessary judgement to be permitted to participate in such discussions at all. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- You want COI evidence, Tenebrae? You had been leaving bread crumbs with your random comments. Weren't you blocked for using your IP address, allegedly to avoid scrutiny[61] for editing an article about someone you knew[62][63] and participating in an RFC about her birthname?[64] There's a COI accusation against you in that RFC[[65]] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- As for WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with other editors in the last month even:
- There is a pattern here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please. I don't remember if we discussed this earlier in this endless thread, but the admin who ruled on the SPI knew I had done it inadvertently and so gave me only two weeks. I'd started commenting on / editing one article after having forgotten to log in, and then didn't want to comment / edit the same article under a second name (i.e. Tenebrae). One day I forgot to log out and made an edit under Tenebrae.
- And my attending a party with Peppermint and taking her photo for her Wikipedia article is COI? As you have continually, you make an unfounded accusation (COI; "avoid scrutiny"), exaggerate and cherrypick out-of-context. None of those editors you listed have come here to complain at this ANI, other than the one with ever-changing IP addresses. Indeed, Newimpartial and I are fine; they in fact voluntarily removed the comment discussed in that "battleground" link. Whereas you came to my talk page and harassed me endlessly about how Today and Playbill were "pop-culture sources" and unusable for BLP, and that we couldn't use Amanda Kloots' official stage credits because you wrongly insisted The Broadway League's official database — the one Broadway producers and everyone else uses for the League's Tony Awards — was not RS. I invite anyone to visit User talk:Tenebrae#RfC about Instagram and see the charred earth of your battleground behavior. And I could give other examples.
- As for the anon IP, who has resorted to personal name-calling ("utterly obnoxious"; "with[out] an ounce of common sense"), I don't know how to speak with someone so literal-minded that, no, they clearly don't understand metaphor or else they would not have brought up "a global pandemic causing thousands of fatalities." Yeah, and one of them was a cousin I was close to, so if we're talking about not lecturing, I think it would be wise to take one's own advice.
- Similarly, I was not in any way commenting about the anon IP's "potential employment prospects" in saying that their inaccurate pronouncements about biography would make a person last not five minutes in an interview for an editorial position. That clearly was not literal. And the anon IP evades the larger point that, yes, like an anti-vaxxer, some Wikipedia editors make inaccurate pronouncements as if they're the truth, then dig their heels in. That, to me, is a genuine danger to this encyclopedia. I think any responsible editor would be concerned about that.
- I have seen more personal, vitriolic comment against me here than in anything I've said to anyone. I will put my contributions to Wikipedia, and the collegial collaborations I've had with many, many editors over the years, up against those of these editors anytime.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have been following this discussion expecting it to be closed as pointless bickering or moved to ARBCOM, but it just keeps going on. Tenebrae I understand from the comments here that you are a professional journalist. I think it might be helpful to resolve conflict of interest accusations if you clarify how that relates to your editing here. In your opinion, would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the articles of people that you write about? Would it be a conflict of interest to use a magazine, newspaper, or other media as a reference if they employ you? Would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the article of your employer or employers? Would it be a conflict of interest to cite yourself as a reference? Mo Billings (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have seen more personal, vitriolic comment against me here than in anything I've said to anyone. I will put my contributions to Wikipedia, and the collegial collaborations I've had with many, many editors over the years, up against those of these editors anytime.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the SPI block, Tenebrae writes "the admin who ruled on the SPI knew I had done it inadvertently and so gave me only two weeks". I'd have to suggest that this interpretation is rather at odds with how the SPI was actually closed, with the following statement:
- "Tenebrae, I have blocked you for two weeks. The only reason it isn’t indefinite is that you directly admitted it once. Since that admission however, you’ve edited in project space logged out and have ignored Bbb23’s request for an explanation, which amounts to avoiding scrutiny, which is prohibited by our policy on use of multiple accounts. BH has disabled logged out editing for a year on your IP, which is appropriate given the policy violations. Your edits here show your account isn’t impacted. After your two week block is up, you’re free to edit using your account. I’m closing this case now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)"
- Likewise, the comments made by Berean Hunter in the SPI likewise don't come across as discussing 'inadvertent' editing while logged out. At least, that's my interpretation. Others are of course free to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive for themselves, and make their own minds up as to whether Tenebrae got a two week block for 'inadvertent' editing while logged out. Something that would seem on the face of it rather harsh, if that was how it was actually perceived. I can't imagine that handing out two-week blocks for 'inadvertent' actions is exactly common. And I'd assume that warnings that a block for inadvertent actions might have been 'indefinite' would be even rarer.
- And as for Tenebrae's suggestion that ""By your very own comments, you show you have no training or expertise in biography. If you were applying for a job at a magazine or a biographical reference publisher, the interview would not last five minutes: You are unqualified to write for a professional organization" doesn't refer to my "potential employment prospects", I'd have to likewise suggest that others might see it differently. And that regardless of whether it referred to "employment prospects" it is self-evidently a personal attack, and accordingly doesn't remotely belong in an article talk-page discussion. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Whereas you came to my talk page and harassed me endlessly about how Today and Playbill were "pop-culture sources" and unusable for BLP". Naw, you really should reread your talk page[70] and stop gaslighting since I never discussed those sources on your talk page. Your block log[71] and ARBCOM history[72] demonstrates your collegial approach to editing. The reasons behind them continue to this day.[73][74][75] I don't believe anyone else here can you match you there.Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is beyond frustrating. I'm seeing two editors spending a remarkable amount of time on a personal vendetta. Look at the hours they have spent combing through 15 years of my edits in an attempt to "dig up dirt." Does this seem like typical, everyday behavior to anyone?
- This sustained and possibly tag-team attack has been going on for almost two weeks now, with repetitive rehashings, exaggerations and now this common tactic of Moridthoughts: Trying to deny he said something incredibly ill-informed ... because I inadvertently said "my talk page" rather than "the Amanda Kloots talk page." Here are excerpts of the statements he or she is suggesting he never said and which shows Morbidthoughts' baiting and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior:
...parents cannot simply waive this through some social media post that gets repeated by popular culture media. ... Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? The Today show, part of NBC News, is "popular culture media"? It is literally a news organization. The venerable theater magazine Playbill is "popular culture media"? Theater wishes it were popular culture.... -Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you sat down and watch Today (American TV program)? It's a morning talk show with lots of fluff intermixed with news. Theatre, one of the major arts & entertainment fields, is part of popular culture despite your attempts to dismiss that. ... Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Despite your arrogant attempts to delineate theatre, it is a part of popular culture. ... Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I literally gave you a [link to a] textbook saying that theater is widely and for hundreds of years considered a fine art or a performing art, and not pop culture. Playbill is not a pop-culture magazine. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is not pop culture. ... --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2020
- Also note Morbidthoughts' personal attack with "arrogant". And this is only a representative example of the kinds of remarkably wild claims Morbidthoughts makes to buttress his/her arguments. My talk page was the venue where Mordibthoughts harassed me with false insistence that The Broadway League's official database of official Broadway credits was not RS to cite a performer's stage credit! Someone who believes that perhaps ought not to make theater-related edits. Incidentally, I don't edit medical or law articles because I'm not a lawyer/law professor/legal reporter or doctor/medical student/health reporter. I'm unqualified to make substantive edits on such articles. Everything I've said applies to me as well.
- In any case, the point of this whole thing is moot — the RfC, where I haven't even commented in almost two weeks, is ended, and with any luck I never have to run across Morbidthoughts or that ever-changing IP address ever again.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, the point of 'this thing' isn't 'moot'. 'This thing' is a discussion on WP:ANI regarding your behaviour in a discussion where you chose to personalise what should have been a content dispute through off-topic personal attacks. And if people are raising events that happened 15 years ago (I haven't, though I have discussed your block from last March) it is because there is clearly an ongoing pattern here. You attempt to bully people into agreeing with you, and when that fails, you resort to endless deflections, allegations of some sort of conspiracy against you (e.g. 'tag team' above - do you intend to accuse me of being anyone and everyone who has ever disagreed with you? It is beginning to look like it), and further personal attacks (e.g the repeated assertions in this thread that I had been 'lying'). This will be 'moot' as and when your behaviour and further questions regarding possible conflict of interest issues are properly dealt with. If not here, then at ArbCom. If I can finally locate my login details, I may bring this up at ArbCom myself (doing it as an IP clearly isn't practical, and I'd rather do so while illustrating that I'm not some random sock, but someone with a long, if now mostly inactive, editing history). And if I don't, I'm quite sure that someone else will, since it seems evident that this bullying behaviour is going to continue. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No, this is about two vociferous editors only, who, seeing their arguments adding up to little, now threaten ArbCom — over a normal disagreement that has involved no swearing or vulgarisms, no threats from me, as came from them, and no unsubstantiated claims, as those two have made.
They claim widespread behavior on my part that isn't true, like widespread voter fraud that isn't true, and listed editors they claim have issues with me, yet who haven't shown up to this tempest in a teapot. So in parallel structure, I'll list several longtime editors, some of whom went on to become admins after we first worked together, and with whom I have had wonderfully collegial and constructive collaborations ... and a couple of whom have thanked me for helping show them the ropes. The "pattern" these two are claiming is untrue, as these fine, longtime, responsible Wikipedia editors can attest:
- User:BOZ
- User:TriiipleThreat
- User:Mtminchi08
- User:Doczilla
- User:Starzoner
- User:Favre1fan93
- User:Gerda Arendt
- User:MarnetteD
- User talk:Betty Logan
- User:SummerPhDv2.0
- User:Ifnord
- User:Jhenderson777
I could list many more. The only pattern of behavior is two disgruntled editors who now appear to be making it their life's work to attack a longtime, responsible, collegial editor with whom they personally did not get along, and who now are determined to harass him in retaliation. I hate that this thing has reached a point where I actually have to list colleagues who can attest to my productivity, value and collegiality over the last decade-and-a-half of service, but evidently nothing else will quell these two's passion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, as a (thankfully) uninvolved editor, I have to say that I am concerned by your list of character witnesses. I suspect that most editors would consider that an example of canvassing. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- But it's not canvassing when Morbidthouhts did it above, at 22:05, 3 January 2021? Let's have an even playing field, please.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, if that were canvassing, two wrongs do not make a right. An editor of your experience should know that. Reading through that edit, it seems as if they were listing the occasions that you had conflicts with those editors, while supplying their usernames. That is very different from listing character witnesses and asking them to
attest to [your] productivity, value and collegiality over the last decade-and-a-half of service
. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)- It is canvassing by Mordbidthought because if he or she were just listing names, there was no need to Wikilink them. He wanted to alert them. And of course two wrongs don't make a right, but we all have the right to defend ourselves, and have you seen the reams of vitriol, vendetta, exaggeration and let's say misstatements that these two editors have heaped upon me for nearly two weeks, attacking not any specific things but my character and who I am as a person. So I think I have a right to counter his "list of witnesses" with my own. (In any case, I don't believe a raw list is canvassing — no one went to those editors' talk pages and asked them for biased help.)--Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Posting about specific incidents involving them at ANI required that I notify them, which I also did on their talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is canvassing by Mordbidthought because if he or she were just listing names, there was no need to Wikilink them. He wanted to alert them. And of course two wrongs don't make a right, but we all have the right to defend ourselves, and have you seen the reams of vitriol, vendetta, exaggeration and let's say misstatements that these two editors have heaped upon me for nearly two weeks, attacking not any specific things but my character and who I am as a person. So I think I have a right to counter his "list of witnesses" with my own. (In any case, I don't believe a raw list is canvassing — no one went to those editors' talk pages and asked them for biased help.)--Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, if that were canvassing, two wrongs do not make a right. An editor of your experience should know that. Reading through that edit, it seems as if they were listing the occasions that you had conflicts with those editors, while supplying their usernames. That is very different from listing character witnesses and asking them to
- But it's not canvassing when Morbidthouhts did it above, at 22:05, 3 January 2021? Let's have an even playing field, please.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, the two contributors on that list that have been blocked for sockpuppetry are unlikely to respond here ;) 109.156.239.119 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- There. Fixed. I'm afraid I did not obsessively comb through every editor's history, especially since I, at least, have a job and today have come to this page only during an occasional break.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- You didn't 'comb through' their history before you described them as "fine, longtime, responsible Wikipedia editors"? Fascinating. Is that the level of research you think appropriate for someone who insists that being a journalist makes them an authority on Wikipedia biographies? And no, I don't have a job. Retired, thankfully. So I don't have to put up with this sort of crap, unless I chose to. Which I didn't, until you decided to make me a target for your off-topic personal attacks in what could so easily have been a simple discussion over a minor detail in a biography concerning a minor public figure. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- My goodness, your snideness never ends. Wikipedia is not my job. The time little time I'm stealing here today to defend myself is eating into my work and I'll have to stay late. But of course, you've got all the time in world to wiki-stalk someone's 15 years of edits because, from what you suggest, you have nothing better to do. And let's not play victim here: You and your friend Morbidthoughts made the mountain out of a molehill regarding what you call "a minor detail in a biography concerning a minor public figure."
- And you can make your snide comments about journalists all you want. I'm also an author and have written biographies professionally. But someone who proudly doesn't know journalistic practices, standards and ethics is going to whitewash and censor a biography because of a "right-great-wrongs crusade" to show what terrible parents they are to announce their child to the media and put him on TV. Your personal beliefs do not constitute objectivity. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- And off you go again. Because multiple people disagree with you, they must be 'friends'. And what should have been a civil discussion over what content is appropriate in a minor biography instead becomes all about supposed 'censorship'. And I'm the one trying to 'right great wrongs'? By contributing to a single RfC, on a talk page for a 'TV personality' biography? I'd have though that was a rather strange strategy for righting wrongs, but what would I know... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- You and Morbidthoughts have made it very clear that you think you know better than the parents what's best for their child. Any responsible professional can see that Amanda Kloots and Nick Cordero, as many but hardly all celebrities do, thrust their child into the spotlight. They announced him to the media. His first birthday was covered by the Today show. He's mentioned by The Talk co-host Kloots on air and on social media frequently, and is written about in major magazines, newspapers and websites. He is not a secret. He is not private. One can look up his name and birthdate, which are standard biographical facts for any notable public figure. So you would censor the names of Beyonce and Jay-Z's kids? Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's? Is there an objective criteria or are we simply to follow your personal gut instinct? (And of course I know only a government, technically, can censor; I'm using the term colloquially, like "a basic cable TV-network censor".) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Naw Tenebrae, it didn't take me long to look up your block log and its corresponding history because wikipedia makes that process easy. Your rampant history of personally commenting on editors you disagree with over really petty ass topics in the big picture scheme of things makes it easy to pin the tail somewhere on the donkey. Your taking personal affront to my evaluation of the sources and dismissal of your position made me wonder if you had a COI with a very specific source, Playbill. Speaking of righting great wrongs, you also have a history of battling for the inclusion of information about celebrities' children since 2014 and knew fully well about the community's resistance to that.[76][77][78] So I believe you should be topic banned from editing or even discussing the children of celebrities because you cannot do this in a non-disruptive manner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, brother, you and that mysterious anon-IP are going for scorched earth, aren't you? No one has ever accused me of COI in 15 years here, and you're only doing it now since none of your other accusations are amounting to anything significant or actionable, so why not throw more charges and see what sticks? You imply on your user page that you're a lawyer, and that is precisely the tactic a certain type of lawyer would take.
- Naw Tenebrae, it didn't take me long to look up your block log and its corresponding history because wikipedia makes that process easy. Your rampant history of personally commenting on editors you disagree with over really petty ass topics in the big picture scheme of things makes it easy to pin the tail somewhere on the donkey. Your taking personal affront to my evaluation of the sources and dismissal of your position made me wonder if you had a COI with a very specific source, Playbill. Speaking of righting great wrongs, you also have a history of battling for the inclusion of information about celebrities' children since 2014 and knew fully well about the community's resistance to that.[76][77][78] So I believe you should be topic banned from editing or even discussing the children of celebrities because you cannot do this in a non-disruptive manner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- You and Morbidthoughts have made it very clear that you think you know better than the parents what's best for their child. Any responsible professional can see that Amanda Kloots and Nick Cordero, as many but hardly all celebrities do, thrust their child into the spotlight. They announced him to the media. His first birthday was covered by the Today show. He's mentioned by The Talk co-host Kloots on air and on social media frequently, and is written about in major magazines, newspapers and websites. He is not a secret. He is not private. One can look up his name and birthdate, which are standard biographical facts for any notable public figure. So you would censor the names of Beyonce and Jay-Z's kids? Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's? Is there an objective criteria or are we simply to follow your personal gut instinct? (And of course I know only a government, technically, can censor; I'm using the term colloquially, like "a basic cable TV-network censor".) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- And off you go again. Because multiple people disagree with you, they must be 'friends'. And what should have been a civil discussion over what content is appropriate in a minor biography instead becomes all about supposed 'censorship'. And I'm the one trying to 'right great wrongs'? By contributing to a single RfC, on a talk page for a 'TV personality' biography? I'd have though that was a rather strange strategy for righting wrongs, but what would I know... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- You didn't 'comb through' their history before you described them as "fine, longtime, responsible Wikipedia editors"? Fascinating. Is that the level of research you think appropriate for someone who insists that being a journalist makes them an authority on Wikipedia biographies? And no, I don't have a job. Retired, thankfully. So I don't have to put up with this sort of crap, unless I chose to. Which I didn't, until you decided to make me a target for your off-topic personal attacks in what could so easily have been a simple discussion over a minor detail in a biography concerning a minor public figure. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- There. Fixed. I'm afraid I did not obsessively comb through every editor's history, especially since I, at least, have a job and today have come to this page only during an occasional break.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- And please don't make up claims about "community resistance" — there is literally no prohibition against biographically including the children of public figures, particularly those that work with publicists to notify the media about them. I could point you to an RfC at an actor's page where the admin close was to allow it. I could also point to virtually any biographical book ever written.
- Finally, your insidious mischaracterization of me is a blatant falsehood. Any editor across 15 years will get into disagreements, sometimes heated, with other editors. It's part of the landscape. But to act as if you can dismiss the 98% of my other roughly 155,000 edits that have helped this encyclopedia in myriad ways — that crosses a line into highly personal vendetta. My only wish for this insanity's end is that I never cross paths with your or the anon IP ever again. Whereas the two of you don't seem as if you'll ever be satisfied unless I'n thrown off Wikipedia, outed to the world and the ground salted where I stood.
- I am imploring admins to please end this thing. Malicious prosecution, exaggerated and out-of-context if not outright deceitful, claims ... and for almost two weeks now. And now I'm hearing threats. With the RfC over, this feels, to me, like obsessive behavior on the part of these two editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I raised COI concerns about Tenebrae on December 13, 2020. Stuart.Jamieson did as well on January 9, 2012. KyleJoantalk 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your malicious claim went nowhere and admins saw right through it. And Stuart.Jamieson was admonished by admins for making things up and threatening to out me. Neither of these things was a credible allegation, and, if I'm not mistaken, admins went so far as to erase Stuart.Jamieson's false and intemperate claims.
- You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to "dig up dirt." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I raised COI concerns about Tenebrae on December 13, 2020. Stuart.Jamieson did as well on January 9, 2012. KyleJoantalk 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am imploring admins to please end this thing. Malicious prosecution, exaggerated and out-of-context if not outright deceitful, claims ... and for almost two weeks now. And now I'm hearing threats. With the RfC over, this feels, to me, like obsessive behavior on the part of these two editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Can you direct me to where admins
admonished
Stuart.Jamieson? You can also still access the diff I provided above, so I'm not sure how theirfalse and intemperate claims
were erased. KyleJoantalk 01:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)- Right here. That was another unconscionable fanatic who didn't care who he'd hurt in real life.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Still not seeing where admins admonished Stuart.Jamieson. You also stated that you emailed the oversight team to suppress that diff because Stuart.Jamieson
threatened to out
you, so which is it? Were their claimsfalse and intemperate
or were they true, which warranted suppression? KyleJoantalk 01:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)- Tenebrae, you should know very well from that Brian Austin Green RFC and those later cited discussions that there must be a consensus for that information to be included. Your sniping at objecting commenters about their lack of qualifications to evaluate this issue and speculated motivations are disruptive to the consensus-building process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The policy states no such blanket prohibition. Anyone is free to add that information. Anyone is then free to challenge it. But for you to say that each and every instance requires an RfC or similar before it can be added in the first place, that is completely wrong.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your strawman inference is wrong. I am saying that it requires a discussion once that information is removed and a consensus to include must be met. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The policy states no such blanket prohibition. Anyone is free to add that information. Anyone is then free to challenge it. But for you to say that each and every instance requires an RfC or similar before it can be added in the first place, that is completely wrong.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, you should know very well from that Brian Austin Green RFC and those later cited discussions that there must be a consensus for that information to be included. Your sniping at objecting commenters about their lack of qualifications to evaluate this issue and speculated motivations are disruptive to the consensus-building process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Still not seeing where admins admonished Stuart.Jamieson. You also stated that you emailed the oversight team to suppress that diff because Stuart.Jamieson
- Right here. That was another unconscionable fanatic who didn't care who he'd hurt in real life.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Motion to close
The above complaint has petered down to nothing but vitriol between the parties. I'm not seeing anything that rises to the point of blocks for any specific parties, just warnings & troutings. Thus, as an outside party, I'm suggesting this complaint be closed without action. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- As an outside party I suggested (above) that it might be helpful for Tenebrae to address how his job as a professional journalist intersects with his hobby as a Wikipedia editor, but those questions were either overlooked or ignored. I don't think these concerns about conflict of interest will go away without Tenebrae clarifying his views about where those roles overlap. It's just going to end up here again. Mo Billings (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Or at ArbCom. Who will of course be open to the sort of privately-submitted evidence that rules regarding doxxing etc suggest would be inappropriate to post here. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- You love to threaten people when you think you're not getting your way. Now you're threatening to out me. Stop with the threats. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not threatening to 'out' you. I have made it entirely clear that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. What I may consider doing, based on the evidence I've seen so far (evidence, not at this stage 'proof' maybe, per our discussion above) is e-mailing ArbCom privately, in order to discuss what might be perceived as conflict-of-interest editing on your part. Whether ArbCom consider such evidence worthy of further action is of course down to them. Presumably if they do, at some point they will have to decide whether such action will require making any link between your account here and any otherwise-identifiable individual public. Any such decision likewise down to them. I'd imagine that the first thing they'd do if they decide to act on my evidence at all would be to contact you privately, asking the obvious questions regarding said evidence. If there is nothing to it, there is no reason to be worried about 'outing' at all. I may dislike you, but I'm also aware of Wikipedia policy in this regard. And agree with it. Nobody complying with Wikipedia policies should be 'outed'. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see. You're Pontius Pilate. You're not threatening to out me, you're just giving the Romans all they need to do so.
- As I mentioned to Morbidthoughts, I have never once been accused of COI in all my 15 years here. It's a hail-Mary accusation — for the record, false — and for no purpose other than to harass and "give payback" to an editor you dislike. The amount of time you and Morbidthoughts have devoted to attacking me borders, in my opinion, on obsession. And I caught the insinuation in your last sentence: "Nobody complying with Wikipedia policies should be 'outed'." But as you see it, I've violated "battleground" and who knows what else, to you I'm fair game.
- Again, I am imploring admins to please end this thing. Malicious prosecution, exaggerated and out-of-context if not outright deceitful, claims ... and for almost two weeks now. And now I'm hearing outing threats. With the RfC over, this feels, to me, like obsessive behavior on the part of these two editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm not Pontius Pilate. And for that matter, ArbCom aren't Romans (Or at least, not as far as I'm aware. And if any of them are, they aren't the crucifying sort). I am however someone who has read WP:OUTING "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest..." As for 'fair game', I didn't want to get involved in this 'game' at all. And if you'd had the common decency to either not make gratuitous personal remarks about my supposed employment prospects, or at least to apologise afterwards, I wouldn't be. Not least because without your insistence that both your long editing history here and your career as a journalist makes you so much better than the rest of us, I'd never have looked at your editing history at all. And like I said, I see evidence, if not exactly proof, of a COI. I could be wrong. And for that matter, as the evidence for COI goes, it isn't perhaps as egregious as I've seen elsewhere, even if I am right. If it weren't for the gratuitous bullying that led to me coming into conflict with you, I might have decided to ignore it. Not really my problem, since I rarely edit Wikipedia much these days. All I did was comment. On an RfC. A request for comment. To be confronted with repeated socking accusations, and off-topic personal attacks. Leading me to wonder what else said bully might have been up to. I've drawn my own (tentative) conclusions. I should probably ponder on this further, after things have cooled down a little. I'm not here to 'right great wrongs', and if Wikipedia is prepared to tolerate what looks to me to be (low-level) COI editing from one of its most prolific editors, that isn't really my problem. The gratuitous bullying was my more immediate concern, and I can walk away from that too. Given your history, I'm sure that will come up again here at some point. And if anyone else has COI concerns (see Mo Billings comments above) they are of course free to act regardless of what I do. I've communicated nothing to anyone so far, and nor have I done anything more than look at publicly-available information here on Wikipedia, along with a couple of simple checks regarding a few sources cited. And like I said, I may be wrong, and I'm not going to do anything beyond what WP:OUTING explicitly permits, if I decide to act at all. Which again can only lead to 'outing' if ArbCom see it the same way. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- So, yes, it sounds like you are indeed threatening me, based on a scenario you've spun completely in your head. How has this monster you've painted me as helped destroy Wikipedia by creating so many useful articles, making so many grammatical copy edits, working with a multitude of fellow editors collaboratively to improve articles, advocating for BLP cites, etc. ... all while citing thousands of different sources in my nearly 155,000 edits? No ... at this point with the RfC over, you're just acting out of maliciousness and a desire to "get even" for perceived slights.
- No, I'm not Pontius Pilate. And for that matter, ArbCom aren't Romans (Or at least, not as far as I'm aware. And if any of them are, they aren't the crucifying sort). I am however someone who has read WP:OUTING "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest..." As for 'fair game', I didn't want to get involved in this 'game' at all. And if you'd had the common decency to either not make gratuitous personal remarks about my supposed employment prospects, or at least to apologise afterwards, I wouldn't be. Not least because without your insistence that both your long editing history here and your career as a journalist makes you so much better than the rest of us, I'd never have looked at your editing history at all. And like I said, I see evidence, if not exactly proof, of a COI. I could be wrong. And for that matter, as the evidence for COI goes, it isn't perhaps as egregious as I've seen elsewhere, even if I am right. If it weren't for the gratuitous bullying that led to me coming into conflict with you, I might have decided to ignore it. Not really my problem, since I rarely edit Wikipedia much these days. All I did was comment. On an RfC. A request for comment. To be confronted with repeated socking accusations, and off-topic personal attacks. Leading me to wonder what else said bully might have been up to. I've drawn my own (tentative) conclusions. I should probably ponder on this further, after things have cooled down a little. I'm not here to 'right great wrongs', and if Wikipedia is prepared to tolerate what looks to me to be (low-level) COI editing from one of its most prolific editors, that isn't really my problem. The gratuitous bullying was my more immediate concern, and I can walk away from that too. Given your history, I'm sure that will come up again here at some point. And if anyone else has COI concerns (see Mo Billings comments above) they are of course free to act regardless of what I do. I've communicated nothing to anyone so far, and nor have I done anything more than look at publicly-available information here on Wikipedia, along with a couple of simple checks regarding a few sources cited. And like I said, I may be wrong, and I'm not going to do anything beyond what WP:OUTING explicitly permits, if I decide to act at all. Which again can only lead to 'outing' if ArbCom see it the same way. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- And since, as you say, you're retired, you have all the time in the world to "build you case" and post walls of text — knowing that I either can't be here all day to respond or I have to take time off from work to defend myself from you. That's quite a thing. And I'm sure you're enjoying it. Why do I think that? Because you're not stopping and in fact gaining momentum. And when this ANI eventually ends, you've already said how else you're going to keep up your attack. Please ... would some admin please do something.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tenebrae, you flatter yourself. You really aren't that important to me.... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- What is truth on Wikipedia, anyway? Dumuzid (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it has 'petered down'. I am entirely unsurprised, since it is self-evident that as I noted earlier, long-term contributors get preferential treatment here, and are permitted to engage in the sort of behaviour (e.g. accusing people of 'lying') that would routinely result in a block for anyone else. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Man, anon IP, you can't even let disinterested editors discuss a closing without putting your two shillings in. Let it be.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 'Do as I say, not as I do...' 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I let it be. I let the closers discuss things. Then you come in and blatantly try to "shame" them into doing something you want. I find such behavior highly dishonorable — and as a clear attack on me, I have a right to defend myself against it.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not the slightest bit interested in what you consider 'dishonorable'. Particularly since it was your clear and unambiguous personal attack on me at Talk:Amanda Kloots that led to my involvement here in the first place. So yes, 'Do as I say, not as I do...' seems a perfectly valid response. If you don't like it, tough... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- "If you don't like it, tough"? What are we, 12-year-olds on a schoolyard? Your behavior has been horrible, and your hubris unimaginable.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- You know, if you'd had the common decency to apologise for making obnoxious and off-topic comments about my supposed employment prospects, none of this would have happened... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm showing common decency holding my tongue and not responding to that comment.
- As I've said, I am imploring an admin to end this nearly two-week torture. User:Fences and windows, you've popped in occasionally and are familiar with the lay of the land. Perhaps this is something you might be willing to take the time and do? For my part, all I want is to never cross paths with Morbidthoughts or that anon IP ever again.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- You know, if you'd had the common decency to apologise for making obnoxious and off-topic comments about my supposed employment prospects, none of this would have happened... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- "If you don't like it, tough"? What are we, 12-year-olds on a schoolyard? Your behavior has been horrible, and your hubris unimaginable.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not the slightest bit interested in what you consider 'dishonorable'. Particularly since it was your clear and unambiguous personal attack on me at Talk:Amanda Kloots that led to my involvement here in the first place. So yes, 'Do as I say, not as I do...' seems a perfectly valid response. If you don't like it, tough... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I let it be. I let the closers discuss things. Then you come in and blatantly try to "shame" them into doing something you want. I find such behavior highly dishonorable — and as a clear attack on me, I have a right to defend myself against it.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 'Do as I say, not as I do...' 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like Tenebrae to answer Mo Billings' questions as well. KyleJoantalk 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Who the heck is Mo Billing?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae:, I guess you missed my comment in the section above. I think part of the issue here is that since you are a professional journalist there are concerns about conflict of interest from editors who do not know how your roles as journalist and Wikipedia editor overlap. I posed some simple questions which I think will help other editors better understand your role here. Since the above section is now closed, I will repeat them here for your convenience:
- In your opinion, would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the articles of people that you write about?
- Would it be a conflict of interest to use a magazine, newspaper, or other media as a reference if they employ you?
- Would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the article of your employer or employers?
- Would it be a conflict of interest to cite yourself as a reference?
- I didn't think of it at the time, but are you a "notable journalist", and if you are, would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit your own article. I suspect answers to these questions might help to alleviate other editor's concerns about conflict of interest. Mo Billings (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae:, I guess you missed my comment in the section above. I think part of the issue here is that since you are a professional journalist there are concerns about conflict of interest from editors who do not know how your roles as journalist and Wikipedia editor overlap. I posed some simple questions which I think will help other editors better understand your role here. Since the above section is now closed, I will repeat them here for your convenience:
- Who the heck is Mo Billing?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Man, anon IP, you can't even let disinterested editors discuss a closing without putting your two shillings in. Let it be.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour by User: DePiep
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Sandbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I regret being here again.
Members of WP:ELEM have recently been editing the periodic table article, as an exercise in continuous cooperative editing.[79]
I politely raised some objection to some of these edits and notified my intention to revert some of them.[80]
Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward.[81] The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp.[82]
Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion. In doing so he said, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish."[83]
I today started editing the periodic table article. My edits included reverting one of Double sharp’s edits,[84] as I had previously flagged. This one reversion restored content that had been deleted by Double sharp.
Subsequently, all of my edits were reverted by User: DePiep, on the basis that I had not established consensus.[85] In so doing, DePiep reverted my revert, in breach of BRD.
Discussion at my talk page ensued.
In summary, DePiep responded with, among other things, "Yes in a 16k revert some comma might be reverted unintentionally"; TLDR [86]; I do not have consensus [87]; I should ask Double sharp beforehand [88]; and I am editing without discussion [89].
I have politely reached the end of my tether with this disruptive behaviour by DePeip, which has been raised in this forum on multiple previous occasions.
Hence I am here, requesting DePiep be disavowed of this behaviour, in a suitable manner, so that I may complete my current round of edits, consistent with previous discussions.
Thank you, — Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I saw this thread after I had posted to Sandbh to raise my concerns with him. It is my impression that Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem.
- Sandbh's announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG. R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected. I posted some thoughts and ideas, also encouraging Sandbh not to revert, and the discussion continued. I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.
- I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.
- I think that the discussions at WT:ELEM (which are difficult to follow being in multiple places and with very large reorganisations having been made by Sandbh and discussed at his user talk page) show that there are issues where all contributors except Sandbh have a generally consistent view. That being the case, DePiep's request for consensus is not unreasonable. A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment. In this talk page section, Sandbh would also not accept that a statistical analysis he carried out was an example of OR, despite the wording here that
Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data, and decisions about which statistical methods and significance levels are appropriate
. - I do not see any sanction against DePiep as warranted at this time, even if he is not a model of politeness at all times.
- I do not think trying to argue which edits count as "B" and which as "R" is that important. It depends on time frames and perspectives... and, in any case, the bigger problem is that "D" either doesn't happen or becomes dysfunctional or swamped. The WT:ELEM history shows that 2020 has seen its size more than double from its previous high, to now over 600,000 bytes. It has seen 8,203 edits in 2020, the previous high point being 2,050 edits in 2013.
- I see Sandbh's discussion style as much more of a problem. The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping. EdChem (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I feel EdChem’s statement has several misrepresentations and errors. I’ve asked him, at his talk page, to please address my concerns as he sees fit. Sandbh (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- "misrepresentations and errors"?: then reply and refute those here. I will ignore this multi-page threading. By itself, this illustrates bad discussion discipline by Sandbh, which is one of the amplifying factors of the ELEM editing problem at hand. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
-
- 1 and 2 concerned opinions that I expressed. After reading his post, my views have not changed, though I again emphasise that my impressions and opinions are mine alone and that ANI readers should look at the evidence and form their own views. As always, ANI's attention may focus on the topic raised by the OP, on the OP themself, or on others who comment, etc. I am open to scrutiny for my comments and actions, just as is everyone else.
- 3: Sandbh notes that he paid heed to the requests not to revert while there was a discussion. My point was that he has gone on to undo Double sharp's change, returning 16,000 bytes to the article. Reverting after a discussion where objections were raised is still reverting. Arguing Double sharp said it was ok when others had raised objections does not make going ahead ok. Pointing to WT:ELEM, a 600,000+ byte discussion page, is hardly helpful for other editors.
- 4: On R8R's proposal for Double sharp and Sandbh to step back, Sandbh is correct that DePiep objected. It is also true that Sandbh did not formally object, instead suggesting a drafting in your own user space approach. This did contrast, in my opinion, with Double sharp's willingness to try R8R's approach.
- 5: Yes, there were many posts on 19 to 24 December. The reversion was on 26 December and I maintain activity around Christmas (and on 25/26/27 December given time zones, etc) is atypical.
- 6, 7, 8, and 9: All raise WP:IDHT concerns, and 6 and 9 both reply to points that I do not make. No matter how many times Sandbh states that the policy OR does not apply to talk pages, he seems unable to accept the view that talk space is not an OR free-for-all. Further, he disputes what original research actually is, leaving aside the WP policy on handling it. Sandbh notes (point 7) that he did comment (though not !vote), and that I made a mistake here, which is correct and I apologise... but looking at the relevant discussion and the preceding !votes, there seems a clear consensus and Sandbh's view is in a minority of one.
- This whole user talk post to me feels like a reply that seeks to score debating points for minor issues while ignoring the key aspects of my ANI post. To be absolutely clear:
- Sandbh, DePiep is not the problem here.
- In posting at ANI, you invite scrutiny and you, Sandbh, are a source of problems at ELEM, one that requires some action.
- EdChem (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I quickly looked at the link in "Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion" above. I might be missing something but reading the comment in context appears to confirm EdChem's above "Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem", at least as far as Double sharp is concerned. Further, Double sharp's comment appears to an ignorant onlooker such as myself as an authoritative response to Sandbh. Is there any chance of getting opinions from people who understand the topic (hello Beetstra)? Given that the current situation is untenable, what remedy is recommended? Perhaps Sandbh should be topic banned for a month to at least give people a break during this holiday period? If anyone wants to comment on my statement, the place to do that is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elements, 12-28 November 2020, and WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55#ArbCom Case Request (Nov 2020), 15 November 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here we go again! See here for slow moving edit war. I see nothing in Depeip's editing in terms of admins needing to do something. Sandbh I think has a case to answer EdChem's comments in an appropriate way. Other than that I see nothing but a close the thread down ASAP before walls appear demand! Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here. Games of the world (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not this again... I have been following the developments at WT:ELEM (project member), but only been more active the past two weeks (RL matters). I do not believe any sanctions against DePiep are warranted, for it is very true that many threads are unreadable and clearly have not led to any recent, substantial, and uncontroversial improvement to articles. I agree with EdChem that WT:ELEM has become unreadable, especially since there is no major progress to show for it. On the other hand, OR and lack of consensus have been persistent problems, and this is exactly why the changes to periodic table were reverted and the project has nothing to show for these unwieldy threads; it would contradict fundamental WP policy to build arguments and consensus around original research and the opinions of editors rather than established, undisputed facts. It seems that nobody at WT:ELEM (to name a few, myself, YBG, DePiep, and Double sharp) agrees with Sandbh on some of his proposals or matters related to group 3 and the periodic table; this blowout led to past ANI threads and the ArbCom case that have been judged as inappropriate by uninvolved editors and have not resolved the problem in any case.
- Regarding BRD, the objective should be for DePiep, Sandbh, and any other involved editors to engage in civil discussion so that no edit wars erupt and the article is not the victim of a dispute. In this case, though, this is not the first time that Sandbh has made major changes with which someone at WT:ELEM has disagreed, and indeed Double sharp has taken a step back in order to not engage in heated discussions. I have not taken part myself because I do not want to edit war or repeat myself to no avail.
- Also, BRD states explicitly:
In general, BRD fails if: (1) there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make. (2) there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus.
- The first is probably stretched because WT:ELEM does not override broader consensus, but at least holds true for the failed group 3 RfC. The second, though, accurately describes the current situation at WT:ELEM, as this is the same matter that megabytes of text have failed to resolve (i.e. stalemate, and a textbook case of TL;DR). Consequently, I'm not even sure if BRD is the correct way to approach the problem.
- As far as solutions, my main recommendations would be to (1) establish clearer project guidelines to avoid these TL;DR threads and blowouts, (2) to redirect focus to articles on which there are no disagreements, so editors can use their energy and skills to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of reaffirm a stalemate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- In my post in the ARBCOM thread, I identified WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT as an incomplete list of the issues which I had seen in WT:ELEM. I should have included WP:SEALION, WP:OWN and WP:TL;DR. Narky Blert (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- At this point it's easier to just transclude {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. Levivich harass/hound 03:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You have a point. Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- At this point it's easier to just transclude {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. Levivich harass/hound 03:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Reply by DePiep
- (ec) Where to begin? I thank and compliment all responding editors here for their careful and well-describing replies. The replies show insight and understanding of the complicated recent history of the issue (five weeks?). In this, fellow-WP:ELEM members EdChem and ComplexRational are reflecting my thoughts in this (with more patience and eloquence). I note that two members, higly valuated by ELEM and with warm cooperating memories by me, have retired & blanked their userpages: YBG and Double sharp (a deep sigh over here, and a curse). If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN.
- I am pondering to add a bulleted reply here too, more factual and less descriptive. For example:
- "Too bold". I started thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Too Bold (Dec 10):
- 1. [90].
- 2. re by Sandbh: 'Bold edits don't require consensus'
- 3. my reply: Not one [of Sandbh's] bullet is about 'time to talk'.
- re "continuous cooperative editing": I call BS. Repeatedly, since mid-November, Sandbh (and Sandbh only) refers to some editing process labelled "
continuous cooperative editing"
[91][92]; first link names four subscripted editors. Also in the OP complaint here. I have not met any description (let alone definition), of this. To me, obviously kept an outsider to the concept, this is either (a) standard Wikipedia process or (b) a cult-creating process of preventing critique, as in: 'If you don't agree with this edit, you are breaking a secret bond'. Two of the four adhering editors have now blanked their userpages, indicating frustration. - re "DePiep ... in this [ANI] forum" (in original complaint; search for 'behaviour by DePeip'): A good opportunity to reply to this jab. First, it is disingeneous for invoking (a) unspecified BF talk and (b) unrelated and/or finished business. ("You are bad now because you were bad yesterday"). Anyway, let me remind Sandbh and others to this recent ANI thread (Sep 28), ignited by Sandbh. Closure: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented". Also note that multiple editors confirmed a staight BRD issue. IOW: Sure I am present at ANI. Vindicated. Time for Sandbh to read and digest.
- "Source handling": WT:ELEM has not solved the issue of source handling. A discussion + polls about WP:TERTIARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:PRIMARY > WP:OR(!) (wp talk NOTAFORUM, poll 2) went nowhere; I note the negative response by Sandbh showing evasion of commitment (8 members engaged). Then, a talk about doing DUE/UNDUE, FRINGE had not even started.
- Overall, my opinion is that this situation floats into sight the running problems in ELEM discussion process & productivity into better articles. Interaction is still re editors not the edits. The discussion problems started early this year, then the ArbCom Case request paused the problematic interaction—synthetically, as we learn now.
- Maybe more later. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Second reply by DePiep
- About article Periodic table
- To describe the extend of current issues, this is an overview of edits to article Periodic table (PT). Period Nov 15 (closing ArbCom request) – Dec 28, 2020 (current version).
- Periodic table (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
- Earlier, Oct 17: EdChem had written a longer critique re article content and quality [93] (in Archive).
- Nov 13–16: Discussion opened on FA-status and EdChems' critique [94]+[95]. "fresh energy" claimed, but no cooperation nor content discussion ensued.
- Nov 15: After ArbCom Request was put on hold/denied, Sandbh started completely turning around the article es:'WP:BOLD step towards bringing the standard back up to FA: see WP:ELEM talk---Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start' (−7.5k); removed section "Overview" w/o replacement; group 3 rewrite
(rm 4 section titles)[in next diff, R8R's edit. DePiep]. No talk at talkpage. Not referenceing the original EdChem critique (while using 'back to FA' as a statement to make these changes). - Nov 15: R8R es:'continuing the spirit of bold edits. ...' (-15k)
- Nov 30: a 3-editor discussion in userspace [96] decided major changes. Double sharp changed dozens of PT-templates [97] [98], affecting hundreds of PT-articles. [99]
- +Announcement at WT:ELEM: [100] "in the spirit of WP:BOLD".
- +DePiep: asking for reasoning behind the edit [101];
- +Rationale afterwards, as provided by Ds [102].
- I note that of the three user-talk editors, two have left. In total four editors had some side-agreement [103] (Sandbh, R8R, Double sharp, YBG); two have left and one has had not enough time to engage here (R8R).
- Nov 15–Dec 28, all changes: before – after; see for example change of the TOC. (diff: 131 revisions by 15 editors, 155k → 86k).
- Meanwhile, at WT:ELEM: Various issues and issues discussed, skipped here. Some went nowhere (a good impression is in § Comments by YBG).
- I specified some in my first reply above, Where to begin?-bullets.
- Dec 22: YBG announces Wikibreak [104], [105] see also § Comments by YBG [106].
- Dec 25: Double sharp left [107].
More replies by others
Brief comment by Sandbh: What brought me here was a breach of BRD by DePiep i.e. he reverted my revert. Even so, rather than re-reverting and bringing myself into breach of BRD, I attempted to discuss my concerns with DePiep, on my talk page. That led nowhere. If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post. I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."
To prevent the walls of text phenomenon I have posted my thoughts at the talk pages of EdChem, Games of the world and ComplexRational. My simple ANI post took up 276 words. This thread, not counting this brief note, is approaching ten times that size. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Plus your WT:ELEM side-discussion. I ignore these off-ANI multi-page discussions. Might be considered WP:CANVASSING. Evades idea and intention of concise arguing. Still creates wall of text. All this is exemplary of current practices that frustrate and blunt discussions at WP:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, your 'please to see' comment [108] is quoting me out of context. This gives a false and harmful presentation of my statement [109]. Please correct this in situ or strike it. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep, I changed my post from…a
- "I am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."
- …to:
- I note
am pleased to see thatDePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."
- I note
- --- Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: When I wrote 'out of context', I refer to: you left out the preceding sentence, where "me who caused this" refers to. Still missing. Also, I don't think it was necessary to repeat the sentence you corrected, uncorrected. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can find no way to escape the conclusion that something needs to be done about Sandbh.
- Sandbh's comments at my user talk page (which I
will address separatelyhave now addressed above)) and those to Games of the world (user talk page thread) and ComplexRational (user talk page thread) lead me to conclude that Sandbh sees no issues with any of his editing (talk or article space) and that he truly believes the only problem is DePiep and BRD – as Sandbh put it themain hold up with respect to the PT article is that DePiep, in breach of BRD, reverted my revert.
- I am not sure that posting replies to user talk pages as a means of avoiding walls of text is appropriate as it fragments the discussion. Avoiding walls of text is best achieved by posting what is important and leaving it for others to decide. And yes, I recognise that this post is quite long.
- Consider this thread, which Sandbh characterised (to ComplexRational) as a discussion with DePiep that led to a "non-result." I posted at the end of it at about the same time this ANI was launched. I wrote that the
request for revert-free editing as the best use of [Sandbh's] time when [Sandbh] have posted an intention to revert others certainly strikes me as seeing your contributions as worth more than those of others.
DePiep saw an implied threat (to edit war, if I am interpreting him correctly). I can't read this thread and see one blameless editor being stymied from editing by another who should be taken to ANI to be "disavowed ... in a suitable manner" (whatever that means) – and yet, it appears that this is how Sandbh sees it. Even after past ANI threads, an ArbCom case request, and yet more discussion at WT:ELEM, Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM. - In that same talk page thread, Sandbh asked me how Double sharp's comment
So, you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish
reads to me. My view was in the post to which Sanbh was responding, where I wrote:Sandbh, YBG is taking a break. Double sharp is stepping back and my reading of his comments is that he was expressing frustration at the editing environment. His withdrawal did not read to me to be an endorsement that you should go ahead with what you think is best; I read it as giving up having lost the will to continue discussing. DePiep is expressing frustration even more clearly, in my opinion. ... Editors leaving a project is never a good sign. My observations and the comments I have read lead me to suspect that you are a significant factor in both YBG's and Double sharp's choices. These are not good developments, in my opinion.
- Sandbh characterised Double sharp's comment as
Double sharp said I could do what I felt appropriate, subject to comments from others
. Readers can draw their own conclusions on Double sharp's meaning – as I have said, I cannot speak for him – but I am concerned that Sandbh appears to read it quite differently from me.
- YBG's final post (edit summary: No, it is not acceptable) in the Rearranging threads at WT:ELEM thread at user talk:Sandbh make clear (at least to me) his frustration. Sandbh has noted that YBG and Double sharp have taken breaks before and will likely return. Hopefully this will prove correct, but it does not diminish the problem that both departures appear to me to be significantly related to Sandbh. Further, his comment that they will be back and that
Project membership counts; contributions count more
strikes me as dismissive of the significance of two departures from the small ELEM group, and appears to me to be coupled with the implication that Sandbh's article-space contributions somehow excuse any connection between himself and the departures. - Sandbh has considerable knowledge to share. He has published in the primary literature and (IMO) struggles to differentiate between original (be it OR or by SYNTH) and encyclopaedic writing. Discussions tend to become long and repetitive as he sometimes adopts interpretations of policy that are problematic and his views do not take on board the perspectives of others – at times appearing like significant points have been forgotten / disregarded. I don't know if it is possible for him to contribute collaboratively and constructively so that our readers can benefit from his expertise without our editors being frustrated by constant disputes and / or stepping back.
- Sandbh, do you see how you are causing problems for ELEM editors? Is there a way we can help to minimise the problems while retaining your expertise? Because if there isn't, I fear ELEM will end up with no editors but you, or back at ArbCom, or with you topic banned by ANI. EdChem (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note on BRD: It is my impression that the BRD cycle was broken when Sandbh proceeded with the revert on periodic table after several editors objected to his "notification of intent to revert" at WT:ELEM. The discussion between 19 and 25 December had a rough consensus in favor of Double sharp's removal, thus objecting to Sandbh's intent to reinstate it, yet he proceeded to do so despite this discussion. DePiep then most likely reverted as part of a new BRD cycle, since the "new consensus" was formed after Double sharp's removal was endorsed. While it may be a revert of a revert in the edit history, DePiep's revert would ideally lead to a new discussion (with Sandbh's edit being the "bold" edit) that would either support or oppose Sandbh's proposal. Instead of this content discussion, though, we are here at ANI. BRD is a rough guideline, so it should be roughly interpreted and adapted to specific situations, rather than applied as a strict policy with immediate consequences in case of violation. Although not the main scope of this ANI, the fact that discussions tend towards TL;DR makes this aspect of the cycle all the more difficult, and is causing editors to distance themselves from ELEM (which is a shame) or comment on contributors rather than content. That said, DePiep's revert was not part of the BRD cycle starting with Double sharp's edit, so it is not a breach. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
EdChem, thank you. I'm reluctant to comment as it just adds to the wall of text, and my "complaint" was simple enough. DePiep reverted my revert in breach of BRD. Is that or is that not a breach of BRD? Subsequently, the scope of this threat has expanded to mention everything but my simple complaint. As I said, "If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post." The end. If there are remaining issues with respect to my conduct, I ask that these please be raised elsewhere. Is this too much to ask?
By disavowing DePiep I meant, could I please have some clear, revert-free, editing space, so that I can restore and edit the content (in the context of concerns raised at WP:ELEM) deleted by Double sharp, and in the spirit of his comment, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish." Once I've finished my editing, interested WP:ELEM members can comment. That is the normal way editing occurs, as I understand it.
I had already done this with respect to one part of the restored text, before it was all re-reverted by DePiep, in breach of BRD as I understand it. Sandbh (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sandbh. It's not about me, we know. It's, you are chasing away good editors. Now teach me, about BRD. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by YBG
As I have been mentioned extensively, I believe the community deserves to hear from me.
- Regarding my long term assessment of ELEM and Sandbh
- I value the friendship I have with my fellow ELEM members, and consider Sandbh to be my closest friend among that group, in part due to our FtF encounter several years ago.
- In my opinion, Sandbh's style at WP have changed significantly since he began pursuing publications in peer reviewed chemistry journals. IMO, he does not seem to do well distinguishing the "hat" one must wear to contribute to such journals and the very different "hat" one must wear as an editor at WP.
- Meanwhile, others at ELEM are, I believe, becoming better at wearing their WP-editor hat than we were a half-decade or more ago.
- This has meant that in many areas about how best to contribute at WP, the editors at ELEM fall into two groups: Sandbh and everyone else.
- Regarding my attempts to resolve what I perceived as one of the main problems at ELEM
- I noticed that the volume of material shared at WT:ELEM seems to be WP:OR > WP:PRIMARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:TERTIARY, the exact opposite of the order in which we should consider these things.
- I thought that this might be an underlying cause of our difficulties at ELEM.
- I started an informal poll to see if others agreed with my assessment and perhaps nudge our project toward consensus.
- Some agreed with me (with minor differences, many of which I agreed with.
- However, Sandbh did not see a problem
- I tried to explain the problems as I saw them, including the fact that there seemed to be
wildly differing ideas
about the use of WP:PSTS sources. - Sandbh replied that he saw no wildly differing views on sourcing.
- So I started a 2nd informal poll about the potential harm of (a) reasonable limits, or (b) extensive use, of PRIMARY and OR at WT:ELEM.
- Eight ELEM editors - everyone who !!voted -- agreed (with some minor caveats) that
Editors should use 1RY/OR on talk pages only sparingly. Extensive use of such is harmful to our project.
. - Sandbh alone demurred. After much coaxing, the closest we got to an answer was
The use of 1RY/OR as editors see fit may or may not improve our project. Limiting 1RY/OR to sparing use may or may not improve our project.
- I then tried to get an answer as to what would distinguish problematic from non-problematic limits on or use of 1RY/OR at WT:ELEM, but I do not believe there has been an answer to this.
From this I draw the conclusion that not only does Sandbh have rather different ideas than the rest of WT:ELEM, but that he seems to have difficulty perceiving those differences.
- Regarding the immediate cause of my wikibreak
- I generally follow the discussion at WT:ELEM by checking the diffs from my watchlist.
- Sandbh's extensive refactoring of WT:ELEM (which continued with several other changes), prevented me from continuing my normal routine
- I tried to patiently work out what the changes were but after spending an enormous amount of time, I was unable to.
- This seemed to me to be yet another case of Sandbh boldly doing something without taking others into consideration
- I considered several options (1) reverting the refactoring (but by that time there were other contributions) (2) raising the issue at ANI and (3) asking a question at teahouse.
- When I went to Sandbh's talk page, I found that EdChem had already commented. I added my own (stronger) objections.
- The ensuing discussion not only increased my frustration level, but convinced me that this was another example of Sandbh editing boldly without taking others into consideration - with no advance notice.
- I remain concerned that such major talk page reorganizations without the permission of (or even advance notice to) other editors could be a violation of WP:TPO.
This interaction seemed to confirm my impression of the differences between Sandbh's ideas and style and others' ideas and style, and his difficulty perceiving those differences. In the end, I opted for a wikibreak.
- Regarding my wikibreak and future
- It is true that I have taken wikibreaks in the past.
- My prior wikibreaks have been intentional and seasonal, with my break and return planned in advance. Anyone can see that my breaks in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 were all at the same time of the year.
- My previous wikibreaks have never been to avoid problems encountered while being online, but to avoid problems caused by being online too much.
- I have never before been so frustrated, even during ELEM's previous visits to ANI and Arbcon.
- I have not yet decided whether, when, and to what extent I might return to WP, much less ELEM. I have other productive things I can do with my time.
I will continue on wikibreak for the forseeable future, receiving only weekly ping summaries. I invite editors to interact with me at my talk page - or if you want to reach me sooner, by email. YBG (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I thank my good friend YBG for giving his account and setting out his concerns about my conduct, which I acknowledge and commit to changing. To clarify, I undertook the housekeeping at WP:ELEM IGF. The way ahead wrt housekeeping was then discussed and concluded at the WP:ELEM talk page, in order to avoid future incidents of this nature. Sandbh (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: a 6-month topic ban for Sandbh
Proposing: a 6-month topic ban for User:Sandbh from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. I looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Notification of intention to revert and, IMO, EdChem's description above of the events there is essentially correct. The problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements have been endemic, and with Arbcom recently almost accepting a case on the matter. Clearly, things are still not working out. One of the principal participants in the prior disputes, User:Double sharp, has stepped back, but the other one, User:Sandbh, has not. Another editor, User:YBG, has recently left as well (appparently Wikipedia and not just WikiProject Elements), and, again as EdChem notes above, and it appears that frustration with Sandbh has been a significant factor in that decision[110]. This ANI report, while filed by Sandbh in good faith, is substantively very much misguided and thus far has all the makings of another interminable unproductive ANI thread on these matters. The other party in these disputes, DePiep, although with some record of problematic behavior (mostly, as far as I can tell, on topics unrelated to chemistry), appears to have been essentially in the right, at least in terms of procedure, in relation to the recent issues at WikiProject Elements. User:Sandbh, although a long-term and well-intentioned user, is essentially an SPA with a narrow scope of editing interests concentrated exclusively around the periodic table. That rarely bodes well when getting involved in difficult/intractable content disputes. Sandbh has been at the center of the recent disputes at WikiProject Elements, and remains so, even after the departure of Double sharp's from the scene. Clearly, some radical external action is needed to relieve the situation at WikiProject Elements. IMO, giving User:Sandbh an enforced 6-month wikibreak from the topic of chemical elements would give everyone else at WikiProject Elements the room to work out the issues there in the meantime. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support, as the proposer. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nsk92, what's an SPA? Sandbh (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- A Single Purpose Account. See WP:SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Consideringsupport See also other posts in this. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Updated, after seeing behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alteratives proposed unacceptable to me (Sandbh Self-regulation, EdChem tban-excempt page in userspace), as explained elsewhere. (Would leave open door to reoccurrence). Below is my Question to revert article Periodic table to pre-Nov 15 status (I support). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Not only did Sandbh dispute whether Sc and Y should be placed above La or Lu, they also used OR to argue that the former would also mean placing B and Al above Sc! Then they talked about how Be and Mg used to be placed above Zn and how some chemists (mostly those who study noble gases) even argue that He should be placed above Be instead of Ne because its atomic properties and crystal structure are more similar to Be, and the history of the placement of H due to its properites being a mix of an alkali metal and a halogen. This has not much to do with the fact that there is a very real dispute about whether Y should be placed above La or Lu. (See Group 3 element#Composition of group 3 for more information.) Then we can hold an RfC in peace.
I also wanted to discuss how the current category color scheme fails WP:A11Y, but it got drowned out in this trivial argument. Pastels, anyone? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: LaundryPizza03, the discussion you refer to took place at the WP:ELEM talk page. All such discussion is freely entered into or ignored. The technical content you refer to has a long historical, and ongoing record in the literature. WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. The so-called OR I am alleged to have engaged in could be done by a ten-year old. In any event, you will not find any so-called OR in the article space. You can hold an RFC at any time, as I did and failed. You’re free to raise concerns about the colouring scheme, at any time, at the WP:ELEM page (as you have done, thank you) where this is a major topic. I see R8R has updated you as to where this is up to. Go the pastels! Sandbh (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per proposal. This is a complete mess which seems entirely to land on Sandbh's shoulders. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The disputes at WT:ELEM have spilled over into ANI several times and once into ARBCOM, and have taken up the best part of 1Mb. Two good editors have left WP, seemingly in frustration, and this complaint is directed against a third. It alone is 48Kb (by my count (29 December): 24% by Sandbh (10 posts), 13% by DePiep (7), and the balance by 12 other editors (27)), and it verges on vexatious. This is WP:SEALIONing (don't overlook the original Wondermark cartoon). Sandbh's attitude is incompatible with WP:TALK and collaborative editing.
- This incident struck me. On 2 November 2020 (WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 53), Sandbh wrote (1) 'Consistent with WP:IAR, there is no "absolute" prohibition on anything at WP' and (2) 'I should've quoted WP:IAR, which is derived from WP:5P5, in full: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So it is not the case that anything goes at WP per WP:IAR, per se. It is more subtle than that. So, if e.g. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, or WP:BLP prevents you from improving WP, ignore them, per WP:IAR' (emphasis in the original; Wikilinks added). Those statements are preposterous, and no editor should have to waste time refuting them. Narky Blert (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Narky Blert, contrary to what you wrote above, neither Double sharp nor YBG have left WP. Both still belong to WP:ELEM.[113] Double sharp is more in lurk mode. As R8R wrote below, "Double sharp… admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table."[114] YBG is still contactable via his talk page, and PM. Both Double sharp and YBG have taken breaks in the past, and returned. As for WP:IAR, in nearly 10 years of editing I cannot recall ever relying on it to justify an edit in the article space. Sandbh (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Storm in a teacup (acknowledging residual concerns by EdChem). Per WP custom and practice policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort: WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. Nobody has in fact left WP or WP:ELEM. Six consensus proposals have already been posted at WP:ELEM.[115] In making this vote, I note DePiep just reverted some content I posted to this board.[116] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. What he did represents the kind of disruptive behaviour that was the subject of this complaint, which I attempted to withdraw. The last time he and I were here he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I've reposted my content. @EdChem and Levivich: fyi. Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The sealioning, wikilawyering, and self-righteous disruption on this page alone says that WP:ELEM -- and maybe Wikipedia as a whole -- needs the break. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Sorry but this appears to be the only way to get some calm and stability into the area. Good editors don't leave (or almost leave) without reason. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - causing too much disruption, over a long period of time. Levivich harass/hound 15:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support although I'm not optimistic that Sandbh will suddenly "get it" during those six months. EdChem said
Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM
and I'm afraid that will still be the case down the road. There seems to be wide recognition that Sandbh has valuable expertise to contribute to ELEM; it's how Sandbh approaches collaborative editing that needs improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Adding: I've seen the two comments added by Sandbh today (Help request and My last post). Asking for help in meeting WP expectations is a positive step, although it's disappointing that it took so long to happen, particularly after the incredibly long and painful ANI discussion last month. But then Sandbh says
I've acknowledged my problematic conduct
; I haven't seen that. I've seen the realization that this time there might actually be a ban. I understand that Sandbh does not want a topic ban. I sympathize. But in my view, the two comments today are too little and too late. I stand by my support. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I recognise and acknowledge it took to long, and that I engaged in IDHT, among other things, to my cost. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Adding: I've seen the two comments added by Sandbh today (Help request and My last post). Asking for help in meeting WP expectations is a positive step, although it's disappointing that it took so long to happen, particularly after the incredibly long and painful ANI discussion last month. But then Sandbh says
- Support Subject matter experts are a great help to building an encyclopaedia. However subject matter experts who struggle to adhere to our relatively simple guidelines for improving content can become a major problem. It's only six months. Take a breather and reflect. The periodic table article will still be here when you get back. Maybe try your hand at some other topics. I don't know, its up to you. It can't continue as it is though and this has gone on long enough. AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Request: (now completed) added by EdChem (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Sandbh made a request for help below and at my user talk page and those of DePiep and R8R. Given the current state of !voting, it appears that this topic ban will be imposed soon. I have replied to Sandbh and I ask that this thread not be closed and the ban not implemented for a day or two so that Sandbh and I can discuss how I / we might be able to help without the restrictions of the topic ban interfering. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I will shortly propose a set of 6-month editing restrictions and conditions that I will propose to follow, to DePiep and EdChem. Thank you, EdChem. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020. Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I've put my proposed 6-month editing restrictions and conditions to DePiep and EdChem, and will await their advice. A copy can be found at the top of my user pape. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020 (for everyone). Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- As he has noted above, Sandbh has posted a proposal on his user page. I posted some ideas for him on my user talk page 2 minutes prior to his making his post. I have now posted some thoughts for him on his proposal on my user talk page. ANI readers will see that they are quite different as I am considering a single user-space page be exempted from the tban whilst he is suggesting editing restrictions short of a tban. I hope for productive discussions shortly. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thank EdChem for his thoughts, and his help. I acknowledge the strong likelihood of at least six months of editing restrictions. Subject to EdChem’s availability I hope to wrap up our discussions tomorrow. I won’t be online for the next 12 hours. I thank Johnuniq for their thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you to all at ANI who have chosen not to close this thread, and I am posting here to say that I now favour this ANI thread being closed whenever an uninvolved admin sees fit. Sandbh and I have contributed at my user talk page, as all can see from the post starting in the section user talk:EdChem#Request for help and in subsequent sections. DePiep has also made some comments on my suggestion (I won't speak for him but my interpretation is that he is opposed), there have been further posts at WT:ELEM, and YBG has commented above. Sandbh has made a proposal on his user page and subsequently here at ANI in the section #Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions. Everyone can decide for themselves whether the discussions, including Sandbh's most recent comments, influence their positions. I have added "(now completed)" to the "request" bolding in my post, for clarity. I will add a formal !vote in my next edit. EdChem (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Unfortunately, it appears that Sandbh is trying to play it both ways. First Sandbh files a complaint against DePiep, and then, when multiple editors say that Sandbh is the problem and should be topic-banned, Sandbh tries to close the case. That gives the appearance that Sandbh wants to use WP:ANI when it is to their advantage and to run away when it is not. When this dispute was pending before ArbCom, I said, and I was speaking as a subject matter expert, that the multiple disputes were all matters of convention, and not of scientific correctness. It appears that Sandbh is the one who wants to "win" the content disputes. We don't need winning; we need collaboration. A topic-ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It appears that the parties and ArbCom were all too optimistic in thinking that this dispute would be resolved after the last ArbCom request. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment only to clarify. I lodged my request to withdraw after one editor proposed a topic ban, rather than mutiple editors. I hope I have interpreted Robert correctly. I will revert this post if that is not the case. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: (non-admin comment) I advise you to not delete, revert or refactor any posts on talk pages or noticeboards. That makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to withdraw something you've said, WP:STRIKE it. That happens at WP:XFD all the time, and works very well. Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: I have commented elsewhere in this thread on problems as I see them and that action is needed. I am disappointed that the point has been reached where a knowledgeable contributor (who I believe is contributing in good faith) warrants a tban... but it has. I believe that a topic ban is needed at this point and I think the consensus here is clear that a topic ban is a suitable remedy – Sandbh and ELEM need some time apart, and I hope that will prove to be of benefit to both. I understand Sandbh's preference for a voluntary restriction rather than an ANI-imposed ban but I do not believe that would be appropriate either in the face of the above consensus or as a suitable declaration that the editors at ANI have collectively concluded that formal action from the community is necessary and appropriate. I have discussed with Sandbh at my talk page and in a section below the idea of ANI allowing a single page, say in my user space, where discussion is permitted without the tban restrictions in place for the purpose of helping Sandbh to better understand the problems that have occurred and how to avoid them in the future. Such a page could be protected or even deleted if it was misused. Based on this recent post to ANI, Sandbh seems willing, though he would clearly still prefer to be allowed some involvement in the ELEM project. My suggestion is opposed by DePiep (if I am interpreting him correctly, and not in any way seeking to speak for him). There has been little other comment, a fact that is open to multiple interpretations. I ask that the closing admin consider the suggestion, and also to provide some clarification on the extent of any tban imposed as "the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed" (Nsk92's words in the proposal) could be functionally the same as a tban from all of chemistry... which would be an overbroad sanction and disproportionate to the relatively small part of chemistry article / talk / project space where problems have occurred. Perhaps a form of words along the lines that Johnuniq suggests below, such as "the topic of the periodic table and its presentation and representation anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed"? Boundary testing could be easily dealt with by expanding the ban to something closer to Nsk92's form of words. EdChem (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- EdChem is citing me correct. I'd oppose a backdoor-entrance to the Project because it would keep the cause & undo the purpose of the tban: reintroducing problematic discussion flows + their effects. We'd still encounter prohibitive policy-hairsplitting talks, one-topic/two-place talks, source-handling questions, which were so energy-consuming and improductive. (Reading this thread, looks like it is not my personal perception only). -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support: per proposal. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support I'm sorry it had to come to this, but especially following the most recent comments here by YBG and EdChem, this seems to be the only viable short-term solution, and in my opinion, one that can benefit all involved parties. I would also support a narrower TBAN only encompassing periodic table-related articles, but would oppose anything offering a "backdoor entrance" to the project. In fairness, I would also recommend that no involved editors make substantial changes to periodic table in the immediate future; I wouldn't oppose FAR or a collaboration with uninvolved editors, but it must be clear that this TBAN will not be used to favor the POV of other editors. The purpose of the TBAN should be to restore a balance at ELEM and allow Sandbh to understand the roots of the problem and take necessary steps to prevent it from occurring again (which would mean, among other things, keeping WP writing and journal writing disjoint). As such, I hope that the TBAN proves constructive, because Sandbh's work (at least prior to these conflicts) is valued and it would be a shame for him to leave the project permanently. ComplexRational (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion ELEM
- Question to Nsk92 as the proposer of this TBAN, and to anyone else willing to comment... where are the boundaries of a topic ban "from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed"? As a chemist, I can imagine a lot of territory that I could argue was connected to the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed, and I can also imagine a lot of places where I would see such an argument as an unhelpful / inappropriate stretch (from a WP point of view). I know that boundaries are hard to define and are a matter of judgement, but given all chemical reactions involve chemical elements or compounds of chemical elements, that all substances consist of chemical elements, their compounds, and mixtures, and that chemistry deals with matter, energy, and change, does this TBAN extend essentially to the entirety of chemistry? Does it cover much of biology and medicine and pharmacology, at least in so far as the chemical elements are relevant? For example, would editing cisplatin be a problem if mentioning its action of binding to the N7 of guanine bases in DNA? ANI will impose a ban on whatever scope it sees as fit, I accept that, and I can't argue that one is not warranted in the circumstances... but in fairness to Sandbh and to all the ELEM editors who may see him in other parts of the encyclopaedia, I do think it is appropriate to have some degree of clarity on where this ban is meant to cover. We all know how edits that are perceived as attempts to test the boundaries of a TBAN are treated at ANI. In my dealings with Sandbh, I have learned that he can adopt quite literal interpretations at times. While I think that he needs to work on that, I think it would be unfair of ANI to set him up with a TBAN that is unclear in extent and where he would see a topic as outside his ban (and certainly outside the areas that have been contentious) but which could be interpreted differently here. EdChem (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would support the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about. I think it involves details of how the periodic table should be presented and I believe one comment I saw mentioned that sources differ regarding those details. That issue needs to be resolved, even if the outcome is sub-optimal because a never-ending dispute is corrosive for the community. That is, I would be happy if Sandbh were restrained from editing or commenting regarding that issue, broadly construed, but I know of no reason they shouldn't work on other chemical matters provided there was no boundary testing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- As a chemist, I don't read "chemical elements, broadly construed" as extending to ionic or covalent compounds, or even to industrial applications of the pure elements (e.g. in alloys). It might extend to ions, but only in circumstances where any editor would fall foul of e.g. WP:DETAIL, WP:OFFTOPIC or WP:UNDUE. Narky Blert (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have been following the below for the last few days and I have to say that we finally have something positive from Sandbh and I am enthused. However Sandbh your proposal is too late, even if it is welcomed by most here. Given how Sandbh has interpreted comments both here and at ELEM, I would agree with EdChem that it would be better if the closing admin was specific in their meaning so that there can be no argument of gaming or winning. Narky I'm sorry I cannot agree with that might extend to stuff, that is a recipe for disaster, given what has gone on over the last few months (a lot of point scoring), it either does or does not. For starters it is clear that Sandbh is prohibited from Periodic table article and all associated files and table pages of the article along with the ELEM project talk page and any subpage talk page (note not actual articles talk pages) within the project (I note you want to tell people about articles, do it else where, not on the project, since you're not banned from user pages). He should also not go near any article that is up for DYK, GA, FA or FL, if he wants to participate and collaborate in that area, on any chemistry article apart from to comment on MOS issues or plain up spelling or grammar issues, until it is proven (at least 3 months) that he can provide worthwhile comments without having the issues that we have seen in regards to sources, owning pages, detail and POV in that area etc. I am uneasy about Sandbh having a draft user page for the PT article, as I am very concerned in what he wants to achieve and how it will go down once his restrictions expire. He says that there will be no fight, so what is he going to do? Edit in a way to bring it to FA status, following the consensus of the group and using published sources (not peer reviews or a preview articles as many have noted before) or edit to his own POV? Sandbh can you give some intension of what you aim to achieve on this and how and we can consider the proposal and whether this ban needs to include draft pages. aluminium collaboration sounds good to me if others are happy to allow him to edit this (I admit seems some what gaming of the proposed ban). Sandbh, I would not lone wolf nonmetal whilst you are under restrictions (again seems somewhat gaming IMO of the proposed ban). Do it in the user space and bring over once you are free we want to see collaboration and a change from you, not a Sandbh did X (in good faith) and a, b and c (negatively) resulted from it. It doesn't have to be an overarching restriction, but it does depend on how far people want to take it with Sandbh. Games of the world (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Games of the world: I think we are almost on the same page. IMO "chemical elements, broadly construed" is clear and unambiguous, and appropriate. I very much doubt that more than a few physical chemists would even know how to begin disrupting a page about organic chemistry. Narky Blert (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I support EdChem request to clarify the T in TBAN. Topics: (1) WP:ELEM: {{WikiProject Elements}} (Category:WikiProject Elements articles; includes WP:ISOTOPES b/c is merged into WP:ELEMENTS); (2) WP:TBAN is clear, e.g. lists parts of other pages (all ns's) about the Topic. For example "TBAN Weather" includes "California § Climate". (3) Not included is WP:IBAN, which is a different approach. So far, clear enough I think. About WP:CHEM or WP:PHARM articles, like for example guanine or {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}: IMO the "parts" criterium in WP:TBAN cover these. Any more bordercases to look at? -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question. I added § About article Periodic table to my original reply. It illustrates that the article was treated rough, under the (now disapproved) editing & discussion processes. Since it has an FA star, would it be reasonable to revert to status ex-ante (pre-mistreatment i.e., as of pre Nov 15, 2020) [119]? I'm sure improvements can be added or re-added, based on sound discussion, esp since EdChem provided good first criticism (unused so far). As a detail, we could consider keeping the category changes, provided the Rationale, sourcing and copyediting is acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Supplementary note: I had intended to cease commenting, however my case, and related matters are still being discussed.
- EdChem posted an apology to DePiep regarding "triggering posts" and "emotional triggers," and the pain and anguish associated with such.
- I'm a very recent survivor of long-term medically diagnosed clinical depression. This included bouts of considering how to kill myself. The picture by van Gogh says it all. I'm OK now, having obtained help from professionals. I'm still on medication. Among other things, editing WP gives me purpose and meaning. I suspect I'm now resilient enough not to lapse into depression during my topic ban. That is why I proposed a voluntary ban, to maintain at least some connection with WP:ELEM collegues, and the meaning and purpose of WP:ELEM goals. I was not going to mention this. However I saw EdChem's post to DePiep, so there it is.
- I will not be posting to WP:ELEM, part from interesting publication alerts, and consensus requests (which I will not be discussing further), unless I am pinged, questioned, or invited.
- Re the question from Games of the world, I'll answer shortly. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ouch. Ouch. Hard to read & learn this. I wish you have good caring people around nearby, by miles or by bandwidth. For now, I think I cannot comfort you. Many bests, DePiep (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you DePeip. Staying and seeking to be connected with others, largely got me through it. Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- +1 Sorry to hear that. I strongly encourage you to stay connected with others as you say you have been. And, following the rules of the TBAN, you are still free to communicate with us outside project space or via email. ComplexRational (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Although I sympathise and empathise with Sandbh's statement, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- +1 Sorry to hear that. I strongly encourage you to stay connected with others as you say you have been. And, following the rules of the TBAN, you are still free to communicate with us outside project space or via email. ComplexRational (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you DePeip. Staying and seeking to be connected with others, largely got me through it. Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ouch. Ouch. Hard to read & learn this. I wish you have good caring people around nearby, by miles or by bandwidth. For now, I think I cannot comfort you. Many bests, DePiep (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Games of the world: As you say, "It doesn't have to be an overarching restriction." It depends on the good judgement of the closing admin. I presume the objective is the minimum required to achieve calm at WP:ELEM. I’ve proposed the scope of the ban as "articles marked as being of interest to WP:ELEM" as that is black and white.
- On drafting a polished periodic table FA in my sandbox, I propose to seek consensus from WP:ELEM, subject to how they want to play it, on a section by section basis. I propose to draft the whole thing, since all the parts are interconnected. I propose the same approach as I have done with my nine current requests for consensus, at WP:ELEM, where consensus or not will not be called by me. I will not comment on these requests for consensus unless I am pinged, questioned, or invited to do so. None of this will prevent anybody else from editing the PT article. If that happens I'll take these edits into account in my polishing sandbox article.
- The categorisation scheme for nonmetals was recently agreed by Double sharp and I. Allowing me to bring the current nonmetal article into conformance with that scheme, and subsequently up to FAC status, will allow me to demonstrate that I can meet WP:ELEM expectations. Anybody else is welcome to help.
- In the talk space I have referred to peer reviews in the context of the process that occurs for articles published in professional and reliable journals. I expect I've mentioned preview articles in the talk space. In the article space I only cite published sources. I do not cite peer reviews nor (AFAICR) preview articles.
- Thank you for support of my proposal to complete bringing Al up to FAC, under the guidance of R8R. That will demonstrate my capacity to edit cooperatively, as I have done previously with R8R, and extensively with YBG (here).
- I have no intention of gaming or exploiting loopholes; that would be self-defeating behaviour. Maybe others have done so; I am not so stupid to bite the hand, so to speak. If I happen to find any loopholes I’ll bring these to the attention of those concerned. Nothing will get out of my sandbox unless it complies with the conditions of my ban.
- I don’t understand what you means by my user space—are you referring to my user page, talk page, and sandbox?
- My objective is to reach a win-win solution. That is, a topic ban + a small window for me to stay connected with colleagues and their expectations, in some fashion.
- Your thoughts? --- Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please, please, stop this, Sandbh. -DePiep (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your thoughts? --- Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions
1. For the next 3−6 months (duration to be determined) I won't edit articles marked as being of interest to WP:ELEM, unless there is WP:ELEM consensus, as determined by someone else than me.
2. I won't ping WP:ELEM editors, unless unless I'm pinged Addition to address other concerns |
As flagged, I'll wait to hear from EdChem. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have made a long post at my user talk page to Sandbh about the present situation and proposals. In it, I have said that I do not expect a self-imposed voluntary restriction to be acceptable to the editors who have !voted above on the tban proposal.
- I do not support a proposal like this as I believe that the point has been reached where both Sandbh and the ELEM editors / the ELEM topic area would benefit from time apart. In saying this, I do not presume to speak for anyone else, I am simply expressing my opinion of what is needed. I thank YBG for his recent contribution to this ANI thread, which I believe provides several reasons to think that a tban is needed, and I urge Sandbh to read and consider it carefully.
- Sandbh, to be clear, I do support a topic ban. I think the above proposal is inappropriate both because there is consensus that ANI action is necessary and because the idea of a topic ban is to separate an editor from the problematic area. Your continuing to contribute to the area as you are proposing is inconsistent with WP experience that staying away from an area is beneficial in circumstances such as these. I think you would be wise to accept that ANI action is inevitable and focus on how you can move forward in a productive way... and thus, I ask you to consider withdrawing this proposal by striking it.
- I have suggested that a small exception be carved out, that a page (perhaps user:EdChem/Sandbh) be created which ANI endorses as being exempt from the tban, so that Sandbh and I (and any ELEM editors who wish to participate) can hold discussions without the constraints of the tban. The purpose would be to be able to review (in a transparent manner) what has led to the tban and to discuss problems. It would not be for Sandbh to suggest article space edits for others to implement, nor to make proposals such as the ones currently at WT:ELEM. If misused, the page could be protected or deleted (as appropriate) and / or the exemption revoked by ANI. Sanctions could be applied if the page was used to pester / harass any ELEM members (through pinging, etc) and all the usual behavioural policies would apply. It is my hope that such a page can facilitate Sandbh coming to better understand the problems and I believe that will be easier to achieve if conversations about, for example, WT:ELEM problems do not have to be worded so as to avoid a "broadly construed" topic ban on chemical elements.
- I acknowledge that this idea may prove to be unwise – DePiep has already suggested that I am being played. My suggestion cannot occur without ANI consent and I will accept any restrictions viewed as necessary to prevent such a page being misused to circumvent the topic ban. I also acknowledge the risk that such a page weakens the benefit of staying away from the topic area entirely. My hope is for Sandbh to build experience collaborating by editing in unrelated areas and that such a page can help him to reflect and understand the problems he has faced in the ELEM area. When he is able to return to the ELEM area, I want him to be able to contribute without a repeat of current problems, and I don't believe that is more likely if no effort is made to help him to understand those problems. If this proves ineffective, then the page will at least be able to inform any future action that is deemed necessary.
- I am open to any feedback / suggestions / comments / etc on my suggestion. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- EdChem I've accepted I'll incur some form of ban. To the extent I'm allowed, I've set out my preferences for what that ban could look like.
- Other editors have raised concerns about my capacity to turn around my behaviour. I hear your and their concerns. Since I am the driver, the car will do a u-turn back to the driving behaviour of 2012 to 2019. Anybody who chooses to will be able to watch, or not. There will be no impact in the article space and no impact caused by me at WP:ELEM, as I won't do anything unless consensus is established by some one else.
- I'm able to PM Double sharp, YBG, and R8R, and will do so as part of my rehab. DePiep and I agreed to leave the past behind.[120]
- I heard EdChem's concerns about a perception or risk of a loophole seeking. Respectfully and politely to everyone, I'm not so stupid that I'll be looking for loopholes. I'll be walking on glass and exercising the greatest caution, wherever I go. That behaviour will continue most likely for as long as I still live, since I never want to visit ANI hell again.
- My personal preference is to safely practice the art of being a good WP editor, in a topic I have expertise in, take inspiration from per an SPA, and have good access to sources modern and historical, rather then spending several months away from the painting easel so to speak. I request space to practice.
- There'd be quite a bit of work happening in my sandbox, which is where it'll stay unless I have approval from WP:ELEM or whomever to do otherwise. I may shoot myself in the foot here but I hope that allowing access to my sandbox, in order to draft e.g. a polished periodic table FA, after nearly nine years of smooth WP editing and three FA's would be modest request. There will be no fight after my topic ban concludes.
- Failing all that, I appreciate the offer from EdChem for a single page in his user page.
- I'd like to keep WP:ELEM informed of interesting publications. There are a few of these on the way.
- I took comfort in Johnuniq's support, as an admin, for "the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about." That was the aim of my request for a voluntary ban. A nuanced ban rather than a one size fit alls, so to speak.
- I may be bold at times but no so foolish as to plead for a voluntary editing restructions only to have the whole thing blow up in my face through my own actions.
- I'll keep ANI or an admin, and WP:ELEM informed (presuming I'm allowed to do so) on at least a monthly basis as I go along or if I have questions about conduct under the terms of whatever the ban looks like.
- In these dot points I've attempted to set out my thoughts and feelings in a plain, polite, manner. I'm grateful for the opportunity.
- Unless there are questions I'll await the determination of the admin who closes the thread.
--- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- re @Sandbh:
DePiep and I [Sandbh] agreed to leave the past behind
: for the record. As I replied just now on my talkpage, not a 'leave behind' meaning 'as if noting happened' [121]. Sigh, since I replied to a friendly talkpage-help-request, I only got more trouble and misreadings. I will stop it. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do not support this Sandbh § Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions. IMO the problems and issues not solely are article-editing, but also discussion process and intereaction. These issues might easily reappear. Some details in here are not reassuring either, such as "Under the watch of [editor:XX] I'd like to edit ..." and "As lead editor, I'd like to edit [article ZZ]". This introduces side-deals with editors for 'consensus' and WP:OWN issues, both causes of current situation [122]. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- re @Sandbh:
Withdrawing my complaint
Is there a protocol for so doing?
I feel that the stress of pursuing my complaint is not worth the bother of resolving the question of whether a re-revert of deleted content is a breach of BRD.
I subsequently intend to seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there. While the periodic table is shown as FA, it is no longer of that standard. Which was what the "fuss" was about. It'll be slow going but we'll get there.
As Games of the world said, "Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here." --- Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- When a report is filed on the noticeboards, it's generally the case that the behavior of all the participants in the dispute is examined. Considering that a proposal has been filed asking for you to be sanctioned, it's rather late to withdraw your complaint, and doing so will not stop consideration of that proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- While I welcome Sandbh's intention to nullify their request to "disavow" [sic] me, for whatever reasons, I prefer this thread to be continued. Multiple editors, involved and uninvolved, have noted irregularities in the editing & discussing process, and so it could be benefiting WP:ELEM & this Wiki to address these. Included in what Sandbh calls the "fuzz" is the issue of two project members who walked away from the project, apparently with frustration. Also, since ELEM may be scrutinized once more as a (paused) potential ArbCom Case, an ANI outcome could prevent the project from breaking down. "We found ourself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost." -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura / esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte / che nel pensier rinova la paura! Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This thread is indeed open and drawing input from uninvolved editors, so it should remain open until a clear solution is reached. Otherwise, the problem will remain, and we'll find ourselves here again in no time.
- And on another note, if it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review, where uninvolved editors can give a (hopefully) impartial review of the article content. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- While I welcome Sandbh's intention to nullify their request to "disavow" [sic] me, for whatever reasons, I prefer this thread to be continued. Multiple editors, involved and uninvolved, have noted irregularities in the editing & discussing process, and so it could be benefiting WP:ELEM & this Wiki to address these. Included in what Sandbh calls the "fuzz" is the issue of two project members who walked away from the project, apparently with frustration. Also, since ELEM may be scrutinized once more as a (paused) potential ArbCom Case, an ANI outcome could prevent the project from breaking down. "We found ourself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost." -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Sandbh
Thank you for your post, DePiep.
I'm no longer stressed since I notified this board of:
- my request to withdraw my complaint against DePiep; and
- that I would seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there.
My two consensus requests at WP:ELEM are here and here. I've had one response to each request: No and no, from DePiep.
Re: "what Sandbh calls the "fuzz", I have no idea what this is referring to.
Double sharp has previously withdrawn from the project and subsequently returned. During his first withdrawal he remained in contact with myself and WP:ELEM. DS is still a member of the project [123] and is now in less active lurk mode.[124] YBG, who I have met ftf and count as a good friend, has taken at least one previous wikibreak, and returned to the project. Contrary to what Nsk99 wrote, YBG is still member of the project [125] and is contactable via his talk page.[126]
Re: "it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review", I formed the view the article was no longer up to FAR some months ago. Subsequently EdChem expressed the same view.[127] I don't have a diff as some our discussions were on user talk pages rather than at WP:ELEM. EdChem can confirm.
Rather than seeking FAR, that is what prompted the recent round of continuous improvement editing on the PT article—which I initiated[128]—and which resulted in some 220+ edits.
I'm still contributing to efforts to bring the PT article up to standard [129]. I notified WP:ELEM of my edit (68 words, or 1.9% of the article) and my reasoning.[130]. DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician"[131] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit.[132]
I have listed this revert at WP:ELEM with a request to obtain consensus.[133]
I regret the need to add to the 5,300+ word count. Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
--- Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, you can withdraw your complaint against DePiep, but that won't stop ANI from considering the proposal relating to you.
- This is not the place to discuss content but, for the record, I confirm that I do have concerns about whether the periodic table article meets FA standards.
- Seeking consensus is good, but this thread started as you flagged an intent to revert (which is good), started a discussion and participated in it (also good), then took Double sharp's comment as a reason to carry out the revert anyway (not good), and was reverted by DePiep. You've suggested DePiep's revert violated BRD. It is suggested above that your revert was a new bold edit and thus DePiep's edit was the "R" in BRD. A less favourable analysis was that your revert following the discussion was against a (developing?) consensus and thus (arguably) disruptive. Whether either or both of you and DePiep violated the BRD guideline is much less important than whether there is an ongoing problem with editor behaviour / actions / whatever that is impacting the quality of article content and the editing process... and there is. This is why the posts above mostly skipped over the technical BRD question and went to ELEM dysfunctionality.
- For me, the above provides an example where your evaluation of consensus has been problematic. This is not an isolated problem as other examples exist on the WT:ELEM page, dealing with consensus on what is OR and what is appropriate on talk pages. I am genuinely torn on what options exist for moving forward. To be honest, noting DePiep has responded with "no" to your suggestions and then coming here to ANI to comment on him as you have is adding to my concerns. How do you see writing that
DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician"
[134]with no SME in this area, reverted my edit
[135] is helpful? ANI doesn't deal with content and it appears to me that you are suggesting / implying that DePiep lacks the competence to edit the article, or is edit warring, or disruptive, etc... which seems inconsistent with withdrawing your complaint? - I am sure this is an unpleasant experience and you have so much knowledge to share. However, ANI readers / contributors are concerned with the editing environment for all and the impact on articles. They are assessing your approach, your actions as part of the ELEM team, your contributions to WT:ELEM, etc, and whether the topic area would benefit from you being restricted (or even excluded from it). What I advise is to reflect on your actions and explain what you see as problems and how to address them. Can you persuade uninvolved admins and editors that action is not needed from ANI, or suggest what action would help? EdChem (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been summoned here by User:DePiep. I've been rather inactive for the last month or so and only watched the ongoing developments at WT:ELEM from the sidelines (and I didn't watch them too closely), although I have intervened once, unsuccessfully, when an intervention seemed in order, as it was previously mentioned in this section by other editors.
As for the original post, I don't think DePiep has committed any action for which DePiep should be held responsible. I admit I do think some arguments could be made better---especially when it comes to rationalization of DePiep's words, because some remarks are blunt but the explanation for this bluntness is not quite as clear as I would expect---but I haven't been able to identify a single red line that was crossed that would necessitate any action against DePiep, and I would oppose any such action being taken now. That being said, that's not Sandbh was asking for, at least as I read his post. I read his post as "please make him let me add my contribution," not "block him so that I could add it." As for the contribution itself, my understanding on the issue is---and I stand ready to correct myself if I misunderstood something---is that there's been no explicit agreement to make it mandatory to seek consensus to add new material, and as such, I could understand where Sandbh's frustration about being blocked from adding it until consensus was reached (I'll return to the topic of consensus later) came from. After it was made abundantly clear that this is where things stand today, Sandbh accepted that; it was in this spirit that the original post was retracted (or at least it was attempted to get the post retracted) and it was in the same spirit that Sandbh petitioned to seek such a consensus at WT:ELEM; problem solved, in one way or another.
As for where thing stand today and whether should be any sanction against Sandbh, the issue seems very uncertain. What would such a sanction really achieve today? I'm leaving aside the topic of whether a sanction would be deserved---ANI, as I understand it, doesn't do justice, it tries to help build the encyclopedia (right?)---what would it effectively achieve today? We most certainly would lose the knowledgeable author that Sandbh is, and what we get in return? Sandbh's main disagreement was with Double sharp, who admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table. I haven't had a conflict with Sandbh and I'm going to keep it that way. ComplexRational hasn't had a conflict with Sandbh and is also likely not going to get himself into one. And that's it, that's all editors left at WP:ELEM now; only DePiep has problems with Sandbh and Sandbh has problems only with DePiep, and even the two of them have very different main areas of interest within our project: Sandbh writes articles and DePiep doesn't, instead doing primarily supplementary work, including outstanding contributions on graphics.
As for consensus building for periodic table, that seems rather unlikely today. I assume that there are four editors left in the project, and I'm not going to intervene as long as there are no editors on the verge of leaving, and ComplexRational hasn't intervened too much in this sort of issue, either, and as I see it, DePiep asking for a consensus essentially means asking for a veto power over future additions. I'm not at all implying that this was the original intent---I don't believe it was that---but it does look like this is what "consensus building" essentially boils down to in current circumstances... is it really that good of an idea, today?
My proposal for a solution would be that an external arbiter outlines how things should proceed in the future (I think EdChem could assume this position or at least contribute to such an outline)---maybe survey opinions on what such a description should contain---and have Sandbh and DePiep commit to that and warn that there will be consequences if that commitment, given as the outcome of this ANI incident, is not honored. I'm ready to join Sandbh and DePiep in making such a commitment if my participation is seen as a positive addition. I'm suggesting this because if one gives a word to do something, that'll be a stronger commitment than just a policy being somewhere there; after all, a policy is subject to avoidance at times, at least some editors may see it as such (see WP:IAR); moreover, if they both agree to the same thing, there won't be any feeling that someone is affected disproportionately (and undeservedly) more than the other one, and parity is important since in this very section, both Sandbh and DePiep have made comments about the other one that they could find an unpleasant accusation. Restriction by such an agreement could help recreate the positive climate Double sharp and YBG could return to. Most importantly, if there ever is a problem that arises after the outline has been approved, then it's easy to point out what the violation was, and it will be clear that punishment is deserved. Failure to commit to (hopefully) reasonable demands in the outline will also be rather telling.--R8R (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why were are discussing a "breach" of BRD as if it's some sort of bright line policy violation or worthy of an ANI over a single instance. If this is a general or discretionary sanctions area with enforced BRD, then that should have been mentioned in the opening statement and further for DS, it would likely be better to bring this up at WP:ARE or in both cases, maybe just speaking personally to the admin who introduced the page restriction. If not, then as always BRD is good practice and and an editor who consistently ignores BRD is likely to be a problem editor but it's dumb to bring an ANI case over a single alleged "breach" since it's not an explicit policy violation let alone a bright-line one. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do not agree with R8R's conclusion that this is an issue between me and Sandbh. For example re periodic table: until Dec 25, I have not intervened since Sandbh starting "restructuring" it. Started: Nov 15, -7k, and R8R -15k. So there were serious issues re the editing, and the article is about to loose its FA star—all without me. Also, R8R is playing down the fact that two contributors left. As for ComplexRational's involvement: CR's absense is not a confimation of "no problem"; just read CR's posts in this thread. I think the issue does not need to be brought down to editors instead of edits. btw, I did not 'summon' R8R, but noticed them [136]. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- A couple of clarification points: when I said that ComplexRational and I had no problems with Sandbh, I meant no problems that prevented anyone from improving the encyclopedia, rather than mere disapproval. I also note that I did not use the word "summon" to cast negative light onto DePiep; if that's how my wording is perceived (I'm struggling to see how that could be the case, but let's say that's it), please rest assured it wasn't the case. Other than that, I have nothing to add to the comment I've already given without repeating myself.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- OK, 'notification/summoning' misunderstanding is gone. Then re User:R8R. Others might correct me, but I still do not see why this would be about me having to make 1:n agreements or commitments. Unless editors can convince me of usefullness, I am not open for such side-deals. I recall other ELEM editors created side-agreement(s) in November when the CaseRequest was open, and a generic wide open pacification truce R8R and Sandbh did not sign up to. Now here we are. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- A couple of clarification points: when I said that ComplexRational and I had no problems with Sandbh, I meant no problems that prevented anyone from improving the encyclopedia, rather than mere disapproval. I also note that I did not use the word "summon" to cast negative light onto DePiep; if that's how my wording is perceived (I'm struggling to see how that could be the case, but let's say that's it), please rest assured it wasn't the case. Other than that, I have nothing to add to the comment I've already given without repeating myself.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do not agree with R8R's conclusion that this is an issue between me and Sandbh. For example re periodic table: until Dec 25, I have not intervened since Sandbh starting "restructuring" it. Started: Nov 15, -7k, and R8R -15k. So there were serious issues re the editing, and the article is about to loose its FA star—all without me. Also, R8R is playing down the fact that two contributors left. As for ComplexRational's involvement: CR's absense is not a confimation of "no problem"; just read CR's posts in this thread. I think the issue does not need to be brought down to editors instead of edits. btw, I did not 'summon' R8R, but noticed them [136]. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
1. In nearly ten years of editing I have never engaged in edit-warring |
I'll respond to EdChem and R8R's helpful contributions, shortly. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Given R8R is a long-serving member of WP:ELEM he understands what is going on. I support his perspective and comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- So am I, so do I. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I only reverted after the discussion of my intent to do so petered out, including a suggested way ahead. I took the absence of further discussion as, effectively, consensus, especially since Double sharp, who deleted my content in the first place, withdrew from the discussion, and said I could edit as I pleased, subject to comments by others. I understand this is custom and practice at WP i.e. re when a discussion peters out.
My revert was not a new bold edit. Any WP editor has the right to revert at any time, as a way of seeking consensus. If DePiep had concerns with my revert he could’ve discussed these at the WP:ELEM talk page. Instead, he re-reverted.
As noted, I’ve never engaged in edit-warring. This year, among other edits, I made some to the periodic table article. Double sharp raised some concerns. In response I initiated the fresh energy for the periodic table article editing exercise. 220+ edits ensued. I subsequently notified my intention to revert just one of Double sharp’s multiple edits. The rest is history.
Re DePiep’s subject matter expertise, I raised this since the reasons for his re-revert, and his subsequent “no” responses to my consensus requests, included content for which he has no subject matter expertise, as he himself has freely admitted. In other words, this is not about content, it is about conduct. In this regard, note that even after Double sharp said I could edit as I pleased, DePiep was still expecting me to seek approval from Double sharp [137]. If that’s not disruptive blocking behaviour, then I don’t know what is.
As to the way ahead, the background to the “dispute” concerns a single article out of the hundreds that WP:ELEM has an interest in, and one revert at that.
As I can’t edit the PT article without being re-reverted, blocked, or reverted by DePiep, I’ve posted four requests for consensus at the WP:ELEM talk page.
As to the way ahead at the WP:ELEM talk page, all discussion there is freely entered into, or not. In the past, some discussion has been quite heated. I no longer engage in that kind of less than polite discussion.
More generally, in terms of “disavowing” DePiep, I simply ask that he contributes to WP:ELEM in a team-building sense, as a member of WP:ELEM, by engaging in discussion before reverting the work of other team members. That is a courtesy Double sharp extended to me, and me to him. Apparently this is courtesy that DePiep has chosen not to extend to me. Once again, this is a conduct issue not a content issue.
Since I’ve asked to withdraw my complaint, and am now engaged in consensus seeking at WP:ELEM, the whole thing has become moot IMO, in any event. @Nil Einne and Games of the world: have expressed similar sentiments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, there is a topic ban proposal being considered, one that has a reasonable chance of passing, so the whole thing is not at all moot.
- What I infer from the above is that
- you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content
- DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you
- that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation
- that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team
- that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely
- that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour
- that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour
- Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem:: thanks for this effort. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you both for your interest.
Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep.
Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in.
DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh?
Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO.
Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down.
OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so.
Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I'm not aware of what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition.
Post near-ArbCom:
- Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented.
- WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch.
I hope this clearly sets things out.
Your thoughts (you too, DePiep)? --- Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please provide a TL;DR. Otherwise, readers might catch the wrong detail/subline as important etc etc. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- and, this is your reply to EdChem's "fair summary?", right? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, it is understood that you oppose any Tban / think it is unwarranted, etc. But, looking at my qustion, is what I posted a fair summary of your view? Or, "accurate / reasonable but for XXX" – in which case, what is XXX? Or, "no" it's inaccurate/ unfair – in which case, how? Or, ...? EdChem (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you. I've turned EdChem's and my responses into a table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem. The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do? --- Sandbh (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: The post in which Sandbh created the table mentioned here has been reverted by DePiep. Further details below. EdChem (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, please no. Don't. Just reply to EdChem's posts. (formal note, Sandbh: I will not take ANI disruptions like this lightly any more). -DePiep (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh I have reverted your tabilisation. Please, just reply. [138] -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC):
- In reply to Levivich's question, which has since been removed, and because it was my post that was restructured and everyone may be confused:
- Levivich, this is how I posed the question to Sandbh. It was very much meant as an attempt to clarify / summarise the view that Sandbh has of the situation. This was Sandbh's reply, which prompted DePiep to seek a shorter reply and also to post the above 'this is your reply' question. I also sought clarification, which is what prompted Sandbh to reorganise my question / summary and his response into the above table. Perhaps he chose this approach after I moved a comment that he inserted into mine earlier today at WT:ELEM and added a note politely pointing to TPG. I am surprised that this restructuring of my ANI post has occurred and based on the post that DePiep made, I suspect that he is too. I think that the result is that what has happened is only clear by examining the diffs, though undoing the post would also create potential confusion and distract from the point I was seeking to understand – what Sandbh actually sees as the situation. In any case, I thank you for asking and giving me the opportunity to clarify. EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- PS: While typing the above, DePiep has reverted and asked Sanbh to reply conventionally and posted to you. I'm slotting this (after ec) wherever seems plausible. Please, will someone not involved help to keep this on track? EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Yes, it was me reverting Sandbh. Are we OK all? Promise: won't happen again -- by S.). Alle reverts & corrections OK by me (except by Sandbh). -DePiep (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Restoring my content reverted by DePiep
DePiep reverted some content I posted to this board, further to above section, in response to EdChem's questions.[139] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. The last time he and I were here, he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I trust he will extend that courtesy to me now. @EdChem and Levivich:, I'm reposting my reverted content. It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing. Sandbh (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read the edit summary? Undid revision 997146585 by Sandbh (talk) this is !vote area, no discussion. )If you want to diuscuss my conclusion?? - go elsewhere.)
- "It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing" If your method involves ignoring talk page norms and guidelines for you exclusive benefit, nope, you're not. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Calton, the disruptive revert I referred to was as per the diff. Non-reason given by DePiep was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Sandbh (talk) to last revision by Narky Blert)." Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @EdChem, DePiep, and Levivich: I regret the confusion cause by my IGF refactorisation of EdChem's comments, which has now been undone by DePiep.
I've copied EdChem's 7 to 8 dot point assessment/comments [140] and added my responses into the following table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem.
The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do?
Levivich, the 1-8 items are a verbatim copy of EdChem's comments.
EdChem | Sandbh |
---|---|
1. you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content | Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in. |
2. DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you | DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh? |
3. that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation | Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO. |
4. that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team | See above |
5. that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely | Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down. |
6. that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour | OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so.
Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I don't know what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition. If there are any aspects of my conduct that I've overlooked I'll be pleased to address them. |
7. that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour | Post ArbCom, Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented. 2020 has been an exceptionally productive year as far as the PT article goes: 512 edits, more than any year since 2012, which is when we got it back up to FA. WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch. |
8. Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC) | Some parts of it are fair; for some other parts I've responded above. That's the TLDR, basically. |
Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep. |
- DePiep Stop deleting content posted by others! Vikram Vincent 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The refactoring that has gone on here makes following it all difficult. DePiep reverting the conversion of my post and Sandbh's response into a table was certainly justifiable. Though it might have been better done by an uninvolved editor, it was necessary – and I say that accepting that Sandbh genuinely did not see it as problematic. Reverting the comment added after DePiep's vote was understandable given it is a !vote section (as calton also noted), though it would again have been better done by an uninvolved editor. However, I don't see the justification for reverting Sandbh's presentation of the table as his chosen response to my question. I was seeking a more concise and brief response, but I can't direct how Sandbh responds and nor can anyone else (so long as the reply is clearly all Sandbh's content, policy compliant, etc). DePiep, I think you are too close to the situation to be doing any more reverting of anything that is not absolutely clear cut. It is adding friction and heat where they are not needed and so I ask that you hold back from reverting and instead ask for someone uninvolved to consider action (which excludes me, of course). EdChem (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Vincentvikram: I was pondering an immediate edit block for Sandbh for this page. Their edits were disrupting the discussion full stop, both by rearragning posts and by changing topics &tc. Already multiple ANI reports have gone useless (=made unable to conclude) this way. Needed is an authorty (a cleck?) for this page to keep threads in good order. My goal is to keep this ANI productive. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Help request
I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental health sense; help in in a "how to meet WP expectations" sense. I'm obviously missing something. I have not read any more recent posts, including EdChem's comments above.
Is my goose cooked?
I have asked @EdChem, DePiep, and R8R: for any help they could provide.
thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
PS: I won't be online again until tomorrow morning my time; in about 10 to 12 hours.
My last post
I intend for this to be my last post to this thread.
I don't know what else I can do to express contrition. I've acknowledged my problematic conduct. I've reached out to WP:ELEM colleagues asking for their help. I'm ready to work cooperatively with WP:ELEM members.
Barring further developments I intend to work quietly on seeking consensus at WP:ELEM, and constructively working on related articles of interest.
To everybody here, and to WP:ELEM colleagues, I look forward to 2021 being an improvement on the train-wreck that was 2020.
--- Sandbh (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Questions on ban coverage
- Under the terms my topic ban, how do I obtain guidance about its application? For example, am I able to keep in contact with WP:ELEM colleagues, on non-chemical-element related matters, via my talk page?
- I would like to obtain clarity as to, for example, if I may edit e.g. cisplatin, water, DNA, sand, hypofluorous acid and philosophy of chemistry, and if the ban covers much of biology and medicine and pharmacology, at least in so far as the chemical elements are relevant? The latter question was put by @EdChem: and commented on by Johnuniq, and Narky Blert but never completely answered. Judging from their responses there seemed to be a level of support but I am proceeding with an abundance of caution.
- Am I able to edit such pages as Eric Scerri, a world authority on the periodic table, Leopold Gmelin, German chemist (1788 – 1853), or indeed, Dmitri Mendeleev, whose page is badly in need of improving?
- Further, if someone from WP:ELEMENTS pings me about a chemical elements topic, or posts to my talk page about chemical elements, am I permitted to respond?
The context for my questions are that I am looking for opportunities to demonstrate cooperative editing, in areas that I have some expertise in. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 1. Please read WP:TBAN. For example, 'broadly construed', and the 'Weather, parts' description.
- 2. It is not an WP:IBAN. You are free to contact editors (but stay away from the Topic).
- 3. In the thread, I have posted [141].
- 4. Please be very careful. Editors have expressed discontent with your editing, and a good start would be to understand these issues before showing up at the borders. Meanwhile, editing pleasure can more easily be found in other topics. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sandbh, in the closed discussion above, I summarised my interpretation of the scope of the TBAN in two lines. It isn't difficult to understand. Don't try to test its boundaries, or you will surely overstep them. In plain words and broad terms: you have been TBANned for pissing other editors off - don't do it again.
- WP needs specialist editors, but it needs good editors even more. Work in some other areas also. Researching stuff that you know nothing about is an interesting intellectual challenge (and Lord knows that WP is full of gaping holes). Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sandbh, I think your question is fair but risks being taken as "how do I know where the boundaries are so I can step right up to them but stay 1 mm on the 'allowed' side?" (which I am sure is not what you mean) rather than as "how I recognise what I need to stay well away from?" I agree with DePiep that the parts of WP:TBAN dealing with "broadly construed" are helpful... though I remain unsure of the boundaries here and, if I were you, I would adopt the view that anything that plausibly can be placed within the tban zone should be avoided. Looking at some of your specifics, and noting that this is my opinion only and that alleged violations will be judged by uninvolved admins whose views vary and who may not be familiar with the exact issues that have arisen:
- 1: Don't ask for guidance at WT:ELEM. Don't post there for any reason, it is squarely within the zone of the tban and has been a site of ongoing issues. As DePiep notes, you are not subject to any WP:IBAN so you can communicate with any editor. What you can't do is communicate on-wiki about anything in the area of the topic ban, nor should you communicate in any place that the tban applies. In other words, if you are banned from an article then its talk page is off limits, as is the content of it anywhere else (like in a DYK / GA / FA nomination, etc), as is talking about it anywhere in user space.
Asking for guidance is allowed, but be careful in asking that you do not talk about the topic itself. For example, asking "Am I allowed to edit the aluminium article?" is a fair question. "I would like to do X, Y and Z to the article aluminium to help it reach FA standard, is this allowed?" is a dangerous question as X, Y, and Z may well be talking about the topic of the ban. As aluminium is one of the elements, I think working on it or its FA nomination falls within the ban, I am sorry to say. As for who to ask, you can try Sandstein (as the admin who closed the discussion and imposed the ban), or an admin who you feel comfortable with, or use the admin help template, or any other editor... just remember that you can only get opinions, not definitive rulings. - 2: The likely answer to your list is "it depends." If you were editing cisplatin about its medical use, I think that is fine. About its chemical properties, more dangerous. About how it is a platinum-based chemo agent and platinum is a noble metal, etc, would not be allowed. I note that Narky Blert is of the view that the scope is easy to understand. For the core topic, that is true – WT:ELEM, the PT article, templates dealing with PTs and categorisation, articles on noble metals, classes / groups of non-metals, etc are all caught by the tban. "Broadly construed", however, is open to interpretation and some admins take much broader views than do others. The admin who closed the discussion, Sandstein, is one who takes a strict perspective and I am disappointed that he chose not to address the requests for clarification made in the above discussion.
- 3: Editing biographies of scientists noted for there work on the elements would, in my view, be caught by "broadly construed." Scerri's article should be treated with particular care as it is a BLP. I'm not suggesting you would seek to violate BLP, just that any BLP is a place for extra care and an editor with a potentially-relevant tban risks a "block first and ask questions later" response.
- 4: If pinged on WT:ELEM, say, I think the wise choices are (a) don't respond at all, or (b) post to the pinging editor's user talk page to note the ping has been seen and to say that you are unable to reply because of the tban. Don't express (directly or implicitly) a view on whatever the question is if it falls within the scope of the tban. Questions on your user talk page about a tban area can be either removed / archived with an edit note that you can't respond due to the tban or posting a brief comment that you are unable to respond.
- 1: Don't ask for guidance at WT:ELEM. Don't post there for any reason, it is squarely within the zone of the tban and has been a site of ongoing issues. As DePiep notes, you are not subject to any WP:IBAN so you can communicate with any editor. What you can't do is communicate on-wiki about anything in the area of the topic ban, nor should you communicate in any place that the tban applies. In other words, if you are banned from an article then its talk page is off limits, as is the content of it anywhere else (like in a DYK / GA / FA nomination, etc), as is talking about it anywhere in user space.
- Though you did not specifically ask, the close does not allow for any discussion that violates the tban. We can still have a discussion about prior events to facilitate your understanding but it cannot include discussion of the topic itself, which will be much more difficult. It is also important to note that the tban applies throughout your user space, so creating / editing any sub-page on the topic is also prohibited for the length of the ban.
- I hope this provides some clarification. EdChem (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sandbh, I think your question is fair but risks being taken as "how do I know where the boundaries are so I can step right up to them but stay 1 mm on the 'allowed' side?" (which I am sure is not what you mean) rather than as "how I recognise what I need to stay well away from?" I agree with DePiep that the parts of WP:TBAN dealing with "broadly construed" are helpful... though I remain unsure of the boundaries here and, if I were you, I would adopt the view that anything that plausibly can be placed within the tban zone should be avoided. Looking at some of your specifics, and noting that this is my opinion only and that alleged violations will be judged by uninvolved admins whose views vary and who may not be familiar with the exact issues that have arisen:
IMHO a black & white topic ban is preferable, and easier to administer, than a ban with nebulous boundaries. That said, I'll take up my outstanding questions with Sandstein at his talk page. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not to take away from any of the above advice, it's kind of like if you're forbidden to smoke tobacco, and you're asking ... How about lighters and ashtrays -- are they OK? Does it count if I inhale second-hand smoke? My advice is that for the duration of your topic ban you stay out of the tobacco shop, period, and completely away from people who smoke, period. Start hanging out in a no-smoking bar and take up drinking. You might like it. EEng 06:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
User:TylerKutschbach
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TylerKutschbach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
My concern is that User:TylerKutschbach appears to be adding huge amounts of unsourced election results to US city and county articles. This is an active editor who has made almost 14,000 edits in 2020, mostly to add election results or change demographic data. Of a total 22,022 edits, just 11 have been on a talk page.
Yesterday I noticed this edit where TylerKutschbach added the results of the 1880 United States presidential election. This source was already in the article (though with an access date of 2018-07-03), so I assumed the edit was sourced by that link. When I visited the source cited, I was unable to locate those specific 1880 election results.
I started a discussion User talk:TylerKutschbach#Kenton County, Kentucky:
- [142] - I asked where to find the 1880 election results in the source cited.
- [143] - TylerKutschbach responded, "You can look at the Wikipedia page for the 1880 county results for Kentucky".
- [144] - I told TylerKutschbach that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and again asked where in the source cited I could find the 1880 election results.
- [145] - When TylerKutschbach continued to edit articles about election results, I asked again where to find the 1880 election results in the source cited.
- [146] - TylerKutschbach responded "The user Luokehao found the results on US Election Atlas".
- [147] - I asked again for clarification.
TylerKutschbach then reverted three edits to restore content about election results: [148][149][150].
Similar past edits:
Warnings this past year about unsourced content:
Previous ANI reports:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User:TylerKutschbach
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#User:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed
Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, my warning was about introducing incorrect information; TK reverted my revert with an explanation in the edit summary, and when I looked more closely at the pre-existing source, I agreed with TK's edit, so my initial revert was incorrect. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I have been adding county election results from 1880 to 1908 because I saw the results on Wikipedia and someone added the results for each county by viewing US Election Atlas. TylerKutschbach
- There's an issue here; the results are not on US Election Atlas as TylerKutschbach is repeatedly claiming. They are on Wikipedia, sourced to http://geoelections.free.fr/ , which sources them from W. D. Burnham : Presidential Ballots, 1836-1892. That book is available through the Internet Archive; I can verify the major-party results for Kenton County, Kentucky for 1880 are as presented in that book, though the third-party data is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- TylerKutschbach continues to revert edits which remove the unsourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- TylerKutschbach has been blocked for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. This comes from an AIV report that was filed just moments ago. I also took this ANI discussion into account when deciding to block. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy
- BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Des Vallee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TL;DR on BunnyyHop's soap-boxing behavior
|
---|
BunnyyHop is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He constantly posts fringe theories. Denies the Uyghur genocide is real instead believing it to be created by by Adrian Zenz, denies that the Crimear Tatar genocide or deportation is real, constantly tries to get around consensus, edit wars when he doesn't get his way, misuses quotes to give a soapbox to whoever Marxist-Leninists, adds "accuse" to proven atrocities by Stalin and Mao, tags edit as minor that removes entire sections, removes images he dislikes when leaders like Stalin show up, removes any information he dislikes, as wel as removing sourced content numerous times, doesn't read citations, and has wanted to post text like "The liquidation of exploiters" and "Success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades" to articles. In short BunnyyHop clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and to spread his POV, other users have also realized this from him being here. He in short is a committed POV pusher. BunnyyHop is a single use account meaning he only edits relating to Marxism-Leninism and only posts his pro Marxist-Leninist, pro-Stalinist POV. The proposal details topic banning BunnyyHop from all articles relating to Marxism-Leninism and politics, due to disruption on said articles. Des Vallee (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
BunnyyHop has never edited anything outside his narrow field of interest (Marxist-Leninism,) and Bunnyyhop never goes against his own ideology, adding POV pushing sections, removing criticisms, using biased wording etc... The editors account always edits with something do with Marxist-Leninism and it all extremely positively. Please excuse this extremely long list, it is extremely long because of how disruptive he has been.
He is clearly here only to spread a pro-ML POV, in his entire time on Wikipedia he hasn't edited a single article outside Marxist-Leninism. He has already been blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia 3 times and on English Wikipedia once, he was warned over five times on Portuguese Wiki, and warned over 10 on English Wiki. Despite all these warnings from numerous other editors and operators he is still using Wikipedia as a soapbox, posting POV edits to push Marxist-Leninism.
Here is a list of some of his disruptive POV pushing edits:
Removal of properly sourced content:
Example 1 BunnyyHop removal of a section in which details Vladimir Lenin lost the popular elections and called for a multi-party democracy system. It was removed simply only due to his admiration of Lenin and his ML POV. The fact that Lenin lost . All information is correctly sourced Citation: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2492782.pdf
Page 3: "The party of Lenin had not received the mandate of the people to govern them." "The Bolsheviks, who had usurped power in the name of the soviets (people) three weeks prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote"
Page 5: Following the defeat of the Bolsheviks in the general election: "Lenin, issued the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, the dream of Russian political reformers for many years, was swept aside as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarian"
Example 2:
Removes section that states: "in practice Marxist-Leninist states have been described as anti-democratic" is a "fringe theory." Despite almost all agree ML states were extremely undemocratic. Most Marxist-Leninist states are considered academically considered anti democratic, he removes this as it doesn't fit with him ML POV.
Example 3 Removes of sourced content, due to the fact it mentions North Korea as "Stalinist." A label this user doesn't like.
Example 4 Removes of cited text that states China's execution rate (A Marxist-Leninist state) removed for no good reason.
Example 5 Removal of cited information detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities and criticisms of Marxist-Leninism:
Example 6 Removal of scholarly cited information as to how Marxist-Leninist states are considered state capitalist. As a Marxist-Leninist that directly goes against his POV so he removes it. Did this before twice: 6
Example 7 Removal of section that states the Gulag (in Marxist-Leninist USSR) system as a form of Slavery. BunnyyHop removes the section and tags the edit as minor, despite removing a sizeable chunk of the article.
Example 9 Removed correctly cited information dealing with Anti Stalinst left and Red Fascism. Red fascism is a term used by other leftists to denote Stalinists, or Marxist-Leninists. BunnyyHop who supports Marxist-Leninism removes it, due to his POV.
Example 10 10 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders that are Marxist-Leninist, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edit as minor.
Example 11 Removal of sections detailing China's use of Uyghur minority in forced labour camps. Replaces correctly cited information, with a Chinese backed conspiracy theory that the mistreatment of the Uyghur population by China is a false narrative created by Adrian Zenz. Something which has been completely nonsense. This user was blocked for posting this conspiracy theory as well, however more bluntly.
Examples of POV pushing text or text that reads out of Marxist-Leninist manifesto or argumentative ML essay:
Example 1 2: Adds POV text replacing the rise of Bolshevik rule with a Marxist-Leninist position that being: "Establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the rise of the Bolshevik soviet democracy in Russia proper, most of Ukraine, Belarus, Middle Asia and Transcaucasia"
Example 2: This entire section of a goldmine of POV text. It at times tries to convince the reader into being a Marxist-Leninist, and it makes extremely bold statements with the only citations being Karl Marx quotes. It is far to long to pull out any specific section.
"It is true that labor and nature become means of capital exploitation, but the capitalist mode of production systematically corrodes the foundations of wealth" (This is cited not using any actual papers but instead literally Karl Marxs das Kapital)."
Example 4 Text that would read out of a Marxist-Leninist handbook, it's also completely unsourced.
Example 5: Marxist-Leninism
Adds text on how Marxist-Leninism is a "theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends." and also states nonsense as facts such as that it is a form of "science."[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"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994482550
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177
- 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)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990118272&oldid=990010040
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989930588&oldid=989928847
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989778280&oldid=989491769
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983018922&oldid=982981007
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991572836&oldid=991544582
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991576614&oldid=991572836
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995632561&oldid=995631219
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995620412&oldid=995617862
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995464036&oldid=995461186
(Prev version reverted to) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Removing valuable large information, tagging an edit as "minor" that removes entire sections:
Example 1 The reason this was removed because it states the Gulag system as a form of Slavery. He removes it due to his pro-Soviet POV, tags it as minor despite removing a sizeable chunk of the article. It's hard to assume good faith on this.
Example 2 Removes this section detailing Soviet citizens didn't lives in a democracy, due to it not fitting his pro-Soviet stance. Tags it as minor.
Example 3 4 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edits as minor.
This is only a fraction of his diffs I missed a massive amount of other disruptive POV pushing edits, or his disruptive edits on talk pages. I and other users have tried to work with BunnyyHop but he clearly is only here to advocate for Marxist-Leninism. This user has only been on Wikipedia for four months and in that four months, despite being warned multiple times, BunnyyHop keeps using Wikipedia as a place to soapbox Marxist-Leninism.
He only edits relating to Marxist-Leninism and he has never edited anything outside of his extremely specific field of interest that being articles relating to Marxist-Leninism. In that time he has not been neutral while editing only adding positive sections for his ideology, and removing sections that detail atrocities or anything negative of it. He is only here to spread his ML POV not to build an encyclopedia.
While on Wikipedia he has been warned multiple times by other editors to stop removing sections he disagrees with, stop posting POV sections, stop edit warring and to stop soap boxing this can be seen on his talk page and the sections he archived. He has removed correctly sourced information, with the only explanation being that he dislikes Marxist-Leninist's having anything stated against them in any negative way. BunnyyHop has never once posted anything but glowing praise of his ideology. He clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia but instead to try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to espouse Marxist-Leninist positions. While attempting to use the text "Establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and rise of Soviet Democracy" users like TimothyBlue stated to BunnyyHop, "You're POV pushing has continued, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. A topic ban is rapidly approaching" he hasn't listened he still is posting POV text. I don't think that behavior will ever change because BunnyyHop is clear only here for advocacy, not to build an encyclopedia. Des Vallee (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "As 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. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism." (This was actually attempted to be put into the article)
- WP:TLDR. You need to be far more concise. GiantSnowman 11:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is in my opinion a content dispute. BunnyHop and some other editors think that the article should be about Marxist-Leninist ideology, while Des Vallee thinks it should be about actions taken by ML governments. Hence BunnyHop removed the text about Lenin's election results as being off topic.
- BunnyHop was blocked for edit-warring on 30 November. If they continue this, you can always go to the 3RR noticeboard again. The administrators who follow that noticeboard are much better qualified to investigate edit-warring and to determine what action is required up to indefinite blocks.
- The ideological views of editors is wholly irrelevant to whether they can contribute in a neutral way. You intrerpreted an attempt to define the scope of the article as whitewashing Stalinist crimes.
- You might also take the advice of TLDR. I suggest you close this discussion thread and properly prepare your charges should you wish to pursue them.
- TFD (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces I agree that an editors ideological views should be irrelevant, assuming they are making contributions in good faith. However all of the contributions all independently in vacuum violate Wikipedia's neutrality, or advocacy policies. Its hard to see this editors actions as anything other then complete obvious soap-boxing. As an example would you genuinely state this is constructive editing removing an entire section and tagging it as minor so it won't be reviewed?
- I mean there is no perspective you could state this was done in good faith. I think that can be proven, I mean do you genuinely think a good faith contributor would add text to articles that states "The liquidation of the hostile classes?" which is a whitewashed term that means "The massacre of any dissidents?" This really isn't about the page Marxism-Leninism, but instead BunnyyHop clearly using Wikipedia to post Marxist-Leninist propaganda adding an immense amount of POV sections. He removed the image on Totalitarianism because he didn't like Stalin and Mao were present in the picture.
- I completely agree BunnyyHop's position is irrelevant, but as stated with the copious amounts of diffs if we look at this editors contributions it is all soap boxing for either Marxist-Leninist regimes or removal of sections critical of Marxist-Leninism. BunnyyHop also did this, in which he takes the Chinese backed conspiracy theory, that the Uyghur genocide is western propaganda formulated by a single person, also removing correct information?
- What about when he copied and pasted multiple paragraphs of text from different pro Marxist-Leninist authors and copy pasted them into articles? What about all the times he simply deletes any information critical of Marxist-Leninism? Or tried to change the outcome section in Russian Revolution to state "Establishment of Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Soviet democracy?" The fact that he is a Marxist-Leninist is irrelevant if he has been making good faith contributions, however he hasn't since he joined Wikipedia and started editing he only has edited for soap-boxing. It's extremely clear he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for his positions, he has even edited the article on his own party the PCP. This has to do with his overall behavior on most subjects which is fairly plain to see. Other users @Crossroads:, can attest to this most users BunnyyHop has interacted with can attest to this. Des Vallee (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on their edits, such as this (also note edit summary), BunnyHop might be User:Jacob Peters or at least someone with a very similar POV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Apparently, not Jacob Peters, but someone else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'll deal with these one by one.
- This is repeated a lot, «he was blocked three times». From the start, I have only been blocked twice on ptwiki (link. One might ask? What was the reason of those blocks? Is he an uncontrollable madman unable to do proper edits on Wikipedia?
- Once we click the link - we see we have two blocks on days 18 and 22 of November. One of them was due to me wanting to include democratic dictatorship of the proletariat instead of dictatorship of the proletariat in an article. This was supported by another admin at first, but then backed down. The other user disputing this, another admin, explained quickly afterwards that arbitrarily choosing one over the other might constitute POV editing. We ended in good terms, since those synonyms (dictatorship of the proletariat as various synonyms) were added to the main article. [diff (I then added it to the enwiki)
- 1- This states «Previously Lenin had called for multi-party system of democracy». However, this is nowhere to be seen in that source, despite me asking multiple times. The fact that the Bolsheviks lost the election for the constituent assembly is an undisputable fact, and I never put this into question. And when I did ask you to provide a source, you manipulate it by inserting things in parenthesis. Diff. Me asking specifically for this «multi-party system of democracy» claim in the diffs, attempt to get verification of all in the talk page diff (and this colleague's respective response) - diff diff diff.
- Interesting bits - diff the colleague claims there's no such thing in the source.
- 2- The constitution of the GDR and a work called «Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival» are used to back this point. Not only is this insufficient to present as fact or «academic consensus», it's not even related to Marxism-Leninism.
- 3- Again, I checked the sources and even though BBC (link) is not a reliable source for this type of academic oriented article, it's NOT referred to as «the government is still sometimes referred to as Marxist–Leninist, or more commonly as a Stalinist, due to its political and economic structure», anyone can check it for themselves. The other claim, «Juche has been described as a version of Korean ethnic ultranationalism» is also not backed by the source - if you check the link, Juche is referred to as Korean ultranationalism, not ethnic ultranationalism. If you check the diff, you'll see I removed ethnic and added proper attribution.
- 4- You'll really just have to see the diff, I don't understand how one can claim that «cited text ... removed for no good reason» and link to a diff that shows it has not been removed. I had to include more text because this user specifically wanted to include the death rate of China despite being told it was not in the scope of the article. diff to current version
- 5- Got me blocked for edit warring when I thought consensus had been achieved (since there were 3 in favour of removing it and 2 in favour of including it)
- 6- Not backed by source after verification
- 7- Didn't have citations, there's already an unfree labour article and this article is already giant in size. This is honestly something I need help with because I lost my pacience. diff edit was removed because of «Ok BunnyyHop you are now posting Chinese backed conspiracy theories that the Uyghur genocide is pushed by Adrian Zenz» (What the hell is this?) and diff this was removed because «BunnyyHop you don't even mention the Gulag system», which is completely absurd to anyone who sees this diff. There's also been the change of the US being the country with the highest prision population to «one of the highest», while the US has the highest prision population. See List of countries by incarceration rate.
- Honestly, I won't even bother to reply to the rest, unless asked to. For the «removing an entire section and tagging it as minor», see how new to editing on Wikipedia I was «https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BunnyyHop&offset=20201201142824&limit=500&target=BunnyyHop». Minor edits showed on my watchlist anyway and plus there was no citation, I didn't think it was a big deal. I was warned and it never happened again.
- «Uyghur genocide is western propaganda formulated by a single person» I honestly don't understand what this user is talking about. Slavery, as you can see right now, has a report stated as a fact without any attribution whatsoever, «the Chinese government was found to be using the Uyghur minority for forced labour», even though the source says «In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report Uyghurs for sale: ‘Re-education’, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang, which identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies as allegedly directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labour transfer programs.». I included proper attribution, but it was reverted. diff.
- As for the Exploitation of labour article, it was a translation from the German article which was visibly much more complete. It's a shame half of the quotes were Marx's - but well - we gotta learn one way or the other.
- --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Topic ban from politics or block indefinitely. Bunnyyhop is an WP:SPA who engages in tendentious editing. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to advocate for the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist POV (compare WP:NONAZIS to see how I and many other editors feel about pushers of another totalitarian ideology). TFD/The Four Deuces, who downplays the problem above, has been heavily active for a long time at Talk:Marxism–Leninism and is not an unbiased observer. I have only stepped into the topic very recently and saw right off the problem of Bunnyyhop's editing. That Des Vallee's report is not perfect does not matter (and getting the length of these right is very hard anyway - too short and people say there's not enough evidence to take action). I will add this diff [157] 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 [158] is also highly relevant. Crossroads -talk- 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like this has gotten more traction, so I'll reply to some other claims.
- «Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire». This is a pretty serious claim, I'd like a diff for this hogwash. Anyone who opens the diff sees how this «because he doesn't like» is not true. And, those were my 8th and 9th edits on the site, something important you might've missed to mention. After engaging with another user, I added to the description «Leaders often accused of ruling totalitarian regimes».
- As for the Russian revolution, it's literally stated on the lead «reorganizing the former empire into the world's first socialist state, to practice soviet democracy on a national and international scale»
- But it should also be worth mentioning diff that you're including books by this publisher as reliable sources.
- As for the sandbox, the text you inserted here is literally the terms stated in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, be it «Russia’s independence from foreign domination», as well as «introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated». As for «Removal of exploiters and opportunists», I'd like a diff. I do remember including exploiters since it was the term used by a primary source - opportunists? not so much.
- «Keep in mind BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP as stated on his Portuguese talk page». I can assure that this is false, me being a member (which wouldn't matter) or me stating in the talk page that I am.
- I like how you add every content dispute to frame me as an irracional communist, but for instance, one might look at the talk page and see that in Guevarism you used "blackrosefederation" to verify the claim of «Guevarism as also been criticized for purges, torture and massacres enacted on political dissidents. In Cuba anarchists and other leftist revolutionaries were often massacred after the revolution.». «This oppression and inability for anarchists to organize into an effective resistance movement in Cuba would lead to the development of anarchism without adjectives, by Cuban exiles.» One might simply look at the anarchism without adjectives and see that it was developed in the 1880s(!!!!) while the Cuban Revolution occured in 1953-1959. Davide King can testify that your anarchist POV in your edits shows, especially in Marxism-Leninism
- --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, The Four Deuces did engage in Talk:Marxism-Leninism but that does not invalidade his position.
- I wouldn't use «unbiased observer», but rather «outside perspective», but even then, one wouldn't use the cold war ideological concept of totalitarianism to equiparate Marxism-Leninism with Nazism. «As the vanguard party that guided the establishment and development of socialism» simply does not turn into «As the only legal vanguard party it decided almost all policies». Did the party decide «almost all policies»? In which time period? Is the Congress of Soviets powerless then? Did Soviet Democracy evaporate? - see - this is not what's told to us in the source. It might need to be rewritten, yes, but not like this. I didn't change it, I reverted the edit. Also, the title of the article is Tiananmen Square protests, hence the edit. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, I don't think that being "heavily active for a long time" in the discussion page makes me biased. In fact I only joined the discussion in October. Incidentally, I notice you were canvassed to join this discussion.[159] When other editors have improperly canvassed me to join I discussion, I have always recused myself. I suggest that editors ignore your comments on the basis that you were improperly canvassed. TFD (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is not canvassing at all. I encouraged Des Vallee to file a report on the user and asked to be pinged [160] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE. How did you find this discussion? Your accusation is baseless and does not help your case.
- In case anyone missed it above, further investigation as to whether the user is a sock of User:Jacob Peters, as suggested by My very best wishes is warranted. Crossroads -talk- 20:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's the definition of improper canvassing. See Wikipedia:Canvassing: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive): Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." WP:APPNOTE only allows individual notification to "uninvolved editors." FYI I found this thread because I follow ANI. Unlike you, I was not notified by Des Vallee. TFD (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are taking "uninvolved" out of context. "Prior statement" is listed along with userboxes; it means not selecting an editor based on their personal POV as revealed in comments. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying
Editors who have asked to be kept informed
. And you are far more "involved" in this topic than me regardless of how you landed here. Crossroads -talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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
- 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)
- Things relevant to ANI without restating what is above and on talk pages:
- I generally agree with Crossroads comments.
- I believe BunnyHop is here to push a POV and at times this spills over into blantent propaganda. They ignore DUEWEIGHT and plain scholarly consensus and plow ahead with cherry picked sources into BATTLEGROUND TE, across multiple articles. Based on this exchange, I do not believe this pattern is accidental or simply misguided.
- I believe their edits show a willingness to conflate terms when they are used in different senses, such as technical, propaganda, and popular forms or in theoretical and actual senses, to breed confusion rather than clarity. This is most apparent in the discussion regarding Soviet "democracy". What a scholar, a propagandist, and a lay reader might mean/understand by "democracy" will be very different. I believe this is being done to drive the lay reader into a particular POV.
- Their ignoring the implications of the Red Terror and Cheka on "Soviet democracy" as well as the broader repression/terrorism by the Bolsheviks during the Civil War, I believe is nothing more than Bolsheviks apologetics; as with other similar topics, this should not be tolerated.
- Their walls of text and article hoping is an enourmous timesink.
- // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- TimothyBlue, the point is, you misinterpreted the journal, I don't understand what this exchange is supposed to represent. Check this. This exchange was based on an objection to include soviet democracy in the outcomes of the infobox, and I just linked to a paper and this document by David Priestland to show that Soviet democracy existed as an outcome. «Individuals parroting statements from a dictatorship and "voting" with the Cheka holding guns to the heads of their families while the Red Terror raged is not democracy». The Red Terror happened during the period of the Civil War, and so did Cheka (before being reorganized into the RPU). The «outcome» is after the Russian Revolution. Multiple All-Russian Congress of Soviets occurred during the Civil War - but this doesn't matter because the point of the question is the outcome. I'm not «ignoring the broader repression/terrorism by the Bolsheviks during the Civil War», this is not a type of thing I have to do - if the Civil War had an impact on Soviet Democracy - which it most likely did - it's up to scholars to determine that, not us, but it's up to us to include it in the respective article. I honestly don't understand what cherry-picking means here, is it because I'm using sources that back up my point? The western anti-Communism, which goes as far as to equate it with Nazism, blocks any type of rational discussion. Being so convict that the Soviet democracy article should me censored wouldn't consist of non-neutral editing? --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: The above reply from Bunnyhop should remove any doubt about the veracity of my conclusions about their editing and the need for a topic ban, if not based on my previous points, based on WP:CIR. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- How so? You're saying we shouldn't include the establishment of Soviet Democracy as one of the outcomes in the lead because of repression during the Russian Civil War. If you don't think the sources are reliable, you should've made that clear. But let this be clarified - I did settle down with «Establishment of Bolshevik-led Soviet Socialist Republics across the Russian Empire» after seeing a reviewer's comment in the thread I opened on the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Restated_2. I don't understand why this was brough up in the first place, this is perfectly normal dispute. As a side note: Please, to whoever is reviewing this, quickly check the pages' edit log and their respective talk pages. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, seems like there's explaining to do. When I come across that template, this was the version [161] up on the website. There was no mention of «genocide» on the lead, except from the Ukrainian Parliament, and I thought the guy on the talk page had made a fair point when he mentioned the deportation of the Japanese Americans during WW2. Keep in mind that this was my 6th edit, I had come across WP:NPOV and WP:V but not WP:NOTTRUTH for instance. That's something I would never do today due to the knowledge I picked up about how Wikipedia works - hence why the discussion is now mostly about my edits as a completely new editor. Despite what some editors accuse me of, I have no sympathies with Stalin and I have no interest in editing things related to him. But it got me by surprise the way some editors use the ideological concept of Totalitarism to equate Communism and thereby me to f#%#$#% WP:NAZIS. This is just fantastic. When the Russian Revolution article had one party dictatorship as one of its outcomes it was completely acceptable. One challenges this POV (with academic sources, 0 WP:OR) and is instantly apologizing for Cheka, «totalitarian tendencies», and so on. Some here seem to forget enwiki is not exclusive to Americans, due to english being a lingua-franca. This «freak out» equating Marxism-Leninism or Communism, whose states today hold a high percentage of the world population, to Nazism, is completely absurd. Neutrality requires stating all significantly view points to each article, not just anticommunist ones. Also, I urge again to check the talk pages and edit summaries of each page, and keep in mind what the recent edits are, and what the old edits are. --BunnyyHop (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will be very clear about this:
- Bolshevism (Old or Stalinist) is the moral equivalent of Nazism.
- Sino Soviet Communism is the moral equivalent of Fascism.
- Both are colonialist, genocidal, anti-democratic, bureaucratic oligarchies headed by megalomaniac rulers who directed the enslavement of millions.
- You are attempting to whitewash what is indisputably evil. A siteban should be added to topic ban sanctions. // Timothy :: talk 05:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Being a Marxist-Leninist is fine, Gorbachev as an example was a Marxist-Leninist. Assuming an editor is not an apologist for Stalinist genocides which BunnyyHop by his actions very clearly denies that the Crimean genocide by the USSR never happens or was exaggerated and believes the Holodomor famine is western propaganda.
- I want to make this clear there are many hard working Marxist-Leninist editors who don't add POV to articles and edit neutrally. This editor however is very clearly here only to spread their agenda and Marxist-Leninist POV, removes sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities, adds POV text into the article and after viewing this editor clearly not here to not here to build an Encylopedia.
- BunnyyHop I really, really don't believe you didn't know what you were doing was violating NPOV, you clearly knew this was a violation of NPOV as you state the NPOV policy, and while you remove this massive section you tag it as "minor". You stated previously in an edit summary mentioning NPOV so you clearly knew it and two because you were showed what NPOV is. So you clearly knew what you did was a violation, you also tag the edit as "minor" how anyone could state this was in good faith, or how you thought removing a category from a discussion was a minor edit. You were given multiple chances to edit neutrally but it seems clear your just here to spread an agenda. If you want to soap-box that's fine, start a blog. Don't bring it to Wikipedia, it's not the place for it. Des Vallee (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- There you go. That explains the disregard for academic sources and the need to get me banned asap. Anyone who has not been indoctrinated by the HUAC school will understand what this is really about now. I'm not gonna go further than this, since I don't think I'm allowed and it wouldn't matter, to debate is not really the point. But colonialism, slavery, imperialism, exploration, wars, nazifascism, military dictatorships - were all justified by liberal ideology. There's no need to display such Chauvinism here. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- BunnyyHop Screaming "WESTERN PROPAGANDA" to any citation you dislike. Going off on random tangents on how all western citations are some type of indoctrination scheme by the HUAC isn't helping you. Moreover going off stating that Liberalism is "colonialism, slavery, imperialism, exploration, wars, and nazifascism" really makes it really clear you aren't here to build an encyclopedia and just pushing fringe theories. Des Vallee (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- «Screaming "WESTERN PROPAGANDA" to any citation you dislike» What? When did that happen?
- This is great. I reply to a guy who claims that Bolshevism is the "moral equivalent" of Nazism and you interpret it as me saying all Western citations are part a HUAC scheme. This is madness. Fringe theories? Pick up a history book for god's sake. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Des Vallee Don't you think you're starting to cross the line? One thing is to misdescribe diffs, but accusing one of such absurdities? BunnyyHop (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- BunnyyHop You do this in which you go state attempt to defend well known Soviet pseudo intellectual who denies Soviet atrocities. Groven Furr is a known conspiracy theorist who think the Holodomor is a myth, states that Stalin never implemented mass terror upon his civilians, defends the use of the KGB by Stalin, states that the Uyghur genocide is a myth created by Western Media, that the Crimean Tatars allied with Nazi Germany and deserved to deported, that Peasants in Russia specifically burned down their crops instead of giving it the poor. This completely shows you not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to push your agenda and Marxist-Leninist fringe theories. Des Vallee (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have never read anything written by Grover Furr, so I can't even check if those are true or not, but one thing is certain - none of those are in the article, so my two cents would be that he is a known «conspiracy theorist» in your social circle (etc.). I have only heard about «Khrushchev Lied», and that's what made me check this article out. As for the diff, well, anyone simply has to look at the diff history. And the real diff (from insertion to removal) here. Remember, this is a WP:BLP --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is clearly false, as you knew who Groven Furr was enough to feel confident to edit on him, if you haven't "read anything on Groven Furr" you state add sections to a person you supposedly know nothing about? This clearly fits your pattern of attempting to remove sections detailing anything critical of Marxism-Leninism. You added sections in which you added "accuse" to proven Marxist-Leninist atrocities, and soap-boxing Marxist-Leninist positions. After being here for four months, it's clear your not here to create an encyclopedia, if you need any more evidence you also replace "Stalinist" to Marxist here, despite it being referred to as Stalinist ideology. It's extremely clear your just here to try to spread Marxist-Leninism. Des Vallee (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I literally just checked the source, which referred to him as a revisionist historian, contrary to what was stated in the article (which seemed fishy to me), as a denialist [historian], and I didn't add any sections. Again, that edit is from July and that paragraph has been removed for undue weight and non neutral editing. Once again, Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism, persistently trying to conflate the two even after you were warned might constitute POV pushing. BunnyyHop (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is clearly false, as you knew who Groven Furr was enough to feel confident to edit on him, if you haven't "read anything on Groven Furr" you state add sections to a person you supposedly know nothing about? This clearly fits your pattern of attempting to remove sections detailing anything critical of Marxism-Leninism. You added sections in which you added "accuse" to proven Marxist-Leninist atrocities, and soap-boxing Marxist-Leninist positions. After being here for four months, it's clear your not here to create an encyclopedia, if you need any more evidence you also replace "Stalinist" to Marxist here, despite it being referred to as Stalinist ideology. It's extremely clear your just here to try to spread Marxist-Leninism. Des Vallee (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I 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)
Proposal
BunnyHope should receive a topic ban from History, Politics, and Philosophy related to Communism, Anarchy, and Socialism broadly construed based on POV TE editing.
This should not be a suprise to Bunnyhop, based on what I have said] and I believe others have also said. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: as proposed. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support strongly per the evidence and reasoning above. A complete net negative to the topic area. Crossroads -talk- 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support This editor is a determined POV pusher. The topic ban should be indefinite and broadly construed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above, especially Crossroad's comments. — Czello 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - based numerous edits like that [162], [163], [164], discussions like here and persistent edit warring and disruption to keep "his versions". This subject area already has a number of leftist pro-Communist pro-Soviet POV-pushers. We do not need more. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Commment: I missed this and am glad My very best wishes pointed it out. I had been struggling to AGF regarding their attitude towards the Red Terror and Cheka, and that pushes my good faith past the breaking point. This inexcusable edit combined with the other issues here merits adding a site ban. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this is just a minor illustration that almost every single edit by this contributor was damaging for the content. But I must say that page Soviet democracy is a joke, a propaganda stunt, just as some other pages. This is an oxymoron. There wwas no any free elections in the Soviet Union or democracy in any meaningful sense such as "a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislators". As Robert Conquest said, that was "a set of phantom institutions and arrangements which put a human face on the hideous realities: a model constitution adopted in a worst period of terror and guaranteeing human rights, elections in which there was only one candidate, and in which 99 percent voted; a parliament at which no hand was ever raised in opposition or abstention." My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly the reason for removal of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars from "Genocide of Indigenous peoples" is that it doesn't meet the definition of genocide according to most experts. See for example ""Related Atrocities" in Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century] (Leo Kuper, Yale University Press, 1981), which explains among other things why the deportation of the Crimean Tatars is not considered to be a genocide. TFD (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are genuinely denying that the Crimean Tatar Genocide isn't real? Irregardless removing a template and tagging it as minor against consensus is still clearly against the rules. There is universal consensus, from the UN, almost all scholars, Soviet archives, and even the Russian Government as recognizing it as a genocide. You can point to a single book but that doesn't prove your point. I have had fascists essentially state the same thing "The holocaust doesn't fit the technical definition of genocide", genuinely do you think the things you are typing are correct? Des Vallee (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is great. TFD demonstrates that the experts tell us the Deportation of Crimean Tatars is not considered a genocide, and a completely unrelated scarecrow is immediately used to «refute» his point. «Are you saying X genocide isn't real? Fascists also state the same according to the Holocaust, [implied that thereby you're doing the same as fascists]». «There is universal consensus, from the UN, almost all scholars, Soviet archives, and even the Russian Government as recognizing it as a genocide». You claim literally everyone recognises this as genocide. However, anyone simply has to look it up and see that this is not true. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support This editor however is very clearly here only to spread their agenda and Marxist-Leninist POV, using Wikipedia as a battleground to try to advocate for themselves, their party or ideology. I really, really don't believe BunnyyHop didn't know what you were doing was violating NPOV, you clearly knew this was a violation of NPOV as you state the NPOV policy, and while you remove this massive section you tag it as "minor" so you clearly knew the policy on checking minor edits. If you want to soap-box that's fine, start a blog or a petition. Don't bring it to Wikipedia, it's not the place for it. Des Vallee (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Date: 5 October. I don't think anyone is willing to go through the gigantic talk page on Marxism-Leninism (which is almost coming to a closure [as in what should be done next]: there's consensus the scope of the article is not right, and must be changed. Check the last topic by a fantastic colleague willing to help us sort this out). Anyone who sees this must be aware of that talk page. Vallee, some of your edits are marked by anti-communism coupled with original research. The one about Lenin calling for multi-party democracy is just one of them. I'm here to give due weight on stuff I know that is verifiable by academic sources, that's my aim. Our disputes are sometimes particularly marked by personal attacks by your part, one just has to look through the talk pages and edit logs to see a pattern. I find it hard to argue about content when disputes turn to this. BunnyyHop (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment In what way, BunnyyHop? You don't appear to realize I extensively edited the page Soviet Union creating the section detailing the legacy and I was accused of being pro-communist. You can read it what about stating that there is large support for the former Soviet Union, as well on detailing leftist opposition against the USSR. As a leftist libertarian involved in multiple leftist organizations this genuinely hurts my brain. Is me reverting your edits on removal of sections a "synthesis" as you state? Irregardless bringing up useless personal attacks really isn't showing you are editing in good faith. You consistently remove sections of text that details atrocities, you have synthesized statements, you tag edits as minor that removes entire sections, edited warred extensively with other editors and was blocked for it. You ignored an immense amount of warnings on your behavior as well as wanting to put text into the article that details the "Removal of exploiters and opportunists" the hypocrisy of this statement. Des Vallee (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment What you did in Soviet Union little matters to me, I'm talking about the disputes. You have reverted edits for the most absurd reasons, claimed using quotes is forbidden, thinks Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, that atrocities should occupy a large portion of the lead, and so on. I have never replied like I did now - but you keep rambling on about the same thing in every revert, I'm actually running out of patience. You literally removed a section saying «Marxism-Leninism appeared in Soviet discourse as...» because it would be a "soapbox". Just check the talk page. This is the level of anti-communist POV pushing present in that page. And once again, there's no removal of "atrocities". Can we imagine inserting a whole paragraph into the lead of Liberalism detailing colonialism, slavery, etc. etc.? Your point to has been extensively argued against. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think I made by point. Des Vallee (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support - The walls-of-text discussion above is difficult to get through (which seems to me to be a deliberate choice by BH in order to deflect editors from evaluating their edits), but I was able to do so, at least enough to determine that BunnyyHop edits with their personal political biases and does not even try to adhere to NPOV. This seems to me to be totally unnecessary, as there are sufficient Marxist-oriented academic sources out there to counter any "Western" non-Marxist biases that may have worked their way into our articles -- but they must be countered and not eliminated, which seems to be BH's modus operandi. I am cognizant of the need for us to represent all viewpoints, but also of the need to differentiate between mainstream consensus and fringe points of view, which BH does not appear to recognize. I believe that BunnyyHop is indeed a disruptive editor, and that a topic ban as proposed above is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Trust me, I would rather waste my time doing something else. What did I eliminate that is causing such distress? BunnyyHop (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please indent your replies, one additional colon for each new indent. No indentations makes a discussion very hard to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I'm sorry, I didn't see the indentation of the previous response BunnyyHop (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.[165] 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 [166] as permitted by WP:APPNOTE." [167][20:44, 31 December 2020] In fact APPNOTE allows the notification of "uninvolved" editors. CANVASS clearly prohibits selective notification of editors based on how they are likely to vote. Since this article comes under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, I recommend that we post the notification to the article and follow up any disruption through Arbitration Enforcement. TFD (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I said above, TFD is taking "uninvolved" out of context. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying
Editors who have asked to be kept informed
. If this isn't a case of that, then what is? I would have just watched Bunnyyhop's talk page anyway. And TFD is far more "involved" in this topic than me, as is Davide King who posts below. TFD's whataboutism and irrelevant "poisoning the well" about Des Vallee is completely irrelevant. Crossroads -talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)- I encourage anyone reading your reply to read WP:APPNOTE and determine what it means. One of the reasons for sanctions on Eastern European related articles is canvassing: "While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive." (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Final Decision.
You were IIRCMy very best wishes was one of the parties to the case.) In particular, editors had worked together to get editors blocked when they had content disputes. It is clear that if informed of this discussion that you would vote for sanctions against Bunnyyhop. TFD (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)- What!? I wasn't even editing at the time of that case! Stop trying to discredit me with nonsensical arguments and falsehoods. APPNOTE is very clear about the ping I requested and I would have made sure I knew about this report no matter what. Crossroads -talk- 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I recalled incorrectly. It was My Very Best Wishes under one of their previous names. In any case you read the case to see why canvassing other editors to get another editor blocked is disruptive. (Incidentally, in cases where it is appropriate to contact other editors, it is still considered canvassing, but not inappropriate canvassing. So let's stop with the arguments about whether it was canvassing and concentrate on whether it was appropriate.) TFD (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- As I said above, TFD is taking "uninvolved" out of context. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows notifying
- Oppose per TFD. However, before I go to explain my reasoning, as I wrote here, I suggest that BunnyyHop refrain from editing these political-related articles, as a sign of good faith, and write drafts, sandboxs and discuss on the talk page their proposed changes and edits, gaining consensus for them. If they are a sockpuppett, that can be investigated. However, I agree that this is a content dispute. I would note that Des Vallee also engaged in violations of due weight, original research and synthesis to push their anarchist POVs; I do not think either should be banned because with more experience and time they are going to better understand our policies and guidelines. Finally, context is important. Communist-related articles are one of the most controversial and indeed the academic field is one of the most conflictual, controversial and politicised fields in academia.
- There is indeed a double standard, which take as fact that Communism was equal or even worse than Nazism, something that is not actually supported by the vast majority of experts. It is simply assumed and taken for granted that sources and scholars agree that ideology alone, not just Bolshevism but communism itself of which Bolshevism was the natural and inevitable result, was to blame. This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism, so they are not in their articles because they fail weight, and there is nothing I can do about it, although an article about a link between capitalism/liberalism and the events could be made. Going back to Marxism–Leninism, I would argue they also fail weight for this article; as written here by Czar, it is supposed to be about the ideology, not anything that Communist leaders and states did. We already have a bunch of other articles, perhaps too many and coatracked, for that.
- In conclusion, if Crossroads rightly warning me about canvassing, I do not see how this was not canvassing, so I agree with TFD on this point too and also of applying the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. For the record, I am pro-European Union, anti-Putin, anti-Trump, anti-Stalinism. I simply believe one can oppose Communist leaders without being an anti-communist or adopting anti-communism, which is not any opposition to communism but an extreme opposition to communism, which usually conflates communism and Stalinism; the same way anti-fascist does not just mean anyone who is not a fascist but one who is actively opposed to it. I do not see how any of these are extreme views.
- If you are curious about my views of Communist states, I think the following comment by TFD here is what I hold too. "I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise." I do not hold the view Communism and Nazism were equal, nor I believe in the double genocide theory. I think Nazism was the worst and Communism had more in common with 19th-century capitalism and liberalism. In other ways, both Communism and 19th-century liberalism had similarities with Nazism. 19th-century Western racism and white supremacism was a precursor of Nazi racism, but Nazism was still the greatest evil. I always found curious how those who hold Communism and Nazism as equal do not hold the theory of red fascism, or that both were fascism, but that they were totalitarian. If everything the anti-communist scholars about Communist states is true, I do not see how they can even be considered communists, as if they are right, they were much more similar to fascists and Nazis. Yet, instead of coming to this obvious conclusion, they both group and separate the two, so as to blame small-communism, socialism and the broad left, for Communism and Nazism were the inevitable results of them. Whatever one think of this, these are not exactly my views, since I simply came to held these from reading on the topics and what legitimate academics and scholars have written, the same way I usually but not always take the academic and scholarly consensus on other issues and topics. I do not see any of these views of mine as extreme or fringe. If they are, it should be very easy to prove.
- Davide King (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This same standard is not applied to other ideologies; perhaps that is because reliable sources themselves hold this standard and do not really discuss colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. as part of capitalism and/or liberalism
- yes, that is exactly why. Glad to see it admitted. Davide King is also heavily involved in the controversy at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Crossroads -talk- 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)- Glad to see it admitted there is indeed a double standard, even if held by reliable sources; that is not what I disputed, so I do not get what your point was. As for being "heavily involved in the controversy", I do not see that is relevant any more than you and others, when I have agreed and disagreed with both users on some issues and others. In addition, I believe a good solution to the controversy, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, has been settled here by Czar. Davide King (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I explained to you before, sources about Marxism-Leninism, just like books about liberalism, fascism and other ideologies, concentrate on the ideology. TFD (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose while it appears that BH is pushing a POV, Des Vallee too appears to have equally participated. I suggest that both spend time on the talk pages and find a way forward. Perhaps a senior admin can help mediate. Vikram Vincent 21:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- It does not matter even if a majority call for a ban. Before a ban all options need to be invoked. Vikram Vincent 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That isn't a reason to oppose anything being done about Bunnyyhop. That editor's behavior is a timesink for everyone. Crossroads -talk- 22:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe at least one attempt should be made to follow Vincentvikram's suggestion and my suggestion that they for some time refrain themselves from editing such articles, only discussing on the talk page, propose their edits there and gain consensus, which would essentially already be a mini topic ban from editing. By all means, if all of this fails, they may be topic-banned but at least an attempt should be made. Remember that such bans or blocking are supposed to be reformative and preventive, not punitive ("Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals)" from Wikipedia:Blocking policy). If Bunnyyhop are topic-banned, a similar discussion should be raised for Des Vallee, since now at least two users noticed this and Des Valee was indeed already temporarily blocked a few times for POV pushing and edits at anarchist-related articles. I do not think either should be blocked but both need to calm down and find a way forward with a mediator, as suggested by Vikram Vincent. Davide King (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- We already have collectively sunk enormous amounts of time into addressing the editor's tendentiousness on talk pages. More time-wasting is not the answer. WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE address this. Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think it is a waste of time, when we can make them learn and improve. I agree with Czar that any user lost is a loss because, if reformed, they could have been one more good contributor. They also highlighted some issues which were true, namely that a given ref did not actually say what was in text and several cases where the source was not about the ideology and/or did not even mention Marxism–Leninism. Surely that is synthesis? Disagreeing about the main topic (they want it about the ideology) and other users about whatever Communist leaders and states did, which in my view caused several misunderstanding, warrants a further discussion, not a topic ban. Davide King (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The topic ban is most assuredly not for merely "disagreeing about the main topic". Crossroads -talk- 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I still think Vincentvikram gave the better solution, i.e. "thrash out the issues on the respective article talk pages." The dispute between the two users involved seems to because they hold two different leftist perspectives that clash with each other. Davide King (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The topic ban is most assuredly not for merely "disagreeing about the main topic". Crossroads -talk- 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think it is a waste of time, when we can make them learn and improve. I agree with Czar that any user lost is a loss because, if reformed, they could have been one more good contributor. They also highlighted some issues which were true, namely that a given ref did not actually say what was in text and several cases where the source was not about the ideology and/or did not even mention Marxism–Leninism. Surely that is synthesis? Disagreeing about the main topic (they want it about the ideology) and other users about whatever Communist leaders and states did, which in my view caused several misunderstanding, warrants a further discussion, not a topic ban. Davide King (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Comment whether we acknowledge it or not, a lot of us have very strong opinions one way or another w.r.t. certain topics and this is one of them. Without exhausting WP:DR, going in for a ban of any sort would not really be prudent since I gather the issue is more content than anything else. This complaint itself was a major time sink and I felt it was meant to overwhelm than resolve. Having seen a few other contentious ANI reports I think this one can be resolved better. Have some tea(or your favourite drink) and thrash out the issues on the respective article talk pages. Vikram Vincent 03:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram, I agree. While still authoritarian, Marxism–Leninism is not Stalinism; and contrary to what has been stated below, "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." Citing an article (Mass killings under communist regimes), which has been such a controversial article and that many of the issues has not been yet solved as clearly showed by the many discussion, is not a good reason.
- I think No Nazis is enough and we need not to push an equivalency or double genocide theory between Communism and Nazism as fact; indeed, following the logic of these who advocate for ban due to mass killings (even though "most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"), we might have to ban those who push an equivalency between Communism and Nazism as Holocaust relativisation, obfuscation and denial. If "anyone unapoligicically POV pushing an ideology that has resulted in mass killings ought to be banned", I guess all liberals and conservatives must go, too, as "[g]overnments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings." Colonialism, imperialism, racism and slavery have all been justified on conservative and/or liberal principles. Do we ban all conservatives and liberals, too?
- "I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology." This applies equally well to conservatives, liberals, nationalists and pretty much any ideology. No ideology but fascism is without its bad apples and sheeps. As I stated, I think No Nazis is enough. We need not to ban people on their political views without exhausting dispute resolution. Davide King (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Marxism–Leninism is not Stalinism"? Oh, no. Exactly as our page tells, "As an ideology, it was [further] developed by Joseph Stalin in the 1920s based on his understanding and synthesis of orthodox Marxism and Leninism". My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- If what you stated was accurate, then Marxism–Leninism ought to be deleted as content fork of Stalinism, yet that is not what you advocated. As written here by Czar, "ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. [...] Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole." It cannot be reduced to Stalin and Stalinism. Stalin's formulation is called Marxism–Leninism but so was Khrushchev, Gorbachev and other Communist leaders'. Our page also distinguishes "the political philosophy and state ideology of several self-professed socialist states" from "the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin", so why cherrypicking only that? Either way, all of this is irrelevant and your comment is better discussed at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. My point is, you are free to think Communism and Nazism were equal or that totalitarianism is an undisputed fact rather than a concept not supported by all scholars but these should not be used to ban a user, when Vincentvikram's suggestion is better. Davide King (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- And to clear this up, further below, in the Definition and terminology section, it's stated «[...] Marxism–Leninism, namely the interpretation of Marxism by Vladimir Lenin and his successors» «From the very beginning, Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. In the 1920s, it was first defined and formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism». The contradiction between the lead and the body is an example of the conflation and confusion of the current state of the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was not only Stalin who developed further the Marxist-Leninist "theory" and practice. As our page correctly tells, With the death of Stalin and de-Stalinisation, Marxism–Leninism underwent several revisions and adaptations such as Guevarism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, Hoxhaism, Maoism, socialism with Chinese characteristics and Titoism.. This is all well sourced on the page. This is not my view. And the page is in good condition. There are no contradictions. However, based on your comments, I can see that you guys are not familiar with the subject. This is fine. None of us is an expert in this. Unless, you POV-push the subject, as you apparently do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- See my comment here and please reply me there, so as not to go off topic. Davide King (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply. Leninism-Stalinism is a pseudoscience (ref) and an ideology used to justify mass murder. And no, liberalism does not incite violence. But the Intensification of the class struggle under socialism does. This is a political slogan (not science), which is only notable as a "justification" of Great Purge. Same with other parts of this "teaching". Same can be said about Nazi "theory" and ideology. The similarity is actually striking, including common antisemitism, as many scholars (such as Hannah Arendt) described in depth in their books. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Support, anyone unapoligicically POV pushing an ideology that has resulted in mass killings ought to be banned. --Nug (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure this is not the spirit of an ANI discussion even for a call for ban. Vikram Vincent 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nug, that's definitely not grounds for a ban. You can try an RfC for a new policy if you want. MarioGom (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Nug. There are several specific ideologies that justify discrimination and extermination of people just because they have different ethnicity (Nazism, racism) or belong to a different social group (Soviet and old Chinese versions of "communism"), which all resulted in millions victims. That is why the European Parliament declared Black Ribbon Day. Claim by David King that liberalism , for example, advocates the same is absurd and shows that he does not understand this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- See my comment here and please reply me there, so as not to go off topic. Davide King (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please check page hate crime. It does not matter if the perpetrators target victims because of their membership of a certain social group or race. This is basically the argument by Stéphane Courtois. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- See my longer comment here, where you can reply me there. Going back to the topic of this thread, which is what I would like for you to respond here, I still think RandomGnome made a good observation here. In addition, here, Bunnyyhopp made a good analysis of a source that was original research; and at Talk:Slavery they had a normal discussion with both you and Das Vallee that avoided personal attacks, showing that both users can improve and there is no need to permanently ban either; they may both, or one of the two, be banned for some time due to disruptive behavior (and use the time off to calm down and restart in a better, more cordial way from both sides) but otherwise they should not be permanently banned and should strive to always have a respectful discussion as it was the case at Talk:Slavery. Davide King (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- My final comment: This [168] and the follow up here [169], plus this and this elevate the seriousness of these POV edits. This is going down a very bad path. // Timothy :: talk 18:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment A new topic was opened in Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour. For the last diff, one has to look at TFD's comment. After looking at the «cultural genocide» citation on the current article, I opened a new topic on the Talk:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#Cultural_Genocide. The removal of a journalist's opinion from a WP:BLP stated as fact is POV pushing? BunnyyHop (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support BunnyHop is clearly here to push a POV, and isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as demonstrated by the vast amount of diffs provided by Des Vallee. Also, I have to agree that I personally find it rather abhorrent that people are defending such an awful, murderous ideology, but either way, POV pushing cannot be tolerated no matter what the POV is. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just another political content dispute. I see, however, that this ANI report crosses the line on political discrimination. First, a supposed (and unproven) political affiliation is used as a one of the points justifying a block (note this is not a COI dispute). A supposed (and unproven) political affiliation to a party that is legal and with parliamentary representation in Portugal and the European Union. Not that this matter for the main jurisdiction of Wikipedia, since discrimination against communists is codified in US law, but a lot of us are used to live in countries where this kind of discrimination is illegal (not a legal threat: I know this has no standing in the US). --MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- MarioGom, I did not think about this but you are right. Apparently, just because Communism is held as equal as Nazism, even though scholars disagree on this and the few who support it are "revisionists", political discrimination against real and alleged communists is perfectly fine. This is false equivalency and Holocaust trivialisation and obfuscation at worse. This really is a political content dispute, which has been magnified by the fact these are controversial articles; we all hold "strong opinions one way or another w.r.t. certain topics and this is one of them." Let these two users solve their issues with a mediator through the respective talk page of the disputed articles in question. Davide King (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- MarioGom This user has denied mass killings by the NKVD, denied the Crimean Tatar Genocide, denied the Uyghur genocide, pushes fringe theories on Stalin, denies the Holodomor even happened, constantly adds POV sections, removes any section he dislikes and tags those edits as minor, promotes known Stalinist fringe theorists, and is constantly warned on his behavior. This user clearly isn't here to build an Encyclopedia, has been constantly been warned but he still keeps up his disruptive edits. These edits constantly break rules regarding towards towards fringe theories, original research, genocidal denial. Genocidal denial and creating an open encyclopedia are impossible. Des Vallee (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- These are all strong claims, which from what I have seen do not actually represents reality. They never edited Holodomor and the only comment they made was here, where they stated "[p]lease read the guidelines. WP:Criticism; There's an open discussing on the Holodomor, since there's no academic consensus whether it was intentional or not. Cold war research backs the former, more modern ones generally backs the latter. Your attitude shows really well you aren't here to have a WP:NPV. This isn't discussable, you have to follow the guidelines." I do not see how that is denialism. In addition, you really need to stop falsely accusing users of genocide denial as you did here. As we write at List of genocides by death toll, "[t]he term genocide is contentious and as a result its academic definition varies." There is also a difference between the many definitions of genocide and its legal definition as outlined by the Genocide Convention. Not thinking an event, for which there is no clear consensus among scholars, fits the genocide definition is not denialism; denialism is denying the events happened in the first place; and not considering something a genocide may constitute denialism only for these events for which there is overwhelming consensus they were genocide such as the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, among others. Genocide requires intentional action and genocidal intent. Davide King (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Des Vallee,
This user has denied mass killings by the NKVD, denied the Crimean Tatar Genocide, denied the Uyghur genocide
What were the diffs for these ones again? Because it looks like a mischaracterization of some of the diffs you posted. For example, the usage of the term genocide beyond its original usage (physical elimination of a group of population) is a matter of debate, specially when expanded to areas like cultural genocide. Deportation of the Crimean Tatars#Genocide question and recognition gives good account of that. Discussing the characterization of an event is not the same as denying the event itself. I think that's a content dispute that can use some third opinion or other forms or mediation, rather than sanctions. - Also, regarding the stuff about PCP, I would suggest striking that from the report. Since you have already been told that the user did not claim PCP membership as you said, and I verified that your statement on that was wrong. As I said, I don't think it would matter anyway, but that doesn't mean that should stand uncorrected. --MarioGom (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Davide King He clearly denies the Tatar genocide here and tags that edit as "minor" something which is a clear violation, he denies the Holodomor and mass atrocities never happened here as you wouldn't add "accused" to proven killings. He goes and supports Chinese backed conspiracy theories that, Adrian Zen created a narrative of genocide of the Uyghur minority. Users have tried to work with him but he keeps his disruptive editing behavior, he isn't going to change because he clearly isn't here for any other reason then to spread his POV. Des Vallee (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is not a proof of denial; they explained this above and I believe they removed it because on the talk page there was a discussion, which was not about whether it was a genocide, but whether they were indigenous people; again, that does not prove they denied it never happened and that is actually the right wording since there is no consensus it was a genocide (see the Holodomor genocide question) and it also misses the main issue of contention, namely that the article is supposed to be about the ideology but it has become a coatrack for anything Communist leaders and states did, which is, or should be, already covered elsewhere (see these comments by Czar); and finally, I do not see how that supports what you claim, they simply attribute it to Zenz, so I do not get how following Wikipedia:Attribution suddenly means they "support[ed] Chinese backed conspiracy theories" or that "Adrian Zen created a narrative of genocide of the Uyghur minority." Davide King (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Des Vallee: I think it should have had a better summary and not tagged as minor, but I think this edit is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Listing Deportation of the Crimean Tatars in a template without context as a "documented instance of genocide" in Wikipedia voice actually contradicts the bulk content of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars article itself. The edit is not a denial of deportations or deaths (what you seem to imply), it seems to be a refusal to characterize it as genocide in Wikipedia voice, which is in line with the current content of the main article. MarioGom (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Des Vallee,
With regards to this: He clearly denies the Tatar genocide here and tags that edit as "minor" something which is a clear violation, he denies the Holodomor and mass atrocities never happened here as you wouldn't add "accused" to proven killings. He goes and supports Chinese backed conspiracy theories that, Adrian Zen created a narrative of genocide of the Uyghur minority, something which is false as reports prior detail extreme abuse. It was a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and was warned for it, that template is based around consensus something which was clearly for calling it a genocide. The decision was to keep it as a genocide. The removal of the template was quickly reverted, and the decision was to keep it as a genocide. BunnyyHop also denies it as cultural genocide as well, a complete fringe theory so he both denies both the Tatar genocide as both a genocide or a cultural genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment On the first edit, I challenge you to find a misused minor edit after this warning. On the second one, the source is only related to the Holodomor, but China and Poland were also there, so I changed it to accuse (due to this and the fact that modern scholarship leans to not-genocide). However, this was before I had come across MOS. Accuse was added to «Totalitarianism» due to it being a category which is becoming defunct within academia. On China, literally, who wrote this article? This is literally basic attribution to comply with WP:NPOV, although I assume the other articles are a little out of touch there. Not even the sources report it as true, the BBC, which quotes an article where Zenz states stuff, has the title «Xinjiang cotton sparks concern over 'forced labour' claims». On the Tatar, one simply has to look at the source. The article is about Ukraine, yet there's not even a single mention of Tatar populations. And even then - cultural genocide is used only in the title and in «Western misperceptions of Ukraine in the past have had grave policy consequences by actually legitimating the repression, Russification, semanticide and cultural genocide of non-Russian peoples with an ensuing loss of millions of lives...». Apparently the OCR of the article is not the best, Tatars are mentioned twice - «In 1223,the Tatars attacked Russia» and «[...] waves of Celts, Huns, Goths, Arabs, Vikings and Tatars who created the political and cultural map of Europe. The year 988 AD marked the [...]». Furthermore, the Crimean peninsula was part of the Russian Empire since 1783, and when the USSR was founded it became an autonomous republic within the RSFSR. Only in 1954 it was given to the UkSSR BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I have to note that a large number of votes calling for a ban are directly linked to content (again) rather than behaviour. I feel Des Vallee has made their point and is in fact repeating it multiple times and hence is requested to step back. I feel WP:Boomerang might be necessary in this case since DV is equally guilty of the issues they accuse BH of. Vikram Vincent 05:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other peoples' "votes". And no whataboutism here nor baseless accusations of "the OP is just as bad". The evidence above is clear and can be evaluated by uninvolved editors just fine. Crossroads -talk- 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am looking at the reasons being given and it is a fair observation. Also there is no whataboutism involved but another observation that both editors are equally involved which is why WP:DR is a better alternative than the drama board. Vikram Vincent 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't a dispute for DR, this is a report about one editor's behavior across numerous articles. Crossroads -talk- 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Vincentvikram Fair enough, I glad we can agree at least that BunnyyHop is a disruptive editor. If you want to provide diffs of me doing the same thing as BunnyyHop that's fair, please provide them. Wikipedia also isn't a democracy and it's hard to see BunnyyHop's actions as other then apologia for Stalinist massacres, and trying to push their POV. All edits provided have been reverted because they all break Wikipedia's rules, BunnyyHop simply has a long pattern of them. BunnyyHop has been warned about this and most people here can agree he clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Des Vallee (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is about finding healthy solutions to a problem. Des Vallee Your huge amount of text in this entire thread is problematic which is why I have requested to stop. Vikram Vincent 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram He won't change. Other administrators have tried to change BunnyyHop's behavior, it won't stop because BunnyyHop has been warned so many times. He was given so many opportunities to change his behavior. He isn't going to stop making these disruptive edits because he clearly is aware his edits have been disruptive, pretty much every editor who has ever edited with BunnyyHop can attest to him being a POV pusher. Des Vallee (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment - BunnyyHop's personal views are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm always disturbed to see editors proposing that another editor should be sanctioned simply for holding, or being perceived to hold, a certain 'distasteful' political viewpoint. If Bunnyyhop refuses to adhere to policy as reflected directly through his edits, despite repeated warnings, then sanctions are most definitely appropriate and needed for the good of the encyclopedia. Attempts to amplify an editor's alleged misdeeds by applying moral guilt by association because they're aligned with a particular ideology or political figure, is nothing but a slippery slope that encourages disturbing political and moral purity tests among editors. RandomGnome (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is precedent for extreme political views leading to a ban: WP:NONAZIS. Nonetheless, the evidence above is clear that the ban is warranted regardless of the editor's personal views. Crossroads -talk- 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- While I am sympathetic to the spirit of WP:NONAZIS because I think it's a genuine effort to combat blatant racism, it's an essay and not official policy. The essay itself points to the enormity of the 'gray area' over claims of extremism, by carefully including the caveat that claims of racism should not be made lightly or misused as a trump card to sanction editors over content disputes. Applying NONAZIS to BunnyyHop by attempting to create a moral equivalency to his 'extreme political views' and using that argument as a cudgel is inappropriate, and equates to the slippery slope I mentioned earlier. RandomGnome (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support as the user is clearly NOTHERE (at least partially)
, and banish to Uncyclopedia, per Des Vallee. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 23:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I have added Des Vallee logs to the top of the page as they have already been blocked on three occassions for edit warring on other pages and the complaint has to be taken with that in mind. Vikram Vincent 06:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Des Vallee part in this wall of text drama should be reviewed by the closing admins. // Timothy :: talk 07:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose admin action against Des Vallee (although admins can look at their contribs of course; not real clear what's being "voted" on here). "Walls of text" is not a real offense or at all equal to Bunnyyhop's disruption, and prejudging someone or their report at all based on their past failings is just wrong. Crossroads -talk- 07:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- TimothyBlue I am fine can review my edits by admins, so I support it in that sense. If you would like to go through my contributions and find disruptive edits by all means go ahead.
- Crossroads It is a review, not an action. If you can find any disruptive edits like BunnyyHop please go ahead. I am perfectly fine with being reviewed. Des Vallee (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Des Vallee Two editors have now put that up now. please do not remove your log link from above. We can discuss your approach within this thread itself. No need to start another thread with so much text again. Vikram Vincent 07:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram It seems like you are the one pushing this. However could you provide diffs to this? You keep stating this with no actual examples. Provide examples or even an example or stop stating something without diffs. Des Vallee (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to point out that Des Vallee is trying to brow beat me by going though my edit history and questioning me on my talk page and an article page. Vikram Vincent 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram No, great in assuming bad faith however. I like going through users history and saw you had a near identical name to article in question that's it. As stated I don't know anything on that article and as stated just I simply asked a question. Des Vallee (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Des Vallee Who are the other editors from this thread you have questioned about their edit? Vikram Vincent 08:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram Ok then please provide a diff. You keep stating this without a diff, provide some evidence or an example. Des Vallee (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Des Vallee if I am the only editor, who opposed your proposal, whose edit history you checked out and then commented, then cease your behaviour at once! Vikram Vincent 08:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram Ok then please provide a diff. You keep stating this without a diff, provide some evidence or an example. Des Vallee (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Des Vallee Who are the other editors from this thread you have questioned about their edit? Vikram Vincent 08:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Des Vallee your conduct in the articles can be examined, and so can your conduct here. You have been a disruption in this thread, and you have helped BunnyHop obscure the central issue of this thread - their POV and fringe pushing - in endless walls of text. You've more than earned a topic ban from ANI for DE; others can examine your contributions to pages related to this issue and will see the same type of behavior, endless walls of text that amount to DE because they hinder conversations, not help them.
- This back and forth, tit for tat, wall of text needs to stop. // Timothy :: talk 08:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- TimothyBlue Can you provide a diff towards this? I rarely edit on pages relating to Marxism-Leninism. Can you provide a diff towards the disruptive editing? I won't post much here anymore. I also have a solution for walls of text. Des Vallee (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Des Vallee, listen to Timothy. Even reporters have no immunity, regardless an editor spotted you and a few who is opposing sanctions agains Bunnyhoop are supporting, just let it go. The reviewing admin likely will check everything, so you don't have to be afraid or desperately prove your innocence, do not feed anyone to draw away the attention of the real issue of this thread. For every neutral reviewer is clear there have been serious problems with Bunnyhoop since his/her appearance in WP, and of course you do not even approach such problems like the reported user. I think Timothy has been a bit harsh with you in his previous comment, but if he wanted to scare you :), the earlier the better. Just drop the stick, and let admins wo work, they have already enough information. I can assure/reinforce anyway, shall anything you did in the past and anyone blame for you that for now, I consider you are recently a decent, collaborative editor, at least this is my experience in the recent months. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC))
- Comment Des Vallee, I will double back by saying listen to KIENGIR. I was harsh in my tone, and I apologize. I agree with KIENGIR, you are a good, collaborative editor. One thing I have learned at ANI and on talk is use the minimum number of words possible to make your point; once made let the quality of your arguement, not your tenacity and word count, make the point. // Timothy :: talk 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support and also support restriction for anyone engaged with the BunnyHop in any similar conduct, should it exist. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 04:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Additional information: See [170] 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)
Disruption from Japan IP range – British films listed as American
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP range Special:Contributions/240F:66:E6E3:1:0:0:0:0/64 from the outskirts of Tokyo has been causing problems in film articles by identifying far too many films as being American made. For instance, the film The Third Man was listed by this person as coming from the American production company Vanguard,[171] with a reference to AFI, but AFI says the film was made solely by London Films in the UK.[172] I was first alerted to this IP range after seeing a bunch of James Bond films marked as American. The problematic editing behavior has been going on for 14 months under this range, starting with this edit. Can we do something about this person? Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Binksternet - I've blocked the /64 IPv6 range for one week. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Lord Belbury Again
- 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)
- (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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- As I said, institutionally biased...Justgravy (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. Sincethese [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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You still haven't said what guidelines. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
Tendentious and deceptive editing
- Kalariwarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Account is involved with deceptive editing with misleading edit summaries for pushing POV and original research and removing unfixed tags all in guise of copy-editing and fixing technical issues.
- Kalaripayattu diff1 Adding WP:OR in the guise of
Refined wording, fixed a LOT of grammar errors
; note that this on a article subjected to regular content disputes. - Kalaripayattu diff2 More disputable OR in Southern style section
- Kalaripayattu diff3 More OR at same section
- Kalaripayattu diff4 Adds a WP:FAKE reference that does not cite any of that OR
- Kalaripayattu diff5 Removed peacock template with a deceptive edit summary, at this point, article has peacock terms such as "held in high regards", "elegant", "heavy emphasis", and he himself would add peacock terms in his future edits
- Kalaripayattu diff6 Similar, removed refimprove template without fixing the issue, leaving the article with unsourced/OR and poorly sourced.
- Kalaripayattu diff7 Addition of disputable OR under the same sub-section where he removed refimprove tag
- Kalaripayattu diff8 Same person who removed peacock and refimprove template add peacock "high regard" and OR.
- Kalaripayattu diff9 More OR
- Kalaripayattu diff10 More OR with deceptive edit summary
- Kalaripayattu diff11 OR on the lead, also peacock "draws heavily"
- Kalaripayattu diff12 Altered content with deceptive edit summary
more accurately worded source info. Also fixed grammar
(there's no source at all) - Kalaripayattu diff13 Bypassing sourcing issue by removing page needed tags in the guise of
fixed broken links
- Kalaripayattu diff14 More deceptive
fixed broken link
, this time bypassing citation needed issues - Kalaripayattu diff15
Removed broken link
, more template vandalism - Kalaripayattu diff16 More OR
- Kalaripayattu diff17 More template vandalism with deceptive edit summary
- Kalaripayattu diff18 Here, User:Arjayay clearly points WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, but still reverts it ignoring policy (Kalaripayattu diff19)
- Kalaripayattu diff20 Indic script again in infobox
- Kalaripayattu diff21 Adds "heavily influenced" another peacock
- Kalaripayattu diff22 This was never "moved"
- Kalaripayattu diff23 Adds peacock "great deal of"
- Battle cry diff1 Misleading and territorial vandalism, what HE changed has no evidence. This is one of his several attempts on different articles to remove Tamil cultural influence in Kerala (Kerala was part of old Tamilakam)
- Battle cry diff2 Adds OR
- Tamil literature diff1 More territorial vandalism, "established fact" based on his OR
- Tamils diff1 Changing a region is
more accurate wording
- Tamil nationalism diff1 Same again, vandalism with misleading edit summary -
more accurate wording
by changing a territory itself, highly disputable change. - Tamil nationalism diff2 A disputable OR
- Belly dance diff1 Changing an entire region is
refined wording
- Martial arts diff1 Addition of considerable OR
- History of vegetarianism diff1 More territorial tampering with misleading edit summary. This edit made it look like the early records are from "India alone".
- History of vegetarianism diff2 Peacock "widely considered"
- Anti-miscegenation law diff1 A very disputable OR
- Kalaripayattu diff24 More peacock "great significance"
- Kalaripayattu diff25 More template vandalism, removed page needed and citation needed without fixing it.
- Kalaripayattu diff26 More unfixed template removal
- Kalaripayattu diff27 WP:FAKE source, it does not cite any of the claims
I am reporting this not as a content issue but as behavioral issue of the editor. The user follows "his way or the highway" and is clearly biased. This is tendentious editing and does treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but as a space to promote his own views. 157.46.176.171 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- With respect, most of those edits occurred a while back, when I was less familiar with Wikipedia’s policies as I am now, especially those regarding unfixed tags, sourcing, MOS, consensus building, peacocks, puffery, proper edit summaries and other policies. I’m still learning about them, and have recently begun going through some more formalized Wikipedia instruction on different policies and procedures. As such, I have been working to correct those prior shortcomings as I learn. As far as I am aware, my edits and rewordings were done in order to better clarify or specify certain areas, regions on concepts, and not to really push a POV.
- Your primary complaint appears to be that I’m “removing unfixed tags” and having a “my way or the highway” approach, but as far as I know, I have not removed any tags on a page in a malicious fashion, nor have I made any unexplained reverts recently without explaining why I was doing it, especially if the reason for it was explained. If you believe that this was the case, then I’d have to say it was more of an accident or out of ignorance of policy rather than enforcing a “my way or the highway,” approach. For instance, I got into a small dispute with Arjayay a while back about usage of Indic Scripts that you mentioned above. I initially included an Indic script after seeing it used in other pages about Indian cultural arts, but I later learned about the policy and left it alone when he removed it again. Also, I do not believe that your accusation of me providing a WP:FAKE source is true. The source you mentioned states that: “Thayil is currently teaching several classes in Merrylands and Penrith, Sydney: traditional Vadakkan Kalari—yoga-like moves, develops flexibility, speed and coordination; traditional Thekkan Kalari—more combat-oriented; hybrid Combat Kalari—based on realistic self-defence situations.” I do not believe that accusation makes any sense. I get the feeling that you may not have looked through the article properly, or maybe there was an issue with the link.
- You also claim that I’m trying to dismiss Tamil influence from Kerala, but I’m afraid I disagree. In fact, I was trying to eliminate biases from Tamil pages towards southern India (including Kerala) as a whole. Kerala and Tamil Nadu are two separate regions of India. “Tamil Nadu” does NOT equal “Kerala,” nor does it equal the entirety of “southern India.” While Tamils are definitely part of India’s (particularly the southern region) history and have definitely had an influence on the region, they are hardly the only culture there. Tamil Nadu has absolutely had an influence on Kerala, especially since modern day Kerala made up most of the ancient Chera Kingdom. Tamils have also had an impact on many other regions of southern India, but many people, especially Tamil nationalists, tend to gloss this all over by claiming that everything in southern India is instantly and inherently Tamil simply because it occurred in the southern region of India. This is factually incorrect, and totally dismisses the cultures, views and actions of other cultural groups in southern India. In fact, this itself is a neutrality issue which is seen on many Indian pages. Many claims made on pages like Tamil nationalism portray Tamil notions, cultural values and movements to somehow be universal throughout southern India, or even India as a whole, when this is not the case. Tamil people and culture, along with most Tamil nationalist activities, are based in Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka, which is why in my edits, I referred to it as such. In the page, if I remember correctly, it tries to portray Tamil nationalism as a large scale affair throughout southern India, when in reality, it is centered to Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, the main areas where Tamil language and culture are adhered to.
- Again, I apologize for any mistakes I’ve made while editing in the past, and I assure you that they were made in good faith. As I said above, I’m currently receiving more formalized training in Wikipedia usage and editing to improve upon all this, but I do not agree with the accusation of me using Wikipedia to “promote my own views” or that my edits were used to convey any specific bias. As far as I know, most of my more recent edits are not made with the same lack of understanding as the ones you mentioned above (many of which happened several months, if not a year ago) after going through my entire editing history. That being said, I apologize if I have made any mistakes, as it was not my intention to break any policies or rules, as I’m still learning about policies and guidelines. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not all your edits are old, there are recent edits too. You did removed unfixed tags even recently (Dec 22). This is indeed WP:FAKE; except for a minor part that says southern style is more combative and northern focus on flexibility (this is not challengeable as its already sourced in the History section with [173]) it does not cite the main content the large piece of OR you added earlier. You also said in the talk page that you were going to remove the OR tag and other tags with this revision on, which also gives the impression that you have no plans to source the OR and that the above reference was attached to deceive that the whole content above is sourced. You still haven't removed the OR content even after this report.
- You claim the Tamils are biased (they can also claim the same about you). This is exactly the problem, you are claiming, tweaking and adding content based on your own original research, disregarding WP:V and WP:OR. If you change a content you need to change the source too (disputable changes may require discussion first) and adding content require sourcing, otherwise, it's called OR and can constitute POV/bias.--157.46.176.226 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect, only the last few diffs you’ve posted are actually new (occurred in the last month or so). The vast majority occurred months ago, when I was not at all familiar with most Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In fact, I’m still receiving formalized training to overcome that. That being said, I can see where I made my mistake and why you thought my template removals there might have been malicious. I removed those templates in an effort to clean up the article, and believed that the sourcing issues would be addressed here.
- After reading up on policies of template removal, I can see where I made a mistake in that judgement and why it would be perceived as malicious POV pushing. I’ll refrain from cleaning up those tags in the future unless I have a proper fix for said tags or it’s specifically discussed in the talk page.
- Also, I can understand where you’re coming from with the idea of the source being WP:FAKE. As the source stated, southern Kalari is more combative in nature. I merely expanded on this point with what I believed was a more apt description, which was also in keeping with other information in the article, rather than maliciously trying to fake a source. That being said, I do not see anything grossly inaccurate in the description I provided. Most combat oriented martial arts place emphasis on the same things I mentioned in the description. With respect, I understand the way you feel on the matter, and am open to changing that description if you wish, but I do feel like you’re making a far bigger deal out of it than it actually is.
- You claim that I was “going to remove the tags on the page with this revision on, which also gives the impression that I had no plans to source the information and that the above reference was attached to deceive that the whole content above is sourced.”
- This is clearly not true from my response here, in which I clearly state:
- ”If there are no other objections, I’ll remove the tags on the page.”
- After which, I clearly left the page alone while I waited for any objections to appear, which is exactly when you voiced your objections. I pinged two other, established, more experienced users with substantial experience editing the page/participating in the talk page discussions of the page, multiple times to get their opinion on the matter and look through what I had done. One of them, Outlander07, replied with his opinion on the matter, and we discussed some of the issues I had tried to address.
- If I had wanted to maliciously push an, as you call it, “my way or the highway” approach, I would have simply removed the tags without any concern for the views of other editors on the matter and been on my way, but I didn’t.
- I left the talk page with an open ended response, asking if there were any other objections and awaited other opinions and input from others. I planned to wait a few days, after which, if there were no other objections, I would have removed the tags. It was during this waiting period that you voiced your objections on the page, and upon you doing so, I did not remove the tags.
- In short, I awaited the building of a consensus, which is exactly what Wikipedia policies states to do prior to removing tags on a page. While I admit that I didn’t realize this applies to in-line tags as well, I did not remove any of the main tags on the page, which was the goal of the discussion. As for the in-line tags, I’ll be happy to put the ones I removed back in again, as I can understand why that would be perceived the way it is. With all due respect, I feel like most of this discussion has been blown way out of proportion, and is largely based on misunderstandings, good faith edits and inexperience on my part more than anything else.
- You also say that I “claim that Tamils are biased.” I would respectfully ask that you read my response again. I never said that Tamils were biased.
- I said that Tamil nationalists were biased.
- A quick look at a number of Indian (especially southern Indian) cultural, historical or political pages can tell you as much. Many of them are rife with Tamil nationalist vandals on anonymous IP’s claiming that every cultural aspect of Indian (southern India in particular) is inherently Tamil in origin.
- Speaking out against these individuals can maintain a WP:NPOV. Personally, I have nothing but respect for Tamil people and their culture, and will be the first to acknowledge their contributions to Indian civilization as a whole (including Kerala). However, claiming that everything in India (especially southern India) is inherently Tamil (as Tamil nationalists have done), is not only factually incorrect, but is also a violation of WP:NPOV, and quite disrespectful of other cultures in India in terms of their views, contributions and actions. Claims that state that Tamil Nationalism occurs “all throughout southern India” don’t appear to be true, and claims that it does, in my humble opinion, might very well fall under WP:FRINGE, as the movement is not known to have any substantial interest or following beyond Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka, the primary two regions where Tamil people, culture and language reside.
- As I said in my previous response, the edits made in regards to Tamil pages were done a long time ago, when I was less familiar with Wikipedia policies than I am now. I’m still learning about said policies, and I think I can safely say that I’m getting a better grasp of them as I receive more training, even if I do make mistakes every now and then. Just as I said before, I apologize for any mistakes I made back then regarding sourcing and discussion, but I do still stand on the the fact that I was trying to reject claims made by nationalists and others who wish to push their political views on this site, and was trying to portray them in a more accurate light with respect to which regions the occurrences, events or movements happened in. Making claims that other regions outside of Tamil Nadu and Northern Sri Lanka supported Tamil nationalist movements is not only untrue, but could be seen as an attempt to push a nationalist, not at all neutral idea, that the movement is much more widespread than it actually is. Tamils have a long history, and have made a number of contributions to India’s culture as a whole, but claiming that Tamil movements are larger than they are, or that more people are affiliated with Tamil culture than historical evidence can provide, is not correct, and the presentation of such an idea on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:NPOV and something I cannot support.
- In truth, this entire discussion feels like a result of misunderstandings, past (and to an extent current) inexperience on my part, and a misinterpretation of the intent behind my edits on your part. I kind of feel like this entire thing is more suited to a talk page than WP:ANI, but it is what it is. I will defer to the judgement of the administrator who views this report, and this conversation, as to what to do, as I’ve mostly said my piece on the matter. Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Two problematic accounts with identical behavior
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- BillyGene100 (talk · contribs)
- OscarrrrMmm (talk · contribs)
I came across edits by BillyGene this afternoon, and found an inclination toward copyright violation and using non reliable sources (other Wikipedia articles, fansites). Then I noticed an overlap with Oscar; same pattern of edit summaries, same long term issues with editing, as can be seen at the talk pages. I don't know whether a second account was developed for innocent purposes or evasively, but after many months, both indicate an unwillingness to follow some basic guidelines. At best, this looks like WP:CIR, compounded by stubbornness. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- These accounts are
Confirmed to one another. Indefinitely blocking and tagging both accounts... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Oshwah. Happy new year, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- You bet, and a happy new year to you as well, Bob! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Oshwah. Happy new year, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by 2601:247:4203:9F10:6077:A89C:317:8883
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 2601:247:4203:9F10:6077:A89C:317:8883 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This IP editor keeps re-adding a certain record producer to the list of notable people at Peoria, Illinois. This Donald Smith does not have a Wikipedia page and the editor refuses to provide a reliable source establishing notability, but instead keeps insisting that the person's entry on Discogs suffices, even after having been explained why it doesn't.
- Started doing this from this specific IP in October 2019 (with this edit), then again in February (this edit), but did not receive any warnings yet and Donald Smith eventually remained in the Peoria article for a while.
- Then started in June 2020 to add unsourced material to The Who discography, edit warring to keep the material in while refusing to provide sources (for example, here and here, also using this IP). Gave up on this after receiving multiple warnings from User:Hzh.
- In July 2020, Donald Smith was removed from Peoria and the editor started re-adding it again, with edit summaries such as "you need to look it up or quit posting here!". Was then warned and informed about conflicts of interest by User:Closeapple, but no further action was taken and Donald Smith again remained in the article for a while.
- Later removed citation needed and disambiguation needed tags (the latter because they keep adding a link to the disambiguation page Donald Smith) with this edit.
- Then in December, I came across the Peoria article and removed Donald Smith. This was reverted by the IP editor, and after I reverted that edit, the editor posted on my talk page, saying "I don't think you know enough about Peoria IL or the people to be making changes." I explained WP:N, WP:RS and why Discogs does not suffice. After the editor re-added the material and responded that "Lists from Discogs are industry standard" (also including the personal attack "I understand you are trying to earn stars and praise"), I took care to explain why Discogs is not an RS, linking to Discog's entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The response was a rant including more ad hominems ("Are you an American? Would you know anything of which you are editing?") and disregard for the policies I had been citing, further exemplified by this edit summary saying "YES IT IS" in response to "Discogs is not a reliable source". I warned them a final time yesterday, only to find this edit today.
At this point I think it is safe to say that this editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and this disruptive editing will not stop unless action is taken. Lennart97 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Done I have blocked 2601:247:4203:9F10:0:0:0:0/64 from the article and its talkpage, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Black Kite - I'd consider lowering this from indefinite to maybe 5 years or another definitive time. IPs can change hands, and we should avoid indefinitely blocking IPs at all - even with partial blocks. Can we consider lowering this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oshwah, Am I reading correctly that this is a range block? If so, the time should be much shorter. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick - Yes, it's a block on the IPv6 /64 range. This block shouldn't be indefinite. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Black Kite - I've lowered the partial block duration from indefinite to three years. With IP blocks, they should expire at some point in time due to IP addresses usually being dynamic and changing hands over time. If you object to this, please let me know as soon as possible and we can discuss it. I didn't see that you were online, so I wanted to change it so that this wasn't forgotten about and expired into the archives. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, no problem. I don't know why I didn't make it 3 years in the first place, as I never block IPs indefinitely usually. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oshwah, Am I reading correctly that this is a range block? If so, the time should be much shorter. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Black Kite - I'd consider lowering this from indefinite to maybe 5 years or another definitive time. IPs can change hands, and we should avoid indefinitely blocking IPs at all - even with partial blocks. Can we consider lowering this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and edit warring by User:D4rkeRR9
- 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.[174] 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.[175][176] 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)
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)
- They are now edit warring on my talk page.[177][178][179][180] @Oshwah: Could you please put a stop to this madness? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Oshwah: Thank you very much. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Oshwah: Thank you very much. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- They are now edit warring on my talk page.[177][178][179][180] @Oshwah: Could you please put a stop to this madness? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)- @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)- 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)
- @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 "
- @Nil Einne: Since this is news to me and WP:BLANKING says:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
__________
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)
Soumya-8974, again
- 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)
- 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 overwhelming
lyexperience 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thirded. This gives me further doubt the user is here to build an encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
Please restore a deleted draft
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please restore Draft:Scarlet Sofia Spencer, I would like to Improve it. Thanks --154.158.130.94 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Requests like this are better handled at WP:REFUND. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Long term vandalism at Fantasmic!, Tom and Jerry and multiple disruptive accounts
- Fantasmic! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Tom and Jerry feature films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MjImax (talk · contribs)
- 108.34.186.165 (talk · contribs)
- 100.40.51.246 (talk · contribs)
- 100.40.20.198 (talk · contribs)
Persistent addition of unsourced content and/or vandalism from Westerly. My experience is that disruption is so endemic to Disney and toon articles that this may just scratch the surface. My concerns are two-fold; the first is cleaning out the articles, particularly the Fantasmic, which is laden with unsourced content and trivia; we don't know what's fact and what's fiction, with cast names being changed seemingly every edit. I'm happy to get started, but know that an IP engaged in mass deletion sends up red flags for some. The second order of business involves appropriate sanctions for the vandals. One account accrues a few warnings, and moves to another. I don't know if range blocks are practical. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and locking the damn thing after the dross is removed. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Not here except to promote a band from Ohio
- Memeschool716 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
An IP from Ohio and a new user have been promoting their non-notable band from Ohio. (I don't want to give the band more eyeballs by naming them here, but they have a bandcamp webpage which says they are from the same place in Ohio as the IP address.) The person told me to perform fellatio on him, so of course we're in WP:NPA territory now, aside from violating WP:MULTIPLE to edit war the same band name[181][182] into the post-rock article. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems like WP:No one cares about your garage band case. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Memeschool716 needs to be blocked for violating WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:PROMO and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Can we have some action on this, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've indeffed the account as a clear WP:NOTHERE case. It looks like the IP had already been blocked but it has since expired. --Kinu t/c 10:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Memeschool716 needs to be blocked for violating WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:PROMO and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Can we have some action on this, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Pentagon UFO videos fraudulent editing
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'd just like to leave a diff here of the level of discourse BigBaby23 has been bringing to related articles: [183]. - MrOllie (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- And you should read WP:FRINGE, which applies here in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Just a notice that about WP:RSN#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Lukewin
- Lukewin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Could an administrator please look into Special:Contributions/Lukewin? They seem to rapidly editing many articles to change names and article titles. This includes at least one copy paste move [184] that I repaired. They quickly removed my message to them without comment [185], which is troubling because it was their second warning on cp move and appears they may not be reading. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrator note I don't have time to look at this in depth, but to any passing admins, note that Lukewin is on a PROD spree. Look for the section of their edit history with the "(+277)"s as they seem to be using the same PROD language for most. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- They are PRODing both articles and redirects, which is a head scratcher [186][187] ☆ Bri (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, (non-admin note) it seems to be complaining about "being a beauty queen doesn't make the subject notable." Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 06:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, he added the "beauty queen" PROD on Pura Villanueva Kalaw and Trinidad Legarda, neither of whom were beauty queens, as two examples I noticed tonight. Glad to find this discussion here to confirm my assumption that it was some kind of spree.Penny Richards (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- They are also not paying attention to what they are doing since they added a prod to Jeremy Glinoga which had changed into a redirect last November.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Penny Richards (talk) just to inform, Pura Villanueva Kalaw is a beauty queen. She became the first "Queen of the Manila Carnival"[1] which is one of the oldest pageants in the Philippines.[2] Trinidad Legarda is also a beauty queen. She was the Queen of the Manila Carnival in 1924.[3] Please read bits of information on their article before saying such. ~ Lukewin — Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Didn’t you read the articles yourself, Lukewin? These two women were known for things other than beauty pageants. One received a Presidential Medal for her work on behalf of women's rights in the Philippines, the other was an Ambassador for the country. Poor choices for prods. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Replying to @Malcolmxl5: That's why I reverted the edits because of the honest mistake. ~ Lukewin — Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The mistake should have been avoided in the first place by carefully checking the article before attaching a deletion tag. Also I have further concerns about your PRODs - how long an article has been a stub is very much not a reason to propose deletion.. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Replying to @Malcolmxl5: That's why I reverted the edits because of the honest mistake. ~ Lukewin — Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Didn’t you read the articles yourself, Lukewin? These two women were known for things other than beauty pageants. One received a Presidential Medal for her work on behalf of women's rights in the Philippines, the other was an Ambassador for the country. Poor choices for prods. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Penny Richards (talk) just to inform, Pura Villanueva Kalaw is a beauty queen. She became the first "Queen of the Manila Carnival"[1] which is one of the oldest pageants in the Philippines.[2] Trinidad Legarda is also a beauty queen. She was the Queen of the Manila Carnival in 1924.[3] Please read bits of information on their article before saying such. ~ Lukewin — Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- They are also not paying attention to what they are doing since they added a prod to Jeremy Glinoga which had changed into a redirect last November.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, he added the "beauty queen" PROD on Pura Villanueva Kalaw and Trinidad Legarda, neither of whom were beauty queens, as two examples I noticed tonight. Glad to find this discussion here to confirm my assumption that it was some kind of spree.Penny Richards (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am curious. This may not be the correct place to ask (I am still finding my way around), but Lukewin added a signature file that he claimed was licenced with this edit. The image file claims that the signature is a public domain image because "This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.". In what way is a signature "common property" and of "no original authorship"? The whole point of a signature that it is not only original but certainly unique. This may not be Lukewin's fault as the file was uploaded by someone else who claimed PD. CliveDunford (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably public domain even though it has the wrong file tag. See c:COM:SIG ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. It's very enlightening - and interesting. CliveDunford (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Alex R. Castro, "1908, Queen of the Orient, Pura Garcia Villanueva, part 1" Manila Carnivals, 1908–39: A Pictorial History of the "Greatest Annual Event in the Orient" (11 August 2008).
- ^ Ocampo, Ambeth R. "The Philippines' first beauty queen". Retrieved 2021-01-04.
- ^ Alex R. Castro, "1924, Queen of the Manila Carnival, Trinidad Rodriguez Fernandez" Manila Carnivals, 1908-1939: A Pictorial History of the "Greatest Event in the Orient" (8 January 2009).
Viewmont Viking has deleted my change .I suspect theological bias
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
Nicholas Alahverdian
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Purple_arrow_right.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_right.svg.png)
Wrong film facts from Leicester, previously Coventry
Leicester IP range has been changing to wrong facts in several film articles. Previous disruption of the same sort was seen from the Coventry range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:2264:7E00:0:0:0:0/64.[188] Current targets are Tom & Jerry (2021 film) and The Banana Splits Movie.
Nothing constructive from this person, so a rangeblock seems apt. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by 51.235.142.21/16
Can someone please do something about this IP range? Their so-called "Typo fixing" (content removal) has been going on for a while now. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it helps to know, I think this IP is also a part of it: 94.98.255.228. R Prazeres (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Gérard Karsenty
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some help, please. persistent re-introduction of rather promotional content, mostly copied (with quotes) from the subject's faculty profile. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've reverted and revdel'd the copyrighted content, and protected the page (2 days). Thanks for bringing this to attention! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Bushranger, thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Legal threat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Flexsteel81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User:Flexsteel81 just posted on legal threat against Wikipedia on the article Michael Flynn, which has been reverted. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NLT block applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Loves Woolf1882
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Loves Woolf1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Truth gatekeeper)
A topic ban on Ethiopia-related topics, especially Tigray conflict, Mai Kadra massacre, Awol Allo, Abiy Ahmed, should be considered for this user on the grounds that other users need an excessive amount of patience in order to obtain editing consensus and have already been discouraged from editing. This editor has provided some references and POVs (pro-TPLF, anti-Abiy Ahmed, anti-ENDF) that were absent from these pages. So a topic ban to protect other editors and to protect the consistency of content with Wikipedia guidelines should be weighed against the user's positive role in diversifying the POVs in the articles. There are currently discretionary sanctions on Horn of Africa articles.
Past editing behaviour (2019):
- Concerns in early 2019: WP:OVERLINK; POV editing; difficulty in writing article text matching the sources; difficulty in separating self-declared POV from editorial choices; WP:OR; adding massive amounts of material to talk pages that make it difficult to focus and resolve specific points; edit war; Doug Weller and Drmies lost patience, and Doug titled one section as Timesink;
- Blocked; created a sockpuppet to avoid the block; requested unblocking unsuccessfully in March 2019; unblocked on 9 December 2020.
Recent editing behaviour (Dec 2020). Given the complex nature of editing Tigray conflict (lots of text to be consense on), I tried to obtain consensus in simpler cases.
- Tigray conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The current state of the talk page is difficult for any editor to work through because of the massive amounts of quotes and text that include errors and distract from specific editing.
- The current POV tag on Tigray conflict was posted by Jogarz1921 in response to edits to the lead by Loves_Woolf1882. The corresponding talk page section describing the lead as too pro-TPLF led to a response by Loves_Woolf1882 with a long list of points and a list of references with big quotes, in which Loves_Woolf1882 complained that the article was not sufficiently pro-TPLF.
- Small text example: In this talk page response, Loves_Woolf1882 has failed to understand that while adding quotes around "invaders" matches the source, the effect in the infobox gives the impression that Wikipedia is pro-TPLF. S/he insists on keeping "invaders".
- Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (simpler article)
- Loves_Woolf1882 inserted a POV tag on Mai Kadra massacre, which (prior to his/her involvement) gave as much weight to news media interviews with refugees (anti-ENDF) as to preliminary enquiries by human rights organisations (AI, EHRC); the user gave a list of 11 references among which 5 failed to support the claim of new Mai-Kadra-massacre anti-ENDF sources; 1 supported the claim; 4 were video/audio sources; 1 source was redundant. Loves_Woolf1882 then gave massive quotes from the same sources, and added a 12th source. S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline. S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that
TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows
; and still posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors. - This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims, per the sources, on the grounds that one source (Amnesty) talked about a "possibility"; and inserted original research "
thoug[h] there is not ethnic group called Welkait-
";
- Loves_Woolf1882 inserted a POV tag on Mai Kadra massacre, which (prior to his/her involvement) gave as much weight to news media interviews with refugees (anti-ENDF) as to preliminary enquiries by human rights organisations (AI, EHRC); the user gave a list of 11 references among which 5 failed to support the claim of new Mai-Kadra-massacre anti-ENDF sources; 1 supported the claim; 4 were video/audio sources; 1 source was redundant. Loves_Woolf1882 then gave massive quotes from the same sources, and added a 12th source. S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline. S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that
- Awol Allo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (another simple case):
- I created the Awol Allo article so that this notable living person, currently anti-Abiy, could have an NPOVed and properly sourced article. The current talk page shows how much work it was to try to convince Loves_Woolf1882 about WP:OVERCITE and WP:SYNTH. The current compromise on one issue is that we have: "
Awol stated in international media outlets like Al Jazeera, CNN and the BBC criticising what he saw as Abiy's growing authoritarianism, the repression of journalists and political dissidents in Ethiopia.[2] (For claims of growing authoritarianism under Abiy in 2020, see: [4][5][6][7][8][9])
" in the article text. To avoid WP:OWN and an endless talk page argument, it would be risky for me to delete "(For claims of growing authoritarianism under Abiy in 2020, see: [4][5][6][7][8][9])
". See also this WP:OVERCITE problem in the same article due to this same user:against those who resisted' Abiy's program.[4][5][6][7][8][9][11]
.
- I created the Awol Allo article so that this notable living person, currently anti-Abiy, could have an NPOVed and properly sourced article. The current talk page shows how much work it was to try to convince Loves_Woolf1882 about WP:OVERCITE and WP:SYNTH. The current compromise on one issue is that we have: "
Obtaining consensus on small amounts of text on very specific issues with few editors on Mai Kadra massacre and Awol Allo was highly time-consuming and some results still violate policy. I feel that many Wikipedians have been discouraged from trying to handle the POV tag at Tigray conflict. I myself feel discouraged from creating related articles that, by their NPOVed, RSed content might quite likely be seen as anti-Abiy (which does not imply pro-TPLF), because I don't want to start off articles that would either become talk-page timesinks or diatribes in terms of content. A topic ban for a reasonable period (one month? six months?) would allow the user to learn WP:NPOV and summarising of content on topics that s/he doesn't feel involved in. All the same, it would be a pity to block a user whose discussions and edits do contain some valid new material. Boud (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that this editor does not seem to be aware of the Horn of Africa DS. But if they were, this could go to WP:AE which is usually a better venue for dealing with this stuff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, I don't think any of the "awareness" criteria were met--unfortunately. But it's a new case, of course, and I had to be reminded that it existed. I just placed the notification on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- As i recall, during the unblock discussion on the other board, at least some mention was made of both the possibility of a topic ban and the issue with the editing attitude the previous name suggested, and i know that Loves Woolf was following it because a number of people who commented in it (including me) were pinged. They are, at the very least, aware of the fact that the Horn of Africa is a problematic area, even if not specifically of the DS. Myself, i suggest we keep this here, where Boud has brought it, and impose a thirty day topic ban; happy days, LindsayHello 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, I don't think any of the "awareness" criteria were met--unfortunately. But it's a new case, of course, and I had to be reminded that it existed. I just placed the notification on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- DS set aside, we can decide here on a topic ban. I favor one, including from the talk pages, and for more than 30 days. Boud has been doing a yeoman's job trying to solve this the collegial way, with no obvious result. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a doctor of things (not as clever as Dr. Biden, but still), so I'll drop my diagnosis here, briefly: this is a topic area that suffers from Wikipedia's slant toward Western, English, etc. topics. There is no large community of editors that can help filter things--content and editors--and so one single person (like Middayexpress) can have a much larger influence on a set of articles than in other topic areas. And there is no quality baseline for many articles, in terms of content, NPOV, and writing quality. These problems will not be solved until Wikipedia manages to attract more knowledgeable editors, both from the geographical area and from academia. Obviously the language (availability of sources in English) is a huge problem also. All the more reason for the WMF to do more to broaden our editorial field. How this can be done, I don't know, but it needs to be done. Our geographical/geopolitical bias really hurts us. Language education all throughout the West, where the majority of editors hail from, would help. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Responses
- * Hi Boud, about my past, I have already discussed this in details with the Administrators before. I don't think it is fair to bring things back after 2 years.
- * Dear Administrators, many of User:Boud's points, I have before responded to on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag), so I please ask you read that first. With all due respect, User:Boud is misrepresenting my points here. My original NPOV complaint points can also be found above it on the same talk page (Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD)
- * User:Boud is saying that adding in quotation "invaders" as exactly stated on the France 24 reference was wrong of me to do (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). However, I first explained on the Tigray conflict page LEAD that "invaders" was the term used by the TPLF(diff), and I put it in quotation at both the LEAD and the Info-box. I assume the Info-box should summarize the content of the page/LEAD. I have responded to this before on Talk:Tigray conflict#POV in the infobox.
- *However, look at the POV infobox on the Metekel conflict page Boud created without a real justification (since no independent media, or even the Ethiopian government reported it as “Metekel conflict”, except for Boud) diff. The Infobox is using an opinion from a foe/opponent of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), in some Addis-Standard magazine “as a fact”. The Infobox does not even put the opinion in quotation, or as a claim. Infobox is presenting the opinion as fact. Boud not only created the page, but also regularly edits it. By the way, no independent media or organization have reported that OLF and/or OLA and/or TPLF are fighting in Metekel, not even the AddisStandard reference Boud used (the magazine only puts it as accusation of their blood enemy- the, the PP government).
- * User:Boud said "S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that 'TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows'". However what Boud said is not correct, this not my POV point (and this “reply” line I once said when he accused me of degrading TPLF, is completely being used out of context, as I'll explain here). My NPOV points are the once I listed the link to above (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag and WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD). I even said this reply line only once to him/her when Boud said I like degraded TPLF by calling them "some party". I clarified this for Boud before on December 26, 2020:- "I believe you first said, I like degraded them by calling TPLF "some party", so I was just trying to undo the degrading". This was the last line on this link discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic ). Boud, first accused me of degrading TPLF by calling them "some party", then when I reply a 2nd sentence to undo my alleged TPLF degrading 1st statement, Boud says my 2nd new sentence is pro-TPLF and he posts it all over the place, including here. Now he is even saying that my this one reply sentence is the justification for my NPOV complaint, however, this is not true, and I have written the two links to the real justification of the NPOV tag I placed.
- * Some of my suggestion are even ani-TPLF. For example, in Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag, I made the point that the Amnesty international report incriminated TPLF (not the Samri youth group). I asked things to be stated as on the Amnesty report (which said "forces loyal to the TPLF"), not Samri, and for the WP:SYNTH to be corrected. Implicating TPLF directly instead of Samri, thereby being anti-TPLF.
- * Boud said "This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims...ethnic group called Welkait...". It is funny that Boud thanked me for correcting his this WP:SYNTH mistake on the talk page before, but now brings it here differently. Please admins read the flowing subsection about this point from the talk page, for fairness sake:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic
- * Boud said "S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline." Again User:Boud, with all due respect I have answered this on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag. You said videos are difficult to check and wanted them (or wanted once that are already) transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. I have understood what the the WP:PUBLISHED guideline says, and it does not exclude the use of videos that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party, like the once I used. They are broadcasted but not yet archived (and it's not a requirement to archive them first). I asked for others (or your) "help" on how to archive them (until I figure out how to do them myself), but they still can be used as is according to WP:CITEVIDEO (since they were broadcasted by a reputable party).
- * Even though Boud says that only 1 of my 15 recommended very credible articles is relevant, that is not true at all. I have before listed the relevant parts from all the 15 articles here:- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Replay to "Sources for perpetrators or victims of Mai Kadra massacre". And I even made a shortlist of only 5 specific once to include in the Mai Kadra massacre Wikipedia page (not counting the videos), as you read on the link above :- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag).
- * All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News , Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets
"inimical journalists"
and"Yellow journalism"
. He does not agree with the addition of any content from the 15 articles because these are outlets which he calls"foreign propaganda outlets"
:- Talk:Tigray conflict#Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason
- * All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News , Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets
- * Boud is misleading, when he says that I am working to give the reporting on the above very credible international media outlets (along the latest position of Amnesty International and the intentional Human Rights Watch) more weight, over what appears to be Boud’s favorite report from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
- I) Even thought the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is run by appointees of one of the side of the war (the Ethiopian federal government), I didn’t completely discredited it, I only asked for it to not be given more than equal weight than the others. I did not even bring up the fact that EHRC’s leader Daniel Bekele is a former opposition politician who was convicted & imprisoned for two years for an attempted unconstitutional change in government (this is public record), by the former government sides his EHRC report is now accusing. Given the NOT impartial history of EHRC, I don’t know why Boud wants to take their report as the last word in the bible (e.g. Boud wanted first to make up an ethnic subgroup group called Welkait “everywhere”, because EHRC made up one in its report).
- II) By the way, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) to the contrary agrees with the reporting of the above international media outlets ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/23/interview-uncovering-crimes-committed-ethiopias-tigray-region ); contradicting with EHRC (EHRC stated the Mai Kadra victims were only Amhara/Wekait and the perpetrators Tigrayans). HRW reports both Amhara & Tigrayans were the victims, and points to federal forces as perpetrators, based on refugees.
- III) About the outdated preliminary report of Amnesty International:- Amnesty made a preliminary report with its researcher Fisseha Tekle (Amhara ethnic), on this Mai Kardra’s said to be Amharas vs Tigrayan massacre. However, I only asked for the researcher to be named on the Wikipedia page, to point out if any bias (and therefore improve neutrality of the page). Furthermore, and more importantly, Amnesty International (and its researcher Fisseha Tekle) has changed position from the outdated preliminary report. The outdated preliminary report said only Amhara ethnic people were the victims in Mai Kardra, but now even Fisseha Tekle has gone on NPR and Associated Press to correct this (https://www.npr.org/2020/12/28/950886248/hundreds-of-civilians-killed-with-machetes-and-axes-in-ethiopian-town), and now Amnesty International also agrees with the reporting of the above media outlets (that Tigrayans were also half of the victims in Mai Kardra). So Boud is acutely making a POV himself by suppressing the latest reporting of the 5 media outlets and the latest Fisseha Tekle (Amnesty) interview on NPR & Associated Press; and using only the “outdated preliminary report of Amnesty” along EHRC. I pointed out the update from the Associated Press several times to Boud before all this (as you can see on the talk page), even though he mostly ignored it ( https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78 ). Lets please give all credible published latest views equal & neutral weight is all I’m saying.
- * As you may have read my compliant on the first bold link I wrote above:- what could be a better justification for NPOV tag than presenting the side of only one. The page only has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre##Federal government point of view) and gives the accusation of the one side (the federal government). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. The page also lacks significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic; and I have short listed 5 published reliable sources to added (and 1 or 2 video, giving the NBC News video a priority).
- * Boud is misleading, when he says that I am working to give the reporting on the above very credible international media outlets (along the latest position of Amnesty International and the intentional Human Rights Watch) more weight, over what appears to be Boud’s favorite report from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
- * Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.
- I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-
"It turned out that reference 2 with ...‘I fled Mai-Kadra, because the army' was a valid rather than "weak" reference, as I did the work to discover."
- II).A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from the Mai-Kadra talk page :-
"editors making good faith edits can make errors… Immediately before the Geidi sentence about "the army", there is a sentence But several refugees at the Sudanese camp said federal troops had committed atrocities. It is clear that this sentence is an introduction to the following sentence; so the intended meaning of the following sentence is that "the army" is the ENDF. ...So you happen to have been right."
- I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-
- * It is not fair to block me because of things that happened 2 years ago. Please review User:Boud's report and my response independently and decide if I did something wrong worthy of a block. Thank you. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- * Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.
- note I unarchived this because it was still being edited in the archives and a close request was made at WT:AN. — Wug·a·po·des 03:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Closed. — Wug·a·po·des 04:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil
Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since 2019, multiple warnings have been given to the editor, including being blocked for 24hrs in December 2019, with no effect. Even after the latest warning at Special:MobileDiff/996913355, editor has introduced content not related to the reference being linked at Special:MobileDiff/996964967. I had initially posted to WP:AIV but was redirected here. The bot added this to my report: User is in the category: User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Vikram Vincent 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- While @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: has ignored all the warnings, he continues to edit at Special:MobileDiff/997032417, deleting content without an edit summary. Vikram Vincent 18:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Another edit without summary or source at Special:MobileDiff/997429316. No change in behaviour. Vikram Vincent 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: The changes being made by @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: to the series of articles are either unsourced or unrelated to the reference. Plus, they are spread over a long period of time. The editor refuses to engage on any of the talk pages or his own talk page. Any way to get his attention? Vikram Vincent 05:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Oshwah: This got archived without action. Vikram Vincent 04:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil - Can you please respond to this discussion and tell us what's going on? Why is there a report being filed regarding your edits and adding content where the reference doesn't explicitly support the content? This is problematic... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing/Vandalism on List of dinosaur genera
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 2001:8003:b03c:8700:13f:8389:c92d:33e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 2001:8003:b03c:8700:3115:3cdc:620:e2d4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 2001:8003:b03c:8700:c960:ccd6:f115:b38d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- List of dinosaur genera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Check their contributions. The first MAC address added "Ice Titan", "King Titan" and "Queen Elizabeth" to the list of dinosaur genera. I reverted it, as those are not real dinosaur names. A few hours short of a whole day later, the second address, most likely the same person, readded "Queen Elizabeth" with the rationale "Keep it there till the meme is dead". I reverted that, telling them via edit summary that this is an encyclopedia and not a place to host memes. But now the third address added "Queen Elizabeth" again. I felt uncomfortable reverting this vandalism a third time, so I'm bringing it up here. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Atlantis536, since it's blatant vandalism, you're probably going to get a swifter response over at WP:AIV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Semi protected for a short period. Seems to be based on a Reddit meme. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Repeated addition of unsourced content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
172.93.165.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated addition of unsourced content [189] [190] [191] and many others (yust open a few of the contributions diff's, the're all problematic. (Side note: It appears like it is still ongoing, see contributions.) The edits are made in a bot-like fashion, having made with only a few seconds grace between them. For example, the diff between the second and third link above were 4 s. As for the contents of the edits, they are unsourced, and, as far as I can tell from 2020_United_States_presidential_election#cite_note-Pending_certification-8, could not be sourced until somewhen tomorrow (January 6th) if the electoral votes were on a pro-trump-side. Courtesy pinging @Mike Rosoft, Beyond My Ken, Sjö, and JRDkg: Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing but rapid-fire additions of "He was a major figure in the 2020 United States self-coup, successfully acting to end American democracy and self-governance in favor of an autocratic one-party authoritarian state" to multiple articles. Block and ignore. Meters (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, block and ignore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked for two weeks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked for two weeks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, block and ignore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by User:Steven a91
- 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)
- 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)
User:Theusernameistaken
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Theusernameistaken is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have received 4 warnings in a month, and have continued removing sourced content without consensus. Adding to this is unconstructive talk page messages and general vandalism. Please block them. Thanks. Eyebeller 11:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Though I declined the AIV report, I have partially blocked from article space. User has issues, including SHOUTING in an agitated manner at those who have attempted reason. Any admin can unblock at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't look for AIV reports but when I looked through their contributions and saw that they weren't an obvious vandal I decided to take it to ANI. Sorry for the duplicate reports. Eyebeller 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. This is the correct venue. I suspect a number of editors find Theusernameistaken to be vexatious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't look for AIV reports but when I looked through their contributions and saw that they weren't an obvious vandal I decided to take it to ANI. Sorry for the duplicate reports. Eyebeller 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I set an indefinite duration, because we cannot know at this juncture how long it will be needed. Once unneeded, can be removed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Sharief123
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since their account creation in November 2018, User:Sharief123 has been warned numerous times about edit warring, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and so on. Their article creations are
- Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria:
- January 2019 moved to draft, deleted afterwards
- February 2019, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria
- Today, tagged for G4 deletion, reverted repeatedly by Sharief123 and their sock- or meatpuppet User:Al Araqi
- Irfan Raza Ansari
- Created by someone else in March 2018 (deleted as G11), since then 4 times created and redeleted, last time in June 2020 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Raza Ansari)
- Jamia Urwa-tul-Wusqa
- Created in May 2018 by someone else
- Deleted in March 2020 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamia Urwa-tul-Wusqa
- Today recreated by Sharief123, who also removed the G4 tag
- Bethat Educational TV channel
- Created today, edited by sock/meat Al Araqi soon afterwards, Prodded by me, tag removed. No evidence of any notability.
Their other edits are mostly promotion of Jawad Naqvi, an article with lots of issues and lots of talk page discussions with regular editors trying to make it factual and neutral, and Sharief123 and others turning it into a promo piece. Sharief123 today again edited that page, including adding an incorrect GA icon[192], reinstating all kinds of positive claims sourced to dubious sources (e.g. "peace activist", sourced to a wordpress blog, or "Ayatollah Syed Jawad Naqvi is significant for his unique style of preaching of Islam-e-Naab, the pure Islam"). They also then added an image of Naqvi to the list of peace activists[193].
For more than a year now, Sharief123 has been almost exclusively a timesink for many editors, only interested in promoting one person and having articles for some related entities, which have been found again and again to lack all notability. They have received warnings on their talk page from many editors, including User:Kautilya3, User:Faizhaider, User:EdJohnston, User:C.Fred, User:Idell and User:Jeff G..
It is time for some more drastic actions, like blocks or topic bans. Fram (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Scrolling through his talk page I can see a plethora of 'final warnings'. Have any of them ever amounted to a sanction? Spiderone 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sharief123 was blocked for 24h in July because of edit warring at Jawad Naqvi, which continued after an AN3 complaint was filed. As for sockpuppetry,
Looks like a duck to me though I won't file a SPI given that there are admins here anyway. Pahunkat (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Fram that it is time for some more drastic actions. — Jeff G. ツ 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sharief123 and the IP 2409:4054:297:8CB6::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) are clearly the same person: they're the ones that keep adding the page protection and good article icons to Jawad Naqvi, an article which has never been protected and has never been through a WP:GAN assessment. I can't comment on checkuser connections between accounts and IPs, but Sharief123 and Al Araqi are
Likely, they're editing on different networks but in the same location. I am blocking all three. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sharief123 and the IP 2409:4054:297:8CB6::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) are clearly the same person: they're the ones that keep adding the page protection and good article icons to Jawad Naqvi, an article which has never been protected and has never been through a WP:GAN assessment. I can't comment on checkuser connections between accounts and IPs, but Sharief123 and Al Araqi are
- I agree with Fram that it is time for some more drastic actions. — Jeff G. ツ 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sharief123 was blocked for 24h in July because of edit warring at Jawad Naqvi, which continued after an AN3 complaint was filed. As for sockpuppetry,
- Scrolling through his talk page I can see a plethora of 'final warnings'. Have any of them ever amounted to a sanction? Spiderone 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Bot clerking on AIV down
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It appears that bot clerking's down on WP:AIV. No bot edits have been made since 3:41 PM, blocked users remain on the page and the admin backlog notice hasn't been added. Pahunkat (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm clerking myself for now but I have to go soon. Pahunkat (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: HBC AIV helperbot5 is running, but I can't tell if it's running on AIV because now you're removing the reports yourself. I believe the bot only runs if the oldest report has been dealth with, and it was not until a few minutes ago. Please stop and let the bot do its job, or not do it and then we can report to the maintainer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, leaving AIV by itself. Pahunkat (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, yeah it does look like it's running but ignoring the main AIV list. @JamesR: can you have a look? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Taking a look now. — JamesR (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: @Ivanvector: As it turns out, one of the reports was not formatted correctly and breaking the algorithm. I have fixed it here. Thanks for letting me know. — JamesR (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I thought that was probably it but couldn't figure it out myself, I don't normally patrol that page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks James! Pahunkat (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: @Ivanvector: As it turns out, one of the reports was not formatted correctly and breaking the algorithm. I have fixed it here. Thanks for letting me know. — JamesR (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Taking a look now. — JamesR (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, yeah it does look like it's running but ignoring the main AIV list. @JamesR: can you have a look? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, leaving AIV by itself. Pahunkat (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: HBC AIV helperbot5 is running, but I can't tell if it's running on AIV because now you're removing the reports yourself. I believe the bot only runs if the oldest report has been dealth with, and it was not until a few minutes ago. Please stop and let the bot do its job, or not do it and then we can report to the maintainer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
174.91.77.211 violating the policy on verifiability
174.91.77.211 has been repeatedly adding unsourced content to Eighth generation of video game consoles.
This violates WP:BURDEN:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
I have warned them 3 times about Wikipedia's policy on no original research, however they keep on reverting their edits and I don't want it to get WP:3RR. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if an administrator steps in or another editor reverts their policy-violating edits. Thanks. Eyebeller 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Parblocked for 72 hours. Their assertion that common knowledge doesn't need a source is partly held up by WP:BLUE, but the content they insisted is common knowledge is far from it, and absolutely requires a source. They can try submitting one on the talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, could you please revert their last edit to the article where the unsourced content is still present? Eyebeller 19:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. It is common knowledge that the Wii U sold worse than the GameCube. It is also true that it is Nintendo's least successful home console. These are facts anyone knows. They are considered common knowledge. --174.91.77.211 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- They may be common knowledge to you because you are interested in Nintendo, but not to everyone else. Eyebeller 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, but video gamers, even if they aren't big into Nintendo know this as well so it is common knowledge and is factual information even if people aren't into video games. This is video game sales facts that is considered common knowledge. --174.91.77.211 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- But not everyone who reads the page will be video gamers. If someone who has no idea of the video gaming world reads the article, they wouldn't consider it common knowledge. Eyebeller 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ferret reverted the edit. And yes, a source is required. Being common knowledge among video gamers hardly qualifies as something generally expected to be known by everyone, and sales figures are contestable in any case. I say everyone knows the Wii U is the best selling console of all time. I bought one and everyone I know bought one, that must mean it's common knowledge. Prove me wrong. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- But not everyone who reads the page will be video gamers. If someone who has no idea of the video gaming world reads the article, they wouldn't consider it common knowledge. Eyebeller 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, but video gamers, even if they aren't big into Nintendo know this as well so it is common knowledge and is factual information even if people aren't into video games. This is video game sales facts that is considered common knowledge. --174.91.77.211 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- They may be common knowledge to you because you are interested in Nintendo, but not to everyone else. Eyebeller 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I've full blocked the IPv4 now, as well as their IPv6 they used to evade your pblock. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I guess now nobody can prove my Wii U fandom wrong. Truthiness ftw! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Disrupting editing/vandalism by Karthison R
- Karthison R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User:Karthison R this user has created a bit of nuisance who has been repeatedly deleting the tags and template from the article Teejay Karthi past 4th warnings (by 3 editors). I also strongly suspect user has CoI as it appears to be thier own vanity article. I propose an account ban to stop further disrupting editing. RationalPuff (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC) They are also now blanking notices on the talk page. RationalPuff (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- He has now created the page Teejay Karthi (disambiguation) to bypass his ban from editing Teejay Karthi Spiderone 20:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Given their reaction to being parblocked from the page was to create a clone of the page at another title, I've upgraded the block to a full block for the remainder of the existing block's time. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Q: Is being "parblocked" like being parboiled? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- A: It's certainly par for the course. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Q: Is being "parblocked" like being parboiled? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Given their reaction to being parblocked from the page was to create a clone of the page at another title, I've upgraded the block to a full block for the remainder of the existing block's time. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Aggressive Chicago IP reversions
Somebody from Chicago is targeting my edits for reversion,[194][195] 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",[196] "GFY", "aggotFAY"). This person has previously targeted Synthwave.94's edits for reversion,[197][198] and he doesn't communicate except for hostile edit summaries. He blanks his talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing from 97.80.113.37
- 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)
Autoblock issue using shared Wikimedia infrastructure
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)
- I've removed the autoblock. Nthep (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Kire1975
(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.[199] 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.[200]
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:
- [201], 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[202]) is not a WP:BLPRS for such a negative editorial opinion.
- [203], 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.
- [204], 21:10, 16 December 2020: Tagged one of Integrity's albums with "The neutrality of this article is disputed" after Hellion corrected some errors.[205], 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.
- [206], 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![207])
Hellion has complained about Kire1975 multiple times, the most recent being today.[208][209][210][211][212][213][214] 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)
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)
- 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
- [[215]]
- [[216]]
- [[217]]
- [[218]]
--Kire1975 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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?[219] 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.[220][221][222]
- 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."[223]2020
- " User:Dwid hellion, who goes by the same name as a singer in a well known band called funnily enough Integrity (band)" [224] 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"[225]) needed to edit Hellion's BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I note the irony of Kire1975 doing the following:
Potentially harmful removal of information
OP: sock. Surprise: next to nil. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I will try my best to post this, while assuming good faith throughout the entire post. I have notified the registered user of this post. I was editing a section of the article for sandwich. Two editors (an IP and User:Jayron32) began to remove information that may have helped the page to represent a neutral point of view. They may have had reasons for removing the information that I am not aware of, but the removal leaves the article with only a conservative perspective on the topic. I believe that the liberal view should also be included to keep the page opinion-balanced.--King of the lunch table (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Threat To Life
This edit shows the editor @Gungeplunge threatening another editor. Celestina007 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Another admin has indeffed the user. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Rather uncivil behavior, sockpuppetry, and this threat was the last straw. You beat me in getting an ANI thread started. Pahunkat (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've revdeled the threat. --Kinu t/c 10:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Global lock(s) requested since this is Evlekis. Pahunkat (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Another Evlekis sock just posted on my talk page. This should be a LTA. Pahunkat (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- And another one. Pahunkat (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Censorship and abuse of authority by user Archives908
Archives908 keeps reverting my edits, despite all the sources and arguments provided.
"LGBT rights in Armenia" is full of misleading info and differs significantly from the corresponding articles in Armenian and Russian.
ԼԳԲՏ իրավունքները Հայաստանում Права ЛГБТ в Армении — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.66.254.20 (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have protected the article. Instead of tossing around claims of "censorship"(please see WP:FREESPEECH) and "abuse", please civilly discuss your concerns on the article talk page. That a different language version of an article says something does not mean it should here too, as each version of Wikipedia is its own project with its own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)