Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [1], edit summaries at [2], [3], [4], [5], and generally at [6] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

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

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates

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

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [7]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [8]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [9].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

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

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

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

I also propose that their signature be changed per

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

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly
  casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of
  WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.

  I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [11] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insurrectionists' gallows

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

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

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

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

material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure

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

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

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

Rev id's that start with "8" or lower are not recent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a slippery slope :-) Vikram Vincent 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170

• Not yet blocked ip. e.g. (there are more ip meat but these two are most fitted to the disruption category)

220.246.55.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

14.0.236.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Already blocked range/ip. e.g.

124.217.188.0/23 (talk · contribs · 124.217.188.0/23 WHOIS)

219.76.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · 219.76.16.0/20 WHOIS)

218.102.122.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

218.255.11.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Set one: country related

• Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) (vote stacking and revive decade old thread)
• List of lighthouses in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking)
• Military of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) (vote stacking)

• Category:Ma Tau Chung
• Ma Tau Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sung Wong Toi Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin already blocked 3 ip ranges but it seems it is not enough / not effective, as new ip POV edit from new ip range emerged yet again . Some admin suggests a soft block to HK ISPs (including mobile network ) would be a solution, some suggests protect articles one by one. But really how to deal with these POV pushing edit: revive 100 years old obsolete place name Ma Tau Chung. Or piece by piece try to change Hong Kong or Country definition to slip pieces belong to dependent territory to Country-related article one by one? Or just vote stacking in talk page? Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forget to mention, some of the meat not really willing to provide any reliable source and some involved in personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are simple. First, Matthew hk does not appear to be a speaker of the English language and is struggling on one hand to express his thoughts and ideas in a clear and organised manner, and on the other to comprehend what others put forward to him in their edits and especially in the talk pages (the meaning of "produce" in "produce the evidence", e.g.), when people give in to his insistence of his own points of view over the entries he has tried hard to own (such as, most notably, that Ma Tau Chung has died as a topographic name to refer to the neighbourhood). Second, he relies on Cantonese-language sources to argue his cases and defend his positions, and provides no or little translations and even he does so translations that are hardly comprehensible, while at the same time disregards English-language sources presented to him. Third, he fails to understand that according to its conventional meaning the English word "country" is used to refer to both sovereign states and dependent territories (of course, the inhabited ones with organised governments). This conventional meaning has been supported by an Australian federal court in September 1997 in Tjhe Kwet Koe and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (FCA 912), which is cited by

Talk:List of countries without armed forces got "vote stacking", when there's apparently none - There's never been any vote lately to talk with, or that Hong Kong's population is 99% Chinese. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, you guys have issue that admin bad faith with your edits so that

WP:Verify and not POV battleground without provide a RS citation. If you use your own emotional enemy / friend mindset in wikipedia you don't went any further but block. Matthew hk (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

And offtopic on 99% Chinese. The context was regarding Chinese-language publication such as map / atlas of Hong Kong which my figure that recalled from memory was rebut the "claim" that HK has a lot of English/ bilingual publications. There are a lot of domestic helper in HK so that if include them the figure may be not 99%. Also, Chinese (華人) can means Chinese (Cantonese/Mandarin) speaking culture group / ethnic group instead of citizenship / self-identity sense (self-identity figure can obtain from

Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute) . If you want to frame me as "not constructive" please provide reliable source. Note that there are 451 183 non-Chinese minority in HK in 2011, or 6.4%, but a lot are domestic helper.^[1] This figure already rebut your low claim of only 92% people are Chinese culture group. The government report lists the figure so badly that there is no concreate figure of domestic helper, but at least table 7.2 and 7.3 shown if excluding domestic helper (hired from aboard), the non-Chinese minority is down to 194,854. (And i need to dig out the correct denominator to calculate the actual %, so that it may be ~96/98%? ) Matthew hk (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be about 95 to 96% isn't it? Still quite far from 99%. And after all domestic helpers are inhabitants there. Most of them are long-term residents. They aren't slaves as you might have unfortunately implied and they are always counted towards population figures. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is to confirm that the problem is real, and the IP edits are mostly disruptive, but I do not know what the best solution would be.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What was disruptive? For talking too much? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"New" issue. Ask for unprotect the talk page yet again. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Talk:List of countries without armed forces. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More newer issue. Start to POV pushing other dependent territories:

• List of borderless country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold change redirect target
• Military of the Faroe Islands ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) (ask for article at talk page for a deleted article )
• Borderlessness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Matthew hk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's been wrong with my edits to List of borderless country and Borderlessness? You don't seem to be able to understanding what'd happened and what you did was apparently disruptive. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At Bordelessness, you removed a redlink to Borderless country. That redlink was likely placed there by someone who thought it was a subject that could support an article. And you did it without leaving an edit summary, so no one knows what your reasoning is. And given the edit history of you and your fellow meatpuppets, no one here is likely to give you much more benefit of the doubt than we already have. You've all proved yourselves quite willing to be incredibly disruptive, which wastes the time of well-intentioned editors. If you actually want to contribute productively, you probably are going to need to create an account. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The red link was an old article that was moved into personal user namespace and the redirect generated as a result of that relocation was deleted many many years ago. There had been no new article in its place. Is there any chance that someone might think an article might develop? Irrespective of that why can't that be pointed to a relevant, existing article?

As for allegations of sockpuppetry, I am afraid there is no sockpuppet and there's been no solid evidence or conclusive investigation. Having an account or otherwise is irrelevant to whether anyone is sockpuppet or whether someone wants to contribute productively. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been an ongoing problem for six weeks also at Talk:List of lighthouses in China. I believe there is a forum somewhere that is whipping up Hongkongers who believe registering an account will make them more vulnerable to Chinese surveillance and sending them in here as meatpuppets on various articles. I hate to semi a talk page, but I'm not sure what else to do. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Atsme, who's seen this at various articles too. The IPs have followed to my user talk and to SPI investigations. They seem to think they're upvoting. —valereee (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a serious problem that needs to be resolved, because if what they're doing works successfully for them, it will spread like wildfire and allow for the ultimate takeover of WP by IP unions. It may seem far-fetched at this point in time, but our policies have already laid the bedrock for something like this to occur right under our noses, and with no resources to stop it unless we change our policy. Atsme 💬 📧 12:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  IP unions? Are you thinking way too much... As a matter of fact it was you who sparked off all these trouble around these three lists of lighthouses. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You believe? So where's that forum post? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's indeed nothing strange[25] given what'd happened here over the past two years. And these were what'd happened just over the past couple of days...[26][27][28][29] 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And now.[30] 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into the edit history of Country, the very first case you mentioned in your submission, back to early to mid-January,[31] and have been surprised to learn that the issue is kind of irrelevant here. It had been all around the statuses of the Holy See and the Vatican City State. And 124.217.189.34/124.217.189.124 had been right if the articles on the Holy See and the Vatican City are correct - The former is the sovereign entity and the latter is the country the former governs. So Matthew Hk would you please clarify what'd been the issue with that article so that you brought it up here (and a few other noticeboards too)? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, above admins, feel free to block 220.246.55.231 first....I don't think the ip is willing to make constructive edit. It just purely for POV battleground. Matthew hk (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#List of borderless country. Matthew hk (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, any admin able to protect Ma Tau Chung? The ip don't wanna add any citation and flood the article with list of building that they think they are part of the historical area, and i keep asking and they still fails to show a modern map that have that place name or have a boundaries of the alleged area. Matthew hk (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has this article on Ma Tau Chung got anything to do with what 220.246.55.231 mentioned above? And no it was just you who keep refusing to consider what are submitted in the talk pages of relevant articles (such as Sung Wong Toi Garden, Sung Wong Toi and Holy Trinity Cathedral) or what are added to the article as citations. "The ip don't wanna add any citation ..." is clearly a false claim. You simply lied. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the article a few days ago and will protect it again if disruption resumes after the protection has expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1.64.46.31: Where is a map in English that publish after 1960s (as alleged by ip, they exist)? I never saw one and all i saw are borderline OR. Matthew hk (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, i agreed that

WP:UGC historic photo and its caption, which credit the area next to the church was called Ma Tau Chung, to assume the church is also located in an area that modern day still call Ma Tau Chung. You can easily find a map that Hong Kong was part of Bao'an County, but we never called Hong Kong is part of Shenzhen in modern day. Also, quite a lot of place name in HK are retired or substituted due to land reclamation or demolition of hills, or other reasons (Tai Wo Shi v. Tai Po Market v. modern day Tai Wo). And quite a lot of road that named after place name is not part of that place. E.g. Tai Po Road and Castle Peak Road have a large portion that outside Tai Po District and Tuen Mun District (Castle Peak). It is another original research that whole of the Ma Tau Chung Road belongs to Ma Tau Chung neighbourhood, unless you cite a secondary source. Matthew hk (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem of ALL HK neighbourhood articles is there is no postal code or official tessellation in HK (Here is ABS example for Australia https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC80016) If there is a lot of secondary source that state X is located in Y or the official address state the building is located in Y. It does not need original research to add it to wikipedia. However, base on the logic of X is next to Y and Y in 1900s was stated locate in Z, so that X must locate in Z, is original research or synthesis of sources. The limitation of official address is sometimes company mis-state it, or on purpose to do it, such as Central Plaza is located in Wan Chai not Central. Citing a shop inside Sky Tower which uses Ma Tau Chung as address, seem pale compare to way other reliable source that either credit Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon City or To Ka Wan. What i pointed in the RFc in the talk page of the Church, if such dispute exist ( Ma Tau Kok? To Ka Wan? or the poorly sourced Ma Tau Chung?) then it just better use the base administrative unit Kowloon City District instead of argue the boundaries of neighbourhoods which does not have any legal or reliable source that try to define it. Or even worse, keep on making disruptive edits without provide any reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly for map. Sino United Publishing may have censorship or POV problem (e.g. , they have their special Chinese wording for 1967 riots of HK), but without stating a better source and then claim map by the subsidiary of Sino United Publishing not reliable, would only making there is no reliable source as citation (as the ip never gave example of company that "reliable " to them for HK map) (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Category:Ma Tau Chung). I knew zh-wiki has serious problem that most article are OR and /or without any citation. But i don't think it is acceptable in en-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suppose it's more to do with incidents and behavioural issues for discussions here on this page, rather than the actual content for the relevant articles. From what I came across Matthew hk's problem is that he can't actually comprehend what are mentioned in discussions. He's been told old maps aren't UGC, and that he's also been told he may refer to maps published by other more trustworthy publishers of Hong Kong maps, such as UP. He was also referred to plan no. LK 10/18/4. He simply ignored all these and has kept on pushing forward his POVs by making things up, e.g. vote stacking in a talk page where there's not even any vote taking place. With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia. False claims would of course be the much bigger issue here than where he actually comes from. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for "LK 10/18/4", you still haven't quote it in order to allow other editors to verify it. Matthew hk (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop ip hopping and claim live in Hong Kong is the only definition of Hong Konger or use "Hong Konger" as the criteria to edit article. The problem of you/ they/ ip hopper, is fails

WP:V. Matthew hk (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ymblanter would you please protect the article against Matthew hk's disruptive edits instead? He cannot actually contribute to encyclopedia entries in proper English, to the extent that there are even spaces before full-stops occasionally. And he removes references to old maps and calls them UGC just because the site which hosts these maps accept submissions of UGC. Many thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand. Citobun (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RSN and then MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) to formally black list gwulo.com. Matthew hk (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

(More on gwulo.com. It accepts upload of map (or just fragment of a map that original legend is missing, which impossible to reader to determinate original publish date and publisher) with unknown origin. Uploader just claimed as old and "genuine". This re-publish action itself is counted as "Self-published source" in wikipedia and the caption added by uploader is UGC . It is different from a reliable author which includes an old map in a book and wiki editor cite the map / book.) Matthew hk (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the history of Ma Tau Chung POW camp , i don't believe HKU or Oxford University Press or whatever reliable publishing house , did not have books about that part of history. Instead of spamming wikipedia with UGC, facebook, forum or other not reliable source (the guideline is

WP:RS), just borrow or bought a book and cite it. Offline source is acceptable in wikipedia and i often do that by digging out "offline" physical copies of books that related to HK, from SLWA and UWA libraries, or ordered second hand out of print from ebay and amazon. Matthew hk (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

More off topic on biased source. Yes citation may be biased but usually out of scope of wikipedian to make original research to determinate . The argument of map are censored by Chinese government company, but without provide their own list of citation (which i think 齡記 had published a few student atlas (at least before 1997), not sure it uses maps that derived from the colonial HK government or not, but yet again no one willing to have a look by borrow one from HK library; sorry not i HK so that i tried to access as much offline source as i can edit: see below), is not constructive. Clearly biased source, such as recently published comprehensive history of HK, by Our Hong Kong Foundation, already have criticism by independent historian and academian[2] so that wikipedian does not need to do themselves. In case people claims all news article routine mention of place name and their belonged neighbourhoods are all wrong and their unsourced version are right, i am afraid this is not an acceptable behaviour in wikipedia. Yes, it can be wrong for news article but the more appropriate way is citing book and other news articles. Matthew hk (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If in case you don't already know, public libraries in this country are closed. They've been closed for most of the time since early 2020, only managed to open for a few short periods. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy digital book in Google Book store anyway instead of using non-reliable sources as citations. Matthew hk (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the already broken slogan "one country, two systems" means China is the country. It is not constructive to POV pushing in wikipedia that HK is a sovereign country, or the general context of "country". HK is a "country" more commonly in the context of "country of origin" and the HKSAR passport in fact is a subset of Chinese passport while BNO passport is a subset of British passport. Matthew hk (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citobun, the problem obviously isn't about English proficiency but the tendency of unfortunate and repetitive miscommunications. And the quality and readability of his contributions and comments. False statements would be another equally important matter. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Still offtopic. Ling Kee maps^[3] for whatever reason, are somehow similar to modern government map, does not have the place name Ma Tau Chung. So that i really can't find a source that prove the place name is still commonly used. HK people do retire some place name such as 青山 Green Hill (Castle Peak's Chinese name) and use Tuen Man instead. So that i really don't know the agenda of the ip? Some kind of restorationist? Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this allegation a fabricated one..? Restorationist? What is "Tuen Man", btw? 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yet another ip hopper. It is a typo. I have problem of not proof read and hit enter (so that most of my minor edit has typo as edit summary). Tuen Mun. Also read "香港地區史研究之四：屯門". It is yet another book by Sino United Publishing (since it is the dominant publishing house of HK) but the author are lecturer and professor of HK universities. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What point of view are you referring to? So are you disputing the fact that the Vatican City State is a country whereas the Holy See is the sovereign entity which administers this country, Matthew? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ip hopper, please ask why the SPI filer places Country in the reporting. Matthew hk (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you just copied and didn't try to understand what'd happened? You just claimed that there is a POV issue but you don't know what's that POV issue is? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

On 23 January, 2020, STSC created an RFC on the talk page for Taiwan regarding whether or not the first paragraph should mention its contentious international status. Soon thereafter, STSC left messages on multiple user talk pages (diffs: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) to notify select users of the RFC that they created.

Three-quarters of users that were selected to receive the message have have made prior comments indicating that they would be inclined to agree with

Other users, including

• Thank you for tagging me Mikehawk10. To this I would add making unsourced additions [40] and using misleading edit summaries [41][42][43][44][45]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to refer to the statement I made on Talk:Taiwan#Allegations_of_misconduct. STSC made an initial suggestion which was overwhelmingly rejected, but nevertheless opened an RfC, and when that turned against his favor as well – despite his attempts at canvassing –, disrupted the article (see [46] and [47]) to make a point. intforce (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Of the last 250 edits on Talk:Taiwan, 59 are by User:STSC.[48]. (Previous is a live link and the count will change over time. Not sure how to do a fixed link.) The majority have to do with arguing about whether or not Taiwan is a country, and what if anything the lead should say about who recognizes it.[49][50] His or her edits on Taiwan, while thankfully less numerous, focus on the same issues.[51][52] Furthermore, User:STSC has a history of being sanctioned for pushing pro-PRC and Pro-CCP points of view. [53] [54]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing this up – as they have removed those notices from their talk page (which is their right, but usually not without motive), I had no idea. Perhaps a partial ban on all topics related to China is in order. intforce (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've investigated this case as an uninvolved admin and would like to report the following findings:

1. The notification diffs provided in the first comment do appear to comprise improper canvassing
2. As identified in the first comment STSC added citation needed tags to Taiwan's status in the lead of Taiwan (Special:Diff/1003356866, Special:Diff/1003309363), while an ongoing discussion on the talk page had an overwhelming consensus in favor of the status quo wording, making these edits rather POINTy.
3. As identified by Intforce, opening an RfC when there was clear consensus against the proposal was not appropriate. This is particularly the case when we consider that a well-attended RfC 7 months ago was closed with a consensus to call Taiwan a country.
4. While the diff of an unsourced addition identified by Horse Eye's Back does appear to be poor form (Special:Diff/1002867162), further discussion on the talk page ([55] does not suggest that this is a matter of ongoing disruption, and I don't see any evidence that unsourced contributions are generally a problem with STSC's edits
5. The edits described by Horse Eye's Back as misleading edit summaries appear to be edits with the summary "archived" (sometimes with typos) when STSC was simply deleting the messages. I don't think that this is something that needs to be considered when evaluating the need for sanctions.
6. Regarding the AE case identified by Adoring Nanny (Special:Diff/717448271), the case was about tendentious editing related to Falun Gong and does suggest that STSC was actively trying to insert pro-PRC content into articles. I note as well that a key piece of evidence in that case was this comment by STSC, where they express support for the elimination of Falun Gong on a talk page. I do not note any comparable breach of civility regarding Taiwan on the article's talk page or in diffs presented here.
7. Regarding the edit warring block identified by Adoring Nanny (Special:Diff/806174819), I don't think that a 3-year old edit warring block without any further blocks has much bearing on this case.

All told, in light of the canvassing and point-y behavior at Taiwan, and the past history of POV editing, I think that a 3-6 month ban from topics related to Taiwan and China, broadly construed, is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosguill makes a convincing case with his diffs showing problematic POV pushing from this user. I agree with the topic ban of 3-6 months.Jediting1 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from China-related subjects due to long-term POV pushing – STSC is already subject to an indefinite topic ban on Falun Gong, a religious movement banned in China. They were also (long ago) banned from participating in the Senkaku Islands naming dispute. When I complained in 2019 about their editing, the discussion was concluded with this comment by an administrator: "There is a consensus among editors here that STSC has fallen short of [NPOV and BLP standards] in the past and that future issues may result in blocking or other sanctions." Considering STSC's recent conduct on Taiwan, it is evident that they have not changed their behaviour despite the warnings, topic bans, and blocks incurred over the past decade. Citobun (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: He should be banned from editing all Hong Kong-related topics too. He had tried to assert that the Holy Trinity Cathedral is located in China and disrupted that article. 223.197.170.231 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put the country as China; Hong Kong is not a country. There's a discussion on the talk page. STSC (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Rosguill

1. I followed the guideline which advises me not to notify too many editors. I therefore left out most of the editors who had been active in the discussion, and they did join in without my notification. Amongst the editors I notified I think it's about 50:50 in terms of different opinions.

2. I didn't make edits on the content itself. At any time I may challenge the sources by applying the tags. Nothing improper here.

3. As I've already mentioned in the discussion, I don't object calling "Taiwan is a country". My RfC is different from the previous RfC, it asked whether additional information should be included in the first paragraph as in State of Palestine and Somaliland.

STSC (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your answer #1 as your response to canvassing allegations at Talk:Taiwan and find it to be an unconvincing explanation, as the perspectives on the content dispute shared by the editors you notified is a distinct outlier when compared to editors' overall perspectives expressed in both the RfC and the talk page discussion prior to it. Your responses #2 and #3 strike me as trying to abide by the letter of policies while ignoring the spirit. It should have been clear from the prior talk page discussion that there was no need for the inline tags and no need for an RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have followed the guidelines in

RFC and other policies. STSC (talk

)

Please don’t fudge the truth, thats not the question you asked. The question you asked was the highly ambiguous "In the article Taiwan, should the first paragraph contain the international status of Taiwan (Republic of China)?” which makes no mention of Palestine or Somaliland or additional information to be included in the lead. Its also too ambiguous to be a good RFC topic, for instance I agree with the question as asked because I think that out first paragraph *already does that* but not the question you meant to ask which was clear from the preceding discussion and your continued refusal to accept the wording of “country” without a modifier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your criticism about the RfC; it wasn't well constructed but I did mention Palestine and Somaliland in the discussion. STSC (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. We have a common thread of problematic behavior in at least three areas (Falun Gong, Taiwan, Senkaku Islands), all relating to content preferred by the PRC. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stripped the page on 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom to just the lead and removed sourced sections on background, the pogrom itself, sexual violence, and massacres, saying that they lacked reliable citation.
• Removed multiple pieces of sourced information regarding ethnic cleansing, pogroms, bombings etc, saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes. and deleted information that lacked reliable citation and did so again on List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces
• Changed "civil war" to "rebellion" and "terrorist uprising" and called civilian deaths and casualties "collateral damage", saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes on Sri Lankan Civil War
• Appears to have just copy-and-pasted material from a website directly onto Wikipedia
• Removed sourced information, while saying that they added new information
• Again, saying they deleted unsorced infomation [sic]
• Again, saying it lacked reliable citation and added their own commentary
• On Jaffna District, removed sourced section regarding twinning with Kingston, saying No official and reliable citation were found for the deleted section. Did so again after I added an archive URL for the government source
• Added probable original research (the source did not support their claim)
• Draft:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka
  , under as a blatant hoax, despite what seems to be over 100 sources (albeit not controlling for duplicates), including ones from Amnesty International
• PRODed Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes and said it Contains many misleading facts that were possibly added with racist motives
• Removed section headings and a hidden note without explanation
• On my talk page claimed that a council source was no[t] [a] government link and claimed that another did not mention Jaffna as a twin city when it says it was "twinning with the city"
• Added an unexplained nowiki

To conclude, I suggest either a topic ban from Sri Lankan pages, broadly construed, or an indefinite block. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this the I suspect the user used this sock-puppet

LTTE. Notice the misspelling of the word message as 'massage' which he also misspells on his original talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YaSiRu11 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

Oz346 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I will say why I did that particular thing in the order he has presented them.

1. This was a mistake. I am new to this website I was just figuring things out. I'm sorry I wasn't able to undo my error.

2.I deleted the attacks that lacked credible sources. the listings which claim credibility "Department of State 2009" doesn't actually verify these claims. and many of its findings are repeated with different names on the list. for example the document states;

"Embassy Colombo reported that 58 people were killed and 143 injured due to shelling in Ampalavakanai and Mullaivakal. This may be the same incident reported by a source in Mattalan reported to HRW shelling in the NFZ and heavy fighting in the north"

but the listing doesn't clarify this. and I deleted the repeated listings.

3.I corrected the grammar and words that didn't sound right. and for the change of words, I quote this website^[1]

              "The main difference is who the battles are fought between... A revolution is a battle fought in hopes of a new system, by overthrowing a government and a civil war is fought between people of the same country."

LTTE fought for a different country. So, they had a rebellion not a Civil war.

4. I am the original writer and the photo editor of the website. I don't know why I can't publish my research-backed writing on Wikipedia.

5. The description there lacked new information so I added new Info and changed the existing. but I never deleted the existing information. You can still see both the etymology theories in my updated version. I changed its wording. that's the only thing I did.

6 and 7.I corrected a piece of wrong information. and I provided the necessary references.

8.I explained this to Sdrqaz and I still don't know why he still hasn't understood that. There is no way to confirm "the town twinning" as currently there is no official mention of this on the website.

9. It wasn't original research it's clearly mentioned in the source I referenced. I ask you to read this website to further clarify.

10. It is a blatant hoax. none of the sources support the claims. Please read the sources first. 11. I don't know why I can't do that.

12. The page was a bit messy. I made the page more clear.

13. I explained this before.

14. I literally didn't change that page.

and as for Oz346's claim, are you sure it's me because you seem to have edit wars with an awfully lot of people. — Preceding

I don't know what I did wrong. I tried my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Just because I didn't agree with you why did you make things up to defame me?

1. I don't find that argument plausible. Removing 75% of a page is not easily done. Moreover, an edit summary was provided for the change. That does not seem consistent with accidental deletions.

2. The State Department source does verify those claims. If you feel that there are possibly repeated entries (the source makes it clear there is ambiguity), then add a note. Don't remove both entries. It is not for editors to

improperly synthesise

sources, or reach conclusions that the sources did not reach themselves.

3. As it states in the disclaimer above, that is a student-written essay. Moreover, that essay is about the American Revolution and Civil War. Not only is that not a reliable source, it is not even relevant.

4. Please see

WP:SELFCITE

. With all due respect, are you an established subject-matter expert? Has your work in this field been published by reliable independent publications? Even if you have, copy-and-pasting paragraphs over is excessive.

5. The page history doesn't lie. 2.7kb does not just disappear with a minor rewording.

6 and 7. How are they incorrect? They were pieces of sourced information.

8. There is a way to confirm the town twinning: look at the newspaper source. Look at the archived council source. Link rot happens. It doesn't mean that we disregard the sources just because the URLs are dead.

9. The source you referenced was from Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is not that. The Britannica source does not mention substantial evidence to say that Nagas were Buddhist followers after the 4th century B.C.

10. I have read the sources, and they do support the information. Wikipedia is not censored, and includes information that you may not like. Calling it a hoax is not the solution.

11.

Casting aspersions

is not allowed. Where is your evidence for racist motives? How are the facts misleading?

12. If anything, you made it less clear. You removed a section headings without explanation, which had the effect of making it seem like one uninterrupted table.

13. Please read the sources.

14. There just didn't seem to be any rationale behind that nowiki.

In addition, YSR has accused another editor of having no ability to say what is "serious" history and whats not here.

Sdrqaz (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC) amended 02:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As an uninvolved administrator reviewing the above allegations, I find cause for concern with YaSiru11's editing. While some of the issues highlighted by Sdrqaz remain at the level of content disputes, overall the identified edits (particularly #1, #3, #5, #10, #11, #12 and #14 as enumerated above) suggest carelessness at best and intent to POV-push on Sri Lankan topics at worst. Either way, YasiRu11 does not appear to be able to contribute constructively to Sri Lankan topics at this time. An indefinite topic ban from content related to Sri Lanka, appealable after several months in the event that YasiRu11 can demonstrate their ability to abide by our policies when editing other topics, seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Rosguill's proposal. I am grateful that they have taken the time to sort through all the diffs. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rosguill for taking the time. Also it may be necessary to look into Yasiru's suspected sock-puppet Kisnueque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, it was used to slander me on my personal talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&diff=prev&oldid=1002489539

He seems to have tried to do it with his original Yasiru account, but then had second thoughts before deciding to use the sock puppet to evade detection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Oz346&diff=next&oldid=1002487988

Oz346 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Obi2canibe I see a message has been left by you on Yasiru's talk page regarding a sock puppet investigation, if only one account gets banned, it may not solve this perennial issue.Oz346 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosguill, as an uninvolved administrator, would you be able to take action? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sdrqaz, given that Sri Lankan history isn't under discretionary sanctions, a topic ban requires a community consensus to be imposed. Although there's nominally a unanimous consensus above, I don't feel comfortable closing this myself, as I proposed the topic ban and it's received an endorsement only from you and Oz346, editors who were already lodging complaints against Yasiru11. Thus, I would ask for another admin to close this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Rosguill -

Do what you want to do I don't care. I tried my best to contribute to Wikipedia but now I have left the site. Don't just block, delete my account if you can, I don't care. You guys didn't give a damn about those pages before even though they were filled with false, misleading information. just look at here, <ref https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Sri_Lanka&oldid=1003288905#cite_note-Dailynews-6</ref> How in the world does that prove that Naga People practiced Hindusim. but It seems that Wikipedia only believes users who have years of experience. and It seems that the user who accused me was not well-informed on the subject because I clearly explained this.

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

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

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at

WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at

Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that

WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [56]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to

WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This

was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.

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

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

I think this individuals contributions,[57] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages:

Anarcho-communism

. (See editor history for more).

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

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

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

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

I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in

WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I have never edited

1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more

WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
  The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [58] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [59] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [60] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [61] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and
  competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid

WP:NOR

, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.

I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed

WP:GF

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

This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of

WP:CIR

when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.

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

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

• Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [62], [63],[64],[65],[66],[67]),
  WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but trolling. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [68] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

bold and italic added by me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [69]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [70] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.

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

This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in

WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link

):

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more

neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop

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

Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in

wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording.

WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in

WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like
  WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

• Stix1776 (talk · contribs)
• Holodomor in modern politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working on cleaning up and improving the referencing for Holodomor in modern politics since yesterday after Stix1776 attempted to remove material from the article [77]. Since then I have been working at it, have asked this editor repeatedly to stop while I add references, but to no effect. They continue to remove stable sourced content [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83],

Now an IP editor is suspiciously doing the same: [84]

I have reverted changes this editor has made more than 3 times to add references. Let me know if I should cease, but then I cannot continue to add references to content that has been removed. Again I have left messages on the talk page, this users page, edit summaries, page tags, etc to let them clearly know I am working on references.

It is going to take time to look up resolutions in dozens of languages. These mass repeated deletions of sourced content is disruptive, and make it impossible to improve the article. The article needs work and this editor is impeding it.  // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My browswer, without my knowledge, logged me out of Wikipedia. I apologize about the IP edit. It wasn't intentional.

TimothyBlue is claiming that it's old material, but it's content that he added not 2 days ago (edits on 18:08-18:12 on 31 January).

The content he's adding is poorly sourced (original research) and the admin on the page agrees with my assessment on the talk page.

Expecting to hold a Wikipedia page for several days while an editor looks for sources is unreasonable, especially for an issue on a contested topic. Stix1776 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stix1776 concerns seem reasonable to me. Wikipedia articles should be precise about exactly who is recognizing what. I would suggest separating out declarations of genocide from declarations that do not use the word "genocide". Furthermore, we shouldn't leave up unverified content indefinitely while editors work on finding sources. It can always be restored later if sources are found. The in construction tag should not be misused to shut out other editors. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The under construction tag is not being misused. I agree the article needs improvement, but the content is sourced already. I can't improve the article if Stix1776 keeps removing content.  // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly it's already sourced and that Stix1776 isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Removing mass content isn't allowed, specifically when hyperlinks in other articles can be used as a source, if the article being hyperlinked is well sourced, which it is. Des Vallee (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I just checked one diff[85] Stix's edit summary is correct, I checked the source and the resolution does not mention "crime(s) against humanity". It is therefore false, or at best WP:OR to say that this resolution recognizes the Holodomor as a crime against humanity. I see you've repeatedly restored this incorrect content so I would recommend being more careful about citing sources correctly. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd recommend you read the article and references more carefully. The note is a list of resolutions and the resolutions are listed below with references. Its sourced and it is accurate.  // Timothy :: talk  10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I've been working on this for 2 days, the content has been there for years, it can wait a bit as editors work on it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess everyone can see how tedious it is working when TimothyBlue. The UN has never "passed" any of the resolutions you are citing. A little humility and consideration with editing is appreciated, so everything doesn't have to be resolved by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The references are there. You're just ignoring them. I've been very patient with your reverts.  // Timothy :: talk  14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I swear I've read through your references. Joint statements and declarations signed by 30 something countries do not count as "passed" by the UN. This is tedious. I genuinely feel bad for admins that need to go through your edits.Stix1776 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am still working on the article, but Stix1776 DE POV editing is only getting worse and making it difficult. I believe this is intentional to wear down editors trying to improve the article. See Talk:Holodomor in modern politics, [86], and my talk User talk:TimothyBlue/Archive 2#Sorry, I unintentionally made an IP edit again for the latest exmamples.

Mzajac posted helpful comments and I used their feedback, I hope some other experienced editors can join the discussion. I think it is clear this editor simply wants to delete the content they do not like, not improve the article. If there is a consensus my efforts to work on the article are not constructive (no one is perfect), I will step back and hopefully others will save the content from Stix1776.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reverts made by User:Timothy Blue speak for themselves. Especially those when he was reverting edits removing unsourced ideas and original research. Guy, use the talk page if editors disagree with your content. Reverting edits while ignoring the problems listed is just edit warring. I apologize to the admin for having to deal with this. Stix1776 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My work on the page does speak for itself and so does Stix1776 deletes. And you provide no diffs.

As I stated earlier, if a consensus of editors believes I should step back and allow you to delete the content, I will. // Timothy :: talk  12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More removal of sourced content by Stix1776

Stix1776 is continuing to remove sourced content to fit their POV:

• Removal of sourced information: [87] with misleading edit summary.

Added content directly refuted by sources in article: [88] with misleading edit summary.

On the talk page they are arguing to remove nations such as Albania from the list of nations which "recognized the Holodomor". The content is sourced to votes in both the United Nations and the European Parliament. But they are still claiming Albania has not recognized the Holodomor. See [89]. (Albania is the first of a list of nations from Europe that the editor is trying to remove).

I continue to work with Mzajac on the article but this needs to be addressed. This is a serious POV pushing problem and is disrupting editors that are working to improve the article. Actually it is more serious than a POV editing, it is removing clearly sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Stix is right on the content issue. Albania does not recognize the Holodomor unless its national government, either the legislature or the executive, does so. No reliable source says that the UK has recognized the Armenian Genocide even though some of its representatives have voted in favor at the European Parliament and Council of Europe. Please cite secondary sources to avoid OR and do not label their editing as disruptive without addressing the underlying issues. (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you t. In regards to [[90]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[91]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[92]]. Or this [[93]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

I'm kind of a n00b with Wikipedia. I did want to do more stuff about Computer Science and Education (my degrees). I'm sorry to pull the admin into this editing war. Should I create a edit war report on the admin noticeboard? Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article and the post above will again show Stix1776 is playing POV games to delete content. One example from above is their comment regarding Radio Free Europe [94]. This source does incorrectly state the Holodormor has not been recognized as genocide, and the fact of the recognition is referenced to the public law at Congress.gov, where the it is labeled a famine-genocide in a public law. Congress.gov > Radio Free Europe as a source.  // Timothy :: talk  08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, cite a source so we know what you're talking about. Stix1776 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the article and in the diff.  // Timothy :: talk  08:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, thanks for being helpful. This is the source from congress.gov [[95]]. Here's the source from Radio Free Europe [[96]]. Per radio free Europe: "In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law. Typically, they are used by lawmakers to usually back a pet project or endeavor, or a potentially political controversial issue without forcing a more public vote." A resolution is not an official policy of the US government, and your source doesn't say otherwise.Stix1776 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are again distorting to push your POV. The public law on Congress.gov is not a simple or non-binding resolution and RFE does not call it such.  // Timothy :: talk  09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the text at[[97]]

The Senate "recognizes the findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine as submitted to Congress on April 22, 1988, including that...'Stalin and those around him committed genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932–1933,'" it said.

Millions of people died in the famine, which many Ukrainians consider to have been caused by Soviet central planners as an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Ukrainian farmers.

In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law. Typically, they are used by lawmakers to usually back a pet project or endeavor, or a potentially political controversial issue without forcing a more public vote.

Timothy, you are more than welcome to that opinion, but you need to SOURCE your opinion for Wikipedia. Stix1776 (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain you are trying to mix up the source about the Senate resolution and the source about the public law.  // Timothy :: talk  09:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of plagiarism

Stix1776 has made unfounded accusations of plagiarism against me [98], [99]. There comments also contain other serious accusations.

The content has been in the article for a while.

Instead of fixing the minor amount of plagiarism and saving the sourced content, they deleted it [100]

I restored it because it was sourced content [101], and was easily able to remove the plagiarism and save the content.

This false accusation of plagiarism against an experienced editor cannot be left unaddressed, especially combined with their other accusations and POV pushing. The accusations should also be redacted.  // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your revert[[102]]:

The United States Government received numerous contemporary intelligence reports on the famine from its European embassies, but chose not to acknowledge the famine publicly. Similarly, leading members of the American press corps in the Soviet Union willfully covered up the famine in their dispatches. In both cases, political considerations relating to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. seem to have been critical factors in this cover-up.

• The text from this website [[103]]:

The United States Government received numerous contemporary intelligence reports on the famine from its European embassies, but chose not to acknowledge the famine publicly. Similarly, leading members of the American press corps in the Soviet Union willfully covered up the famine in their dispatches. In both cases, political considerations relating to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. seem to have been critical factors in this cover-up.

OMG, just fix your plagiarism instead of reverting it (now solved).Stix1776 (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are making false accusations.  // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that, as presented, this is verbatim copying from a non-free source. I can, in principle, be presented as a quote, but we can not really keep this without further explanations.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest would be probably not to edit the article directly, but to make something like Holodomor in modern politics/temp, discuss it at the talk page of the article, amend according to suggestions, and then move to the main namespace (merging the edit history).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, the text was not mine, I performed the revert to restore the uninfringing text and sources and then immediately copy edited it to remove the copyvio. I was fixing the copyright issue.  // Timothy :: talk  11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. I will revision-delete it later. Well, then we are again back to a (unfortunately, too) commons pattern of a newish user with 100+ edits appearing out of nowhere to make false accusations. Not really good and very tiring.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mzajac and I are working on improving and expanding the article and your words very tiring fit. You can see from this editors response to your DS notice, they don't have an interest in this area, they are just deleting content they do not like and making life exhausting for others.  // Timothy :: talk  11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I kept repeating this as reverting back the plagiarism, not "your plagiarism". It wasn't my intention to accuse you of plagiarism, but of edit warring by reverting back without fixing. I did unintentionally say "your text" above, which is now edited to "your revert". Can we please be nicer to other editors?Stix1776 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying, [104] "is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring". You've been playing word games on the article, and you doing it here.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being specific enough. I should have said "repeatedly reverting planarized text". If you look down in the edit, it says "Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism" which to me makes the meaning obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also untrue. I reverted it once, not repeatedly, and for the permissable purpose of salvaging non-infringing text and references and immediately copy editing the passage to remove the small amount of text which was the problem. As soon as the problem was noted, I fixed it. I didn't report it for reaction immediately, because there could be other cases and in that event a collective report would be easier and faster for admins to redact from.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that the copyrighted text was there before Timothy showed up, and that is now fixed. I am generally quite unimpressed by Stix' handling of this, such as adding an edit summary of "lol" while posting here on ANI and trying to retaliate against Timothy in the thread above, plus being generally combative. Now, I might be biased because I have mentored Timothy for a good while, but when Timothy says something about a source I would generally trust it. Timothy's work on sourcing is very impressive (see his many bibliographies
  WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior continues, I suspect it will not end well for you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Devlet Geray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is making a range of

He has already been reported here before [105], and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Wikipedia.

More

[106]

[107]

Not to mention he isn't shy of casting

Hello. Please refrain from ethnic vandalism and historical revisionism on English Wikipedia.

tendentious pro-Iran nationalist vandalism

simple vandalism

Your revisionism is amazing

(f***, are you so sick that you still keep track of my contributions? i know that this page is not in your watchlist

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here [108] he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text [109] based on his attempts of historical revisionism. He claims that First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria weren't Turkic (apparently Iranian). Let's see. Here is the information from the First Bulgarian Empire article The First Bulgarian Empire (Old Bulgarian: ц︢рьство бл︢гарское, ts'rstvo bl'garskoe[12]) was a medieval Bulgar-Slavic and later Bulgarian state that existed in Southeastern Europe. Let's see the article Bulgars: The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Now let's see Old Great Bulgaria article: Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Medieval Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria[3] and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"),[4] was a 7th-century Nomadic empire formed by the Onogur Bulgars on the western Pontic–Caspian steppe and It is generally believed to derive from the Turkic verb bulğha (to "stir", "mix", "disturb", "confuse"),[9] possibly suggesting that other Turkic peoples regarded the Bulgars as a "mixed" people[10] or as "rebellious". Devlet Geray (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When did I claim that they were Iranian? Please show revisions for this. I am not "pro-Iranian" either. And no, I did not remove anything "because I didn't like it" or because of "historical revionism" - I literally stated why. More

WP:TENDENTIOUS. Pinging admin @Ymblanter: (I assume this isn't canvassing?) as he seems to be more knowledgeable of your past actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I repeat it again: think twice. 1. I didn't add/mention/write about modern Slavic Bulgarians, I wrote about historical Turkic Bulgars. 2. I didn't write that you claimed that they were Iranian, I wrote "apparently Iranian". Devlet Geray (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning First Bulgarian empire, it could have been moved to Turco-Slavic (or Slavo-Turkic) states section (it could have been created, as already done with Turco-Mongol states or Turko-Persian states. It's clear that I'm not against it. The previous section doesn't mention that the state was completely Tukic either, it's just the state that is related to Turkic history, that's all), but this does not seem to be the appropriate reason for reverting everything. As for your pro-Iranian position, you mentioned it on your page "this user is proud to be Iranian" and I especially say "as I understand it", but I may have been mistaken (you on the contrary say that I attempt to "Turkify several articles", which is not true at all) Devlet Geray (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a random example above [110], the user does not see a difference between his personal position and encyclopedic material. I propose a topic ban from everything related to Eastern Europe and Turkey, broadly construed. For EE, it could be arbitration enforcement. I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me [111], this "I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past" sounds at least inappropriate Devlet Geray (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can not read Russian, the above "persecution and attacking" was in fact removal of copyrighted material (a text of a poem). When Devlet Geray restored it claiming it is fair use, I removed it again and said that the fair use policy must be adopted forst on that wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was the previous instance Devlet Geray was featured here, though I could have missed something.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• the fact that you was looking through my contributions to Crimean Tatar wiki shows that it was a clear persecution. Your taking part in the previous discussion on the noticeboard and your mentioning about my contributions to RuWiki, which is unrelated to this Wiki, proves it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I joined the Crimean-Tatar wiki when it was still in Incubator (I was in fact one of the people who helped to get it out of the Incubator) and have been editing it every day ever since. I check all edits on that project, but, indeed, before your edit I have never detected any copyright violations, not mentioning that I had to edit-war to remove copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that topic-starter was involved in the conflict on the same topic (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tarik289) just two days before, which seems to me like he creates conflict situations, preventing the editing of articles in a direction - towards a neutral presentation - that does not coincide with his views. As for Ymblanter and Каракорум who previously mentioned me on this noticeboard, they are both from Russian Wikipedia and both harrass me cross-wiki Devlet Geray (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not from the Russian Wikipedia. The last user who had pleasure to call me a "Russian admin" and would not stop against my objections, was recently site-banned by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, well, to claim I am not an active English Wikipedia user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I didn't say anything about your activity on English Wikipedia and I didn't call you a Russian admin. Devlet Geray (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I recently added a
  WP:CIR issues in relation to user:Devlet Geray's editorial conduct. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• He was right to remove the link to Encyclopedia Iranica in the article. Encyclopedia Iranica is an encyclopedia with a focus on Iran (and may be a RS for Iranian history), but it's coverage of topics outside it's purview is subpar, to put it mildly. The specific article linked to in question was absolute monstrosity of misinformation, steryotypes, misconseptions, distortions, and generalizations, - all contradictory to the text of the Wikipedia article itself - and ergo should not have been linked to. Removing it was the appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Encyclopedia Iranica is known for forgeries and inaccurate presentation of information. It's not me who says it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is [113]. At no point does it state any accusations of forgeries or inaccurate presentation of info. All it states is that Yarshater being Baha'i and its description of pre-Islamic Iran means it's opposed by elements of the Iranian government. Your false presentation of news is yet another example of disruptive editing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• refrain from your agressive style [114] of talking with people who are not Iranian --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world for Devlet Geray. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is way too mild. It should be an indefinite topic ban or even a long-term block. The issues have been ongoing for several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing to hand out a final straw of

not here to build this encyclopedia, and thus, I will support a block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagree with this. LouisAragon was involved in conflict with me (knowing that Iranica was accused of being propaganda, I deleted it - but when it was returned I didn't revert it again), Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki and is clearly prejudiced against me, Каракорум (the user who created the first notice on this page) harrasses me cross-wiki, these are Ukrainian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata. I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia and always acted with sources (see my reverted edit). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statements "I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia" and "Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki" are demonstratably false.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already shown an example here, the same situation is here - [115], but Ymblanter didn't delete it (though he says that he checks "all edits", so this claim seems to be false, not mine). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After the indefinite blocking on the Russian Wikipedia, it was Devlet Geray who began to harass me in Commons and on the English Wikipedia, canceling my edits without explanation, like this [116]. He began corny to take revenge on me for the fact that I dared to resist his pushing on the Russian Wikipedia. Therefore, Devlet Geray is lying again.
  talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok, I see that Devlet Geray is obviously not interested in addressing his own behavior and tries to excuse his year-long disruptive editing that other users "keep track" of his contributions. Could an admin please just block him, preferrably indef. Last ANI thread was closed because the general sentiment was that someone is importing conflicts here from other wiki; in this thread it is clear that Devlet Geray is disruptive on the English Wikipedia, and in addition he tries to import real or imaginary conflicts from elsewhere. Thos thread should not go forever, there is enough proof given here that he is not capable of editing Wikipedia in an appropriate manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What "my own behavior"? Adding information with many authoritative sources and then just got it reverted with one click? Yes, I reacted slightly emotionally on this mass-deletion of what I added, I shouldn't have done it and I'm sorry for that. All other conflicts were solved long ago. I edit conflicting topics, it is obvious that it may cause far more conflicts than if I were editing articles about nature, this should also be taken into account Devlet Geray (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support a block: Looking over this users contributions it's clear they're not interested in reliable sources. They're not interested in amicable discussions. They're not interested in a neutral representation or the widely accepted interpretations. They are just pushing their view, and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They are simply

• Provide at least several proofs to your claims, without them it is like your point of view. Thank you Devlet Geray (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is proof your actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef (topic) ban: Per

• You are a topic-starter, it's clear that you are for my block. As for your claim, it's a simple falsifications/forgery of my words (not for the first time). I said, quote: "seems to me [I even stressed it] like [=as if] he creates conflict situations", I didn't say that you "like to create conflict situations". I leave now. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started this topic indeed; because you were unable to behave accordingly. Okay, I accidentally added "like", my bad. But you do realize there's ultimately no difference between the two? Both are equally inappropriate. The fact that you can't see that says it all. It's a even bigger wonder you haven't been blocked yet after all the accusations and attacks you've made towards me in this noticeboard alone. I hope someone is taking notice of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No topic ban, but a brief block for

But some his edits (like that) do look highly opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary block. The user is problematic and mean as proven by the diffs provided, however, they made overall helpful edits to the project in the past. So, I feel like a temporary block can help the editor take some time to

• Support topic ban. Some editors can not productively edit some topics. If they're here to build an encyclopedia, they can find other areas where they can edit without contention. BD2412 T 19:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• support indef topic ban per HistoryofIran, as well as a forced "vacation". - Kevo327 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unrelated to this, but probably you voted for my block because I added Turkic origin to Safavids (then probably i'm "pro-Turkic", if I'm "pro-Turkic" I can start adding anti-Armenian information/propaganda to wikipedia - so just to be on the safe side you supported my indef block - it's your option). But, fyi, I renamed article about Armenian Genocide from "Fake Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide" and removed all propaganda from it, which wasn't done by Ymblanter who claims that he "checks all the edits" there (another proof of what I said above). So, don't be that prejudiced about people, if everything I wrote is true. If not, I'm sorry Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For those who think that Devlet Geray can edit "unproblematically" may I please note that this is the second time in this thread he implies that I am lying. Without having any credible reasons for that. I am sure if he escapes with a topic ban he is going to be back here soon because of his unacceptable behavior (casting aspersions and personal attacks).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the second time i give proofs that I'm not lying, not that you are lying. I'm not interested in attacking you, I'm interested in defending myself from attacks (as any person here) Devlet Geray (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Doubling down again.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, English is not my native language, and it may cause some problems, something may sound like doubling down. For instance, here, which was "a random example above" of my violations mentioned by Ymblanter. So, i didn't mean that these "republics" are fiction or something like this I meant that these are puppet states (марионеточные государства) (Crimea unrecognized not only by Ukraine but by the whole world. And de-facto it's a part of Russia - we cannot say that Crimea is of the same status as this republics, as they were not annexed by Russia - we should differ them, don't we?) and the word fictitious (фиктивный) was the first to come to my mind (To understand more what I meant there is such collocation as фиктивный брак which means legal registration of marriage without the intention of starting a family, but for other purposes, for example, obtaining citizenship, benefits from state or municipal services. This is close to what I meant). I agree that this is my fault that I didn't find a better word, but I just want to show that I didn't assume bad-faith Devlet Geray (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNR and LNR belong to Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Crimea is currently [annexed territory].My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban. (after edit-conflict). Devlet Geray's editorial behaviour is uncivil if you ask me. He reverts edits without looking if some of them are helpful or not and his edit summaries are too hostile. This suppresses useful activities of other editors and creates unnecessary conflict situations. Even here in the discussion, his comments reflect his attitude towards other editors.--Renat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban Reading what Devlet Geray has written here has violated most, if not all, of Wikipedia's pillars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef ban. On the Russian Wikipedia, where he was blocked indefinitely, here on the English Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Commons, Devlet Geray is behaving aggressively, pushing the Crimean Tatar POV. You can be sure that in case of blocking, he will create sockpuppets, as it regularly does in Russian Wikipedia. So you need to monitor it to avoid damage.
  talk) 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I didn't see any proof of the endless stream of accusations (such as "he's not interested in reliable sources" or "pushing Crimean Tatar POV" — attempts of removing soviet anti-Tatar propaganda/adding another well-sourced point of view to maintain a balanced presentation may seem "Crimean Tatar pov-pushing" on Russian Wikipedia, but I have a patroller status on Ukrainian Wikipedia). Second, it was RenatUK who deleted sourced information adding his information and after revert, instead of going to the talk-page and discuss, he decided to start an edit-war (though it was not a conflict situation at all before he started to bring the RuWiki, which was completely and for sure unrelated to the discussed topic). I agree with the fact that I shouldn't have accussed the topic-starter of vandalism/revisonism because of a mass-text deletion and had to go to the talk-page and discuss everything (as I see now he is not a vandal (as I mistakenly thought then) and has more than 50 thousand edits) Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a piece of advice. Continually replying to everyone and posting isn't going to help you, in fact it's much more likely to hinder your cause and is considered

bludgeoning. Also ultimately what happens on other Wikipedias is not relevant here, we're only interested in behaviour on the English language Wikipedia. If there's evidence of issues on other languages it may be taken into consideration, but it's about edits here that people are concerned about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• ok Devlet Geray (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban After communicating in this topic: Talk:Crimean Tatars/Archive 1#Devlet Geray edits--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best". To make it clear, Valery Vozgrin is a Russian professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences who worked at Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian-leading university, until his death. Saying that phrase at the beginning of a peaceful dicusion doesn't seem to be an intent of a constructive dicussion. Moreover, there is a whole article (Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe), fully dedicated to this topic, there is no need to repeat all these again and again in the aricle about a modern people Devlet Geray (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vozgrin is a specialist in the Scandinavic countries. His works on the Crimean Tatars are tendentious and were criticized by specialized specialists. For example, the Russian Wikipedia carried out an analysis, and after that they refused to use Vozgrin's works on the history of Crimea.
  talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Looks like there's a consensus on this issue. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the result?

• Editshmedt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same editor wrote I decided to read the rest of Ahlstrom's paper and was disgusted by the sheer dishonesty of your claims. There is clearly no limit to what you will manipulate in order to establish your sheer and utter propaganda. [122]. They have been blocked once for violating

This again? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't accuse someone of paid editing if you don't have any evidence.
  talk) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  My idea was that they were doing promotional edits: for Dever/Kalimi and against Finkelstein. Therefore asking them if they were paid for such edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew the editor had already denied being paid, why would you even bring it up in this report?

talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Err, I have written the above message in several steps. At first I was unaware they will deny. After learning that they denied it, I stated clearly that they did deny. Anyway, saying that Israel Finkelstein is both incompetent and insane made me wonder if they have an axe to grind against him. That's why I thought they edit promotionally. You may see all the steps of my message at Special:Contributions/Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a content dispute, and you are putting so much effort in having this editor blocked, so that you'd be the one to come out on top in the dispute. The fact that you had already made a previous report against the editor and about the same article

talk) 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I don't find it normal that Finkelstein gets called incompetent and insane. I thought that is against

WP:SPI reports were successful. So it's not like I would cast aspersions without any reason. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't care if the editor thinks the source is good, bad, reliable, unreliable, that is an argument for the article talk page, and your past successful SPI cases have nothing to do with this report. You have been editing for many years, yet you couldn't start an RfC?

talk) 03:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I do know something about the editor, but

WP:OUTING does not allow me to say it here. Anyway, my take is that that discussion should have been closed long ago, it no longer has anything to do with the article David. And I guess RfCs are not for closing discussions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think there is no secret that I wanted Editshmedt blocked. But I am not desperate about it; I'm more likely bored by it. It is not so much that it would be because of disagreeing with them, but the inability of them to find a common idiom with the other three editors at that talk page. Bona fide editors recognize

WP:ENEMY. But that has not happened at Talk:David: what Editshmedt says failed to convince three of us and what three of us say failed to convince Editshmedt. I sincerely believed that it is not done to call Finkelstein names. So yeah, Editshmedt pleads mostly their own understanding of archaeological papers, claiming an elusive consensus of archaeologists that the United Monarchy has truly existed. To this we replied that there is no smoking gun in that respect, all we have is a tiny, broken, multi-interpretable inscription which says something about the House of David. And we don't have even that much about Solomon, a king who according to the Bible become the head of a wealthy empire through maintaining military prowess and through international trade and diplomacy. It was a shock for me to learn that Wikipedians are allowed to call top professors names. We are supposed to be civil with each other, but everyone outside the Wikipedia Community has been declared fair game for casting aspersions against them. A Wikipedian just has to comment upon a source and boom, all dirty words become allowed for persons living outside of Wikipedia Community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

(Non-administrator comment) Has there been any attempt to bring the dispute (behaviour notwithstanding) to the

WP:DRN? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Frankly, that discussion is about the archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy especially in respect to the Low Chronology of Finkelstein. So, if

WP:DRN is needed, it is needed for another article, not for David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLP violation? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Never mind, it is an important question, so I asked about it at

WP:BLPN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Answered with:

How is calling a very famous (in his field) professor emeritus insane/incompetent not defamatory? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Or do you mean such opinions are relevant to content choice? Doug Weller talk 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tgeorgescu, you seem to be making a lot of accusations against Editshmedt without providing supporting diffs, including that the editor is an "anti-Finkelstein troll, furthering a wiki-feud" and engaged in paid editing (although Editshmedt has never edited the Israel Finkelstein page itself).

@

WP:SPA for demeaning Finkelstein's Low Chronology. See their edits at Talk:David

, where they insist time after time that the Low Chronology is the single reason why scholars don't accept the United Monarchy and that the Low Chronology is patently false. That even after we all told him that the Low Chronology is not that all-important as they think.

E.g.:

The article isn't about the Low Chronology. The article is about David, a legendary biblical figure. The supposed point of the section in question, "Historicity," must be to present a) what evidence exists for this legendary figure and b) the scholarly consensus on what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence. I agree that the section is not very good, but I don't think your edits are improving it. I think the section should resemble the Historicity section in the article about King Arthur. In both cases are we dealing with legendary figures that may or may not have existed and whose deeds may or may not have been greatly exaggerated. ImTheIP (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists have rejected the Low Chronology. The Low Chronology, in turn, is the only basis on which you can disentangle the SSS, LSS, and all the other structures we've discussed from the 10th century. But please keep telling me about how William Dever and Amihai Mazar are maximalist religious fundamentalists in order to preserve your precious, if fragile views.Editshmedt (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, except for your obsession with the Low Chronology, do you have

WP:TE

at worst. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Low Chronology is the only basis on which the six-chambered gates, ashlar palaces at Megiddo, fortification of Beersheba, construction of the SSS and the LSS, and so forth can be placed in the 9th century rather than the 10th. Unless you defend the Low Chronology, I'm simply going to assume that they're all 10th century. Editshmedt (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Modified Conventional Chronology, or any other Chronology – it's not important to this article. I fully accept that "Iron IIA pottery is continuous from the 10th to 9th centuries BCE". I'm sure this problem is not limited to Iron IIA pottery either. It is only your determination to perpetuate the Low Chronology strawman that hinders progress here. I found it interesting how you tried to trick me into "defending" the Low Chronology. Mmmmmmm.
Finally, you put huge emphasis on the "Solomonic" six-chambered gates, but you neglect to mention that other six-chambered gates existed outside of Solomon's territory – including a six-chambered gate in Ashdod, where Solomon would never have ventured. How did all these cities have near-identical gates, when Solomon (assuming he existed at all) never built things in Ashdod? Who did control both Ashdod and Megiddo in this time period, along with many other places, and came from a monumental-building culture? Who could it possibly have been? Oh wait, was it perhaps Sheshonq? Could it maybe have been him? He did erect a stela at Megiddo ... I wonder if ….. Wdford (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you not see that it is clearly the Low Chronology which is patently political? Mazar has never written a populist book in his life. However, almost at the outset, Finkelstein published The Bible Unearthed constructing a whole system on his Low Chronology and made tons of money. Since then, Mazar has forced Finkelstein into numerous concessions which I can list out. It's game over for the LC. Once Finkelstein retires, it will be forgotten.
The only candidate for a 10th century construction of these six-chambered gates in Megiddo, Gezer, or Hazor is Solomon. All the relevant strata are Israelite in their material culture. Got any more escape hatchets?Editshmedt (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

... and every other ad nauseam repetition of Finkelstein's chronology, Low Chronology, or 'low' chronology at Talk:David. See also User:Editshmedt/Commentary on the United Monarchy_debate which makes his POV against Finkelstein crystal-clear: Bibliography of publications that have rejected Finkelstein’s Low Chronology and his rejection of the United Monarchy and/or accepted the United Monarchy.

Conclusion: Editshmedt claims that the falsification of the Low Chronology is a done deal, but they just try to fool us in that respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Jerm: Editshmedt's POV is that the Low Chronology has been busted (like in MythBusters). That's imposture. And seek Talk:David for the word insult: others have seen the same thing I am telling you here. They quarrel with everyone who tells them that the United Monarchy isn't consensually accepted (we offered them verifiable quotes and arguments). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, almost everyone one of the opinions attributed to me here by Tgeorg is exaggerated/false. According to Lester Grabbe, the Modified Conventional Chronology "seems to have been fairly widely accepted" (the revised edition of Ancient Israel, pg. 84). But I am sure that, as usual, the literature just counts as my "opinion" when it says something inconvenient. I also found it funny that Tgeorg had to clarify to everyone that his dozens of attempts to get me banned over a series of months ranging on a whole variety of accusations including but not limited to paid editing (based on nothing) is actually just him being "bored" rather than "desperate".Editshmedt (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Morning Admins, can I make someone aware of the user known as HunsletMid, appears to be NOTHERE by the quality of their edits on EN wiki and rather crude uploads on Commons - if anyone here is an admin over on Commons could they take a look? I have nominated two of their additions - one is a copyvio. Courtesy pinging SK2242. Thanks Nightfury 11:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding term on their user page is an English term for a sex offender. Would advise it be removed/revdel'd. Commons contibs have all been removed. Nightfury 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that term has changed since I was a kid, when it just meant the same as numpty, wazzock, pillock etc. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally prison slang, that meaning has been well-known in UK for about 40 years. I suspect it came into common knowledge through TV dramas; possibly including Minder. It was certainly well known by the time of Brass Eye#"Paedogeddon!" (2001); in which several celebrities were taken in by the idea of a spoof charity called Nonce Sense. Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in Northern Ireland we didn't always end up with the same changes that happened in Great Britain. Heck the 1980s have only just arrived :) Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In bits of it, only the 1680s... Narky Blert (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my typo :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the prison slang is defined as a second use: wikt:nonce - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with what Nightfury has said above. Does not seem the user in question is here to contribute. SK2242 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from

WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Carchasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This account is one month old and mainly does unilateral radical changes on a mass scale and edit wars. In the rare case he responds, that is mostly in the edit comments of edit wars.[123] His Talk page pretty much consists of people telling him to stop doing unilateral unexplained undiscussed edits. He pretended to unilaterally dictate the total reformation of Wikproject Literature by declaring one archived discussion from 2007 to magically be the status quo that he needs to suddenly reset the entire encyclopedia to. He just started mass editing the definition pages of what the wikiproject is, ignoring all responses via edit comments except to blithely instruct them to stop reverting him. He declared a few days on the project talk page to constitute zero feedback and a completely dead project (actually ignoring or defying all feedback), and thus spam hundreds of edits with no edit comments, which will apparently not stop. He did all this without even initially knowing the basic concepts of wikipedia such as edit warring and BRD, but learning it hasn't stopped him. So I call that massively disruptive editing. I discovered this when he removed Aesop's Fables from Wikiproject Literature. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smuckola - I don't see you leaving the user a query about this issue on their talk page. Can you engage with them on their user talk first? -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuzheado Sorry, no, the whole point is that's already been done several times by several people and he simply refuses and escalates. — Smuckola(talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did engage with the people who raised objections to what I was doing - I'm not sure which feedback that you feel I was ignoring or defying. I also added a discussion of the changes to the wikiproject itself. Maybe I just don't understand WikiProjects, but shouldn't the talk page for the project be the place where discussion should occur on what the scope of the project is? - car chasm (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also maybe I've read the community wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that "which WikiProject banners are on a page" should be a controversial thing - especially to editors that aren't involved in that WikiProject. If you look at the project, it still has well over 3000 unassessed pages. Honestly the only reason I didn't mark the project as inactive rather than semi-active was that I wanted to clean it up. - car chasm (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to engage with car chasm, who appears to be a new, and possibly too eager editor. Carchasm should be guided not discouraged. Rwood128 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Proposing guidance is not a valid assessment in response to a report of refusing guidance and of edit warring, and now here in this thread also childishly, aimlessly, and pointlessly casting

WP:ASPERSIONS on the veteran editor Xxanthippe simply for having tried to do so. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Xxanthippe. I endorse the concerns of Smuckola. - car chasm edit wars over categories, persists with mass edits and does not respond to guidance. I suggest a topic ban from Categories and Literature, where the damage has been done, until they have gained more experience in editing Wikipedia before engaging in more major structural edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Y'know, for all of the quoting

here to build an encyclopedia? - car chasm (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Does this apply to all of my 17,000 edits over the last 15 years? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the mass deletion of the literature project from author/book articles is disruptive (although based on their explanation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, I see the point to what they're doing), but I don't see them refusing to discuss on their talk page or on the project talk page. I just read through the history on User talk:Carchasm and I see the editor responding to concerns that other editors raise. If editors are solely relying on edit summaries to give guidance, that might not be the most productive approach. I agree with Rwood128 about "too eager". On the other hand, I'm skeptical on how "new" they are; their second day registered, they engaged in an ANI discussion, explaining that they'd removed a ref from multiple articles because it had been added by an account circumventing a block, linking to an archived SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Good point. I don't know if there's a basis for initiating a sockpuppet investigation because there is no point of comparison to another user. But how on earth does someone know what ANI is, knows how to install user scripts, knows what WikiProjects are and is obsessed with pretending to just take one over, but who says they don't know what BRD and edit warring are? What can be done? — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let User:Carchasm be asked if they have previously edited Wikipedia under another account. Who knows what the answer, if any, will be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

But answer came there none. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Agree with Xxanthippe's proposal for a topic ban. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Greek Football Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Greek Cup finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyopa has already been blocked for editwarring on these articles, yet refuses to stop. Consensus has already been established that as the match was abandoned neither club should be awarded a win for the cup finals in question. Sources (including those provided by the user in question) also agree with this viewpoint. The user has a habit of attacking other editors AND authors of sources (see: here, here), displayed OWN behavior here and noted that they would wait 24 hours to avoid triggering 3RR here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, I apologize for the inconvenience. I made an effort to correct something I thought was wrong. Some users have the opposite view. I was treated hostilely and maybe I did the same. Because that leads nowhere, it's best not to dwell on these articles again. It does not mean that I am wrong. They just do not understand me. You should not punish me because users who disagree with me cooperate secretly (canvassing). User Padgriffin is negatively biased with me and please be excluded from the case. I generally think I have a group of puppets in front of me. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @REDMAN 2019: and @Abudabanas: Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyopa has his own pov on Greek Football Cup honors and he is very persistent on this. I have a different pov and when edit war occured, I stopped reverting, opened a discussion on the article’s Talk page and called other users for help. You won’t find any reliable source that backs up his pov and that is why he was told to stop edit warring on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals by multiple users (5-6) and blocked twice by 2 admins (48hrs and 1 week). I believe that Kyopa won’t stop until his edit is accepted and it has been proved pointless to talk/reason/reach consensus with him. I tried everything. Abudabanas (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I came into this a month or so ago. Abudabanas asked me for my opinion on a "minor controversy" at the article in question. I had a look and found Kyopa's view at fault and said so on the talk page. Kyopa then repeatedly rejected my words and everyone else's. He made it clear that he wasn't going to stop edit warring, as shown by
  WT:FOOTY here, where Kyopa was again found to be at fault by other editors, including @Nehme1499, Crowsus, and GiantSnowman:. Kyopa has been blocked twice already for edit warring, and both times he has come back and continued, accusing all who oppose him of being puppets, vandals, or negatively biased against him for some unknown reason. I too am of the opinion that he not going to change and that he needs to be prevented from continuing his trouble-causing. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support indef block - kyopas has made it clear by their editing history (even after multiple warnings & blocks) and by their comment above that they don't get it and won't change. The only way to prevent this disruption is an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See first of all the difference in our edits [124]. The users who accuse me of lying are blatantly lying, as all the sources confirm that the final was stopped and the teams were punished. Only one journalist says he does not count on the final because no trophy was awarded. So what? The federation decided so, as in other cases it decided to share the title. They completely eliminate the fact. The federation records it normally. But from the moment he punished both teams, it means that we have two runners up. I see that they are asking for my final block. I consider it unacceptable and fascist. Ask them what is ip 195.xxx.xxx.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The comments that Kyopa has made in this ANI, AND the talk page comment he made about how he is going to wait 24 hours AFTER a block for edit warning. AND all of the personal attacks/lack of
  Assuming Good Faith(calling the users fascist, sock puppets, vandals. etc etc), makes me support a indef block. Regardless of who is "right", the behavior being exhibited by Kyopa idetrimentalal to the collaborative environment of Wikipeida. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support as nom. Kyopa continues to attack users and refuses to act in a civil manner, ignores warnings, has expressed a desire to deliberately circumvent 3RR and is unwilling to partake in civil discussion with other editors despite prior warnings and blocks. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everything I have said above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see I am doomed. Of the 4 who have voted, 3 are directly involved in the case and normally should not have voted. But I have to accept the data. So if you decide to punish me, let it be only for these two entries and not from the whole wiki. I repeat, however, that I consider any punishment of mine to be unjust.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: :In a cup final we have the cup and two teams claiming it. The one who gets it and the one who loses. If neither of them gets it for any reason what should be the names of the teams that participated in the final? Is it right to cancel their participation in the final because they failed to win the cup? My view is that both should be considered runners-up. That's all.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly gave you the answer from the beginning of all this. 1962 final stopped in overtime and never replayed (fact). Definitions: Winner (1st), Runner-up (2nd), Finalist (last 2). Olympiacos Greek Cup honors: 28 W , 12 R-UP , 1 FST. Crowsus edit is perfect. Four-five months of talking, edit warring, personal attacks and bad behavior because you are the only one who insists on 28 W , 13 R-UP for something that even if you are a devoted Olympiacos fan, can't understand. Abudabanas (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are Crowsus footnotes why write 12 and not 13? Notes are entered for the above and not for the following. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cause it's 12 times R-UP and a note explaining that there is also 1 as FST (not as R-UP, so that it is written as 13) for 1962 final. That's what happened, it did not come out from Crowsus' or anybody's personal view. Abudabanas (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is, the finalist is one thing and the runner-up is another;--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per above reasoning. Kyopa I am not involved and can see your issues here. Your not understanding the issues here, as explained above. This is about your edting behavior and your lack of accepting consensus and inabaility to work in a collaborative environment. As to your question, its irrelevant to what is being discussed here. This is about your behavior, who won some sports event in 1962, really not relevant. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Thomson. Understood. So the problem is my behavior. All I can do is apologize to those who offended me, but attack me to maintain the belief that my treatment is correct. Thank you for participating.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipaedista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obstructing contemporary edits to Abelard and Heloise. He continually reverts edits of the Heloise and Abelard pages, preferring in particular an edition of the Heloise page in which Heloise is called "brash", in a sexist way, in her critical depictions of marriage. He continues to remove contemporary scholarship or references to feminism. Bad faith likely. The Abelard page in particular needs work to bring it to "good status". — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs)

StarTigerJLN, the large orange caution at the top of this page says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so. Please follow those instructions to notify the editor that you have started this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I informed him of a report, but I will mark it on his talk page more officially. StarTigerJLN (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still haven't notified Omnipaedista, I have done so for you. Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to notify him on his talk page and he continues to remove the notice. It's not my doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only things that they have removed are this message of yours and another one. None of the required ANI notices have been removed, and even if they were, they're well within

their rights to do so (it just also means that they have acknowledged it by the act of deleting it). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Reverting egregious violations of

WP:CIVIL. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Magnus Dominus, been "suddenly" obstructing MMA pages from further changes and try use this ANI to goes his way. Edits from Oct 2020 to Feb 1 2021...looks like random edits. Strangely it something do with this RFC. This is almost like reopening same case over and over again..... Targeting same 3 person over and over again @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN:. I want a review on Magnus Dominus behavior please. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuing behavior

1. Magnus Dominus doing
   WP:FILIBUSTER too much in mma pages. Special:Contributions/Magnus_Dominus Kent Bargo (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Magnus Dominus used SPI to once again targeting the same editor (sorta harassing with wild "wall of texts"). SPI Kent Bargo (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Went soo low targeting anyone who question user edit or behavior. Kent Bargo (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Attempting to pay for services. HERE Kent Bargo (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. This disruption maybe related diff diff 2 Kent Bargo (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for SPI experts/Admin for assistance

The user targeting & disagreements are getting out of control. I reported user for roadblocking articles and concern may do it on other page. I did not notice the person also being investigated for

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lordpermaximum <-- in this SPI - Magnus Dominus accuses Admin @Girth Summit: for some favoritism? (might not be the right word)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NEDOCHAN <- targeting again

Kent Bargo (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to even bring this here, but I've been asking this editor repeatedly (once, twice, thrice) to handle a template correctly, and they ignore me and do the same again and again and again. I keep having to clean after them. Maybe administrator intervention will help them understand the need for communication? Thanks in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of their 1600 or so edits have been on mainspace (no talk pages) and none have had an edit summary! DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes, These sort of editors turn up every now and again. I wish I knew what their problem is with communicating - most of them aren't here to push a POV, they just edit the encyclopedia and don't seem to know there's any way other people are watching them. Either people get fed up, or they blocked, never to return. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes From the editnotice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I've notified them for you. jp×g 23:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, they did. Look at that user's talkpage two sections above your notice... Jack Frost (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man, above the ArbCom election notice! Whoops. jp×g 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're too used to people ignoring the MASSIVE YELLOW BANNER, heh. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been here long enough not to ignore that banner and I thought placing that notice right after the warning might be more constructive. Other than the empathy, maybe I can get some help? My experience is that an administrator leaving a warning usually does the trick, and if not, a 24h ban definitely does. --Muhandes (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes, I'm going to give something a go. I've blocked with a custom template message that says "Click here to read your talk page and respond" that ought to be pretty difficult to miss. As soon as there is communication, anyone can unblocked. I'm trying this, because a standard block rationale of "Disruptive editing, failure to discuss" means something to us, but nothing to them, and there's no other way of customising the block message to make it more user-friendly.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Since this is overall a constructive editor, I hope they just respond, get unblocked, and we can go on with our beneficial editing hobbies. --Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the handful of occasions I've done this in the past, the editor disappears forever (Exhibit A, Exhibit B) and I'm left scratching my head wondering what's stopping them from communicating. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]