User talk:BunnyyHop

=)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Keep up the good work Bunny hop it looks like you're really trying hard. Don't get discouraged have a happy 2021! 46.7.7.125 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Productive break

Hola! Sometimes a break, even if forced, is good. Hope your energy is conserved and renewed, you find less contentious areas to edit on the wiki and are able to create knowledge off-wiki. Best! See you around. Vikram Vincent 13:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, thanks! I hope everything is ok with you :) Stay well! --BunnyyHop (^talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I really worried about you having to go through that massive, litigious hell. It genuinely stressed me out just reading it. No one deserves that kind of recrimination. I hope you can do some self-care for a bit and come back stronger. I hope you're OK. Stix1776 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Stix1776, thanks for your kindness! On the bright side, the time spent on unproductive disputes might be better spent doing something else I enjoy. Warmest regards :) --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your continuous contributions to articles relevant to WikiProject Socialism. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 23 July 2021

Topic ban violation

On 4 March 2021, you were topic-banned from Marxism-Leninism for a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING and WP:CIVILPOV approach on the topic of Marxism-Leninism. You violated this topic ban on 5 Aug 2021[1][2] by mass-removing academic content from the Cuba page that accurately described the Cuban political system and proceeded to falsely characterize the content of these sources on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

My ban expired two days ago, and I believe scrutiny of the paragraph you added, in the period of the aftermath of the 2021 Cuban protests, is grossly misrepresented in "mass-removing academic content from the Cuba page that accurately described the Cuban political system". --BunnyyHop (^talk) 15:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No it didn't: you have another month. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You have been mentioned here on the Administrators noticeboard in relation to the alleged topic ban violation[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, this is the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban_violation_by_user_%27BunnyyHop%27%3F Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is also a formal notice: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• The topic ban is made indefinite, per my close of the ANI thread. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, is there an appeal in one or six months? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:UNBAN--you'll hear people say that one should wait three months, or six months, but there is no rule. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for replying. @Stalwart111:, can you write here, please? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure:

If you receive an indefinite ban with an option to appeal in a month (as suggested at AN/I) and then you do appeal in a month, you will be required to make a case for being un-banned. This will inevitably involve questions from other editors as to how you plan to contribute productively, and requests for evidence that you can. I think those would be very challenging questions for you to answer at present, and if that remains the case in a month, your appeal (in my view) is unlikely to be successful. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: thank you for guiding me, this will be very useful. At the moment, I have too many things to do already in another wiki, so we'll probably have to wait awhile, probably not less than two or three months. I really want to start anew on this wiki, with the experience I acquired over the last months and with my topic ban. I see from your userboxes that you're, too, interested in history and politics. I am interested in contemporary history (XX and XXI centuries). I find it hard to discover any subject within that topic to contribute to that is not within my topic ban. Do you have any suggestions? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be a big mistake to try to appeal your topic ban in a month, because your appeal would almost certainly fail. Not editing English Wikipedia is the incorrect approach. Your best path toward appealing your topic ban is to edit productively in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism-Leninism, broadly construed. Take a sheet of paper and list things that interest you, other than politics. Butterflies? Asteroids? Some specific cuisine? Historic landmarks near where you live? Renaissance paintings? Race car drivers? Spend six months editing productively elsewhere, or people will dismiss you as a M-L POV pusher during your appeal, which will then probably not succeed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thanks for your response and hints, they are very good :) It also feels satisfactory to have the freedom to expand to other themes; and even though I'm a bit apprehensive about my privacy, which, too, confined me to only edit specific topics, although it might not be of such importance. Plus, I can contribute about those themes in two different wikis at the same time, whereas, right now, I'm only contributing to one. I'm still wondering what my relationship to M/L, and related contentious topics, must be if the ban is lifted. Obviously, I must really avoid the behavior that got me banned in the first place by understanding it; but, for instance, the comment I made yesterday that violated my topic-ban. I did not understand if there was something wrong with the comment itself that prompted users to say the behavior I was banned for in the first place will continue, or if it was just a preconception due to the whole context. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As for privacy, if that is important to you, then simply refrain from disclosing any personally identifying information, and you will be totally anonymous. Personally, I take the opposite stance, that of radical transparency. On my user page, I disclose my real name, gender, age, marital status, place of residence, profession and so on. I also disclose the very broad range of topics I edit. Take a look. Anyone with some decent Google-foo can easily find out a lot about me if they want, and I once got a cell phone call out of the blue from a former member of the Black Panther Party, which was fine with me, because it led to me writing another article. Each of us can choose anonymity or openness, and Wikipedia will protect that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As for the behavioral aspect, the main factor was jumping the gun by a month on the topic ban, while editing very little in the intervening time. And your edit was clearly a very intelligent and sophisticated attempt to make a one-party M-L regime look good (or less bad). Please always remember that the neutral point of view is a core content policy. I suggest that you read the essay Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. If a lot of experienced editors become convinced that this is your way of operating, then they will be inclined to exclude you from the project as not worth the trouble of dealing with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328:; I did not realize you were a different person! Well, guts are needed to make that decision. Openness, like anonymity, has disadvantages, which you probably know better than I do, but it has advantages too. What assured you it wasn't a fake call? You probably get some, more or less often. I see you also started by contributing to a specific topic and later moved on to other ones that interested you. That might be something we'll have in common in the future.

As for the second part, I understand. But you probably will agree that on matters of neutrality, due to systemic bias, the pendulum of neutrality will more often swing against rather than for countries viewed as enemies by the United States. If you look at the sourcing on that paragraph right now, you'll see that reason.com (from this think tank) is used as a source, which is a weird addition, to say the least. As one would probably expect, the rest of the content added also had problems; and given that the content added was all negative, contesting it would be an attempt to make it look good. But I agree, I would too view myself as a POV pusher editor given the context if I looked through the lens of an unrelated editor; as POV pushing-type of behavior shouldn't be that uncommon. Thanks for your advice! --BunnyyHop (^talk) 16:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In your comments above, you are straying quite close to your topic ban which is broadly construed and you should not hint at the topic except when appealing or asking an administrator for clarification. As for the phone call I got, it was pretty clear that the person was who he said he was and he emailed me various things for verification. That's the only phone call I have ever received about Wikipedia but I have received death threats and ugly harassment by email and on Wikipedia. Such is life, and there are a lot of disturbed people around. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I apologize, and thanks for warning me, I forgot the topic ban is extended to every public and private part of this Wiki; anyways, what I was talking about is not important right now.

It should have been a good talk! On the other side, it's disgraceful that it doesn't ring a bell in the minds of that kind of people that they're interacting with another human being, some epiphany that makes them realize this is not just a bunch of usernames. Or maybe it does, and they chose to do it anyway, which is just inconsolable. Thank you for this conversation. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Cullen's advice above is good. I was not involved, at all, in the discussion of your original topic ban; a discussion that seems to have gone one for 3-4 months (in various forms) culminating in that ban. I've been on an extended wiki-break myself (of about 5 years, actually). Lock-down in my country gave me a lot more free time and my normal community contributions were in places that are now temporarily shuttered. But your talk page (and that of the page you edited) are full of people with whom you did interact during that discussion and many likely have that page on their Watchlists. So when you showed up and started editing again, they likely recognised the name and a couple might have been surprised to see you back so soon. As I said at ANI, the content of your edits is irrelevant because all editing in breach of a ban (good and bad) is still a breach.

So, you have a ban, and you seem to have a clear pathway from here in terms of contributing elsewhere in the meantime, and an eventual appeal. In terms of I am interested in contemporary history (XX and XXI centuries). I find it hard to discover any subject within that topic to contribute to that is not within my topic ban. Do you have any suggestions? Sure! Plenty! Effectively the history of any country that didn't specifically have a M/L regime could work. If you look at Australian history - especially 21st century - you'd need to dig pretty deeply to get to the elements of government and politics that relate to M/L theory, support, or policy. There are and were, of course, M/L supporters in Australia but there are about 25 million people who I guarantee are not. And the handful that are/were can be avoided. Or you can apply an abundance of caution and avoid politics altogether. Focus on the history of community organisations and charities, art and architecture, conflicts based on religion, cultural mores, oddities like culture-specific parlance or colloquialisms, infrastructure projects, and so on. When all else fails, I go to WP:AFD to see if there is something I can save, or I click Special:Random and look at what needs to be done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thanks for your response. That's probably what happened, and accidental or not, a breach is a breach. These are good topics to consider. Maintenance also seems a good option too, but I already do that on another Wiki, so I probably should focus more on contributing content. If you need help with a certain article or to contribute somewhere, ping me. I'm good, for example, at finding and accessing sources. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 16:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely will. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ICANN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)