A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Störm and Girth Summit, I think störm is trying to attack praxidicae from his ip address see this [[6]].113.21.66.71 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit that 223.223.140.176 has ever made, and reporting it here is the only edit that 113.21.66.71 has ever made. Don't know what's going on there, but it's weird. And the message on Prax's talk page is absolutely loathsome. jp×g 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs are Kolkata-based. The message they left doesn't represent what I stand for. Shame they do such cowardly acts. Störm (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved issues

I believe the following issues are still unresolved:

• Possible WP:COI with regards to Störm's creation of article(s) of living people.
• Unwillingness from Störm to provide the exact source for article(s) they have created, with these mainly about BLPs.
• Use of unreliable source(s) for articles created by Störm (see the "so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article" by Blablubbs, above).
• Störm being unwilling and/or evasive in answering concerns raised by community. This includes a voluntary t-ban offered by Atsme. Störm, a very regular editor did say they were "busy with my job", but that was the best part of ten days ago.

If I've missed or misrepresented anything in this section, please feel free to correct me. I will drop notes on the talkpages of the main contributors to this thread in a moment. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely have been busy with my job for the last few days, but reviewing this now, I agree with Lugnuts that there are too many coincidences for comfort in the diffs provided above, and the explanations that Störm has offered are not very convincing. The following bullets summarise the issues that have been raised in this thread:

• At Tarryn Fisher, Störm added unsourced biographical details. He says that these came from an unpublished autobiography he got from a friend, who he was 'helping' by writing the article, and who is in contact with the author. Even leaving aside the obvious COI issues, an editor of Störm's tenure ought to know that unsourced biographical details in a BLP (and stuff that is coming from an unpublished autobiography is unsourced for our purposes) is unacceptable.
• At Eric Kalala, Störm added unsourced biographical details. He says that these came from the subject's Facebook page, but the information in question is not currently visible on that page. Störm suggests that this is because the subject must have changed their privacy settings in the few weeks between him adding that information, and me looking at the page. I don't know enough about Facebook to know whether that's a plausible information, but it seems somewhat dubious to me.
• Galaxy Racer eSports was created by Störm, a few months after a draft about the same organisation was declined and abandoned by RRRedPanda007, a declared paid editor.
• This COI Noticeboard report is based on a suggestion that Störm created a page about Sebastien Lepinoy (now deleted) in response to an advert at upwork.com requesting an article about that subject.
• There's also the very confusing situation around Ramzi Najjar, in which Störm seems somehow to have confused two completely different people, using sources that would support content about one of them to support content about the other. I don't understand how someone can make a mistake like that - if the information you are writing comes from the source you are citing, you can't mix up two different people in the way that he did. The only explanation Störm has offered is effectively 'I got confused', which doesn't really cut it for me; the only explanation I can come up that would explain a mistake like this is that the information came from a source which wasn't cited, and then some other sources, which had presumably been gathered from a Google search but had not actually been read, were cited in the article. That sort of editing would be entirely inappropriate, and the only reason I can think why someone would do that would be because they knew that the actual source of the information was unacceptable here. Perhaps it's another unpublished autobiography, perhaps it's another Facebook page, or perhaps it's an e-mail from the subject or an advert on Upwork - I have no way of knowing. If Störm can offer a better explanation I'd be willing to read it.

Störm has been unwilling to engage in anything but a very cursory manner to the concerns that have been raised here, and on his talk page, and at the COI noticeboard - indeed, he seems to have raised this thread to get Praxidicae off his back, when what she has been doing is properly trying to get him to comply with some of our most basic policies. That isn't OK with an editor of Störm's tenure, so I therefore make the following proposal.

Proposed Topic Ban for Störm

For quick overview see this user interaction report and click on timeline for articles described below. (Stoopid Buddy Stoodios,List of massacres in Bihar,Rathore,Dabhi,Bhati,List of Gurjars)

Ravensfire is constantly following/WP: HOUNDING my edits reverting my edits on content disputes i have with other editors , with clear intention of harassing me and not letting me contribute by constantly reverting me on different articles i have interest in.

• Today I edited List of Gurjars , Raven who usually follows my edits too edited it today.

• I edited Stoopid Buddy Stoodios  here, Raven followed me here only to revert me.

• I edited Dabhi page they followed me here too only to revert me

• My edit on Rathore page [8] Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute  [9] [10]

• I edited List of massacres in Bihar  here  Raven who never edited this page before hounded me here too and reverted my edit for no apparent reason.

• I removed some content on Bhati page due to content dispute  and Ravensfire followed me here too only to revert me for no reason at all

• When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

This is very serious WP:HOUNDING,admins please take action.Ratnahastin^talk 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastin^talk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.

• Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [11]
• List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [12]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
• The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [13], [14], [15] - and plenty more.

He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.

• SPI against Heba Aisha [16], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
• SPI against Chariotrider555 [17] declined by CU due to lack of evidence

His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[18],

• WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [19] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.

This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny that you're accusing me of not assuming good faith when you're constantly refering to my contributions as POV caste pushing and following my edits to revert my contributions.

My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.

Thats not first interaction the first interaction was here when i removed some content with well explained summary  it was reverted by you to build the Consensus although you never participate in the dispute on the talkpage.

I've removed that content on rathore because of the sources dont support the claims the sources were actually WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple non WP:RELEVANT citations I have explained reason for removing almost 3times on the talkpage of talk:Rathore the others who dispute it dont have any answers to issues raised by me, but you never took part in the dispute on the talkpage, my edits were based on wiki guidelines but still You've accused me of POV and caste pushing isn't that lack of WP:ASG on your side from the very first interaction i had with you? 

I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior.

Thanks for accepting that you follow my edits from the very first interaction i had with you. because you consider my edits as pov pushing without any evidence or participation in those content disputes.

The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives.

Please participate in the relevant discussions about content disputes on the talkpage of Talk:Rathore , i've explained my removal many times as WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple citations if you bother to verify the citations intead of reverting you would have not refered those sources on Rathore as facts. And stop these WP: ASPERSIONS please, and how is that  WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS of multiple citations WP:NPOV ? Since you have reverted me there the WP:BURDEN falls upon you to prove that those citations are not synthesis or violating any policies,but you haven't participated in those disputes, instead You're following my edits on multiple pages which, you yourself accepted, this proves that im being hounded, it appears that you have content disputes with my edits i request you instead of following my edits you participate in the content disputes please.Ratnahastin^talk 06:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits and attack on established editors by Ratnahastin

This report is frivolous as were other against me and other editors like LukeEmily and Chariotrider555. The reviewing admins please note, Ratnahastin had been involved in attacking caste editors of wikipedia, ever since they have joined in order to do their POV edits on Rajput caste related pages. I have been observing that using loopholes in wiki policies, they have opened various cases against established editors in past. I was drawn into a sockpuppet investigation case, and editors, whom i mentioned above were drawn respectively in WP:UAA and WP:SPI on frivolous ground. Interestingly, all cases were closed as they lacked solid proof. But,the user was successful in making this place unfavorable for us. This report more probably is motivated by same intent. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Ravensfire above, all such reports were baseless, but were problematic enough to send us to inactivity for some period of time. Recent report against Chariotrider555 also resulted in sending him to inactivity. As those who face it, gets exhausted by it naturally. After doing this Ratnahastin tried to remove this content from Rajput, on the ground that it is repetition. Similar attempt were made to remove, what he considers "derogatory" from all Rajput caste related pages. On the talk page of Rajput, he often showed how non neutral point of view for Rajput caste through this comment. It is better to ban him from editing all Rajput related pages to stop wasting the forums for retaliatory actions against editors who donot share their view. This comment shows that they have some affiliation with Rajput caste and interestingly all the reports and dispute in which he is involved is related to Rajput related pages only. It is an issue of WP:COI, if you tell me to sum up my words explicitly. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [20].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of Ratnahastin that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a chance yet to look at their general pattern of sourcing and content addition. Please keep this thread open for at least a couple of days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.

Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India. This needs some review and attention from administrators. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just glanced through their last 10 days of content additions at the caste-related articles:

• Here they cited 4 unreliable Raj-era sources authored by an engineer, an army officer, etc., along with adding a massive unsourced or unreliably sourced list of rulers. They also misrepresented a modern source which mentions a legend in a footnote & questions its authenticity on multiple fronts. Practically, the whole massive edit is either unreliably sourced or misrepresentation of the sources.
• Here they again dumped the massive mess (discussed by me in the previous point) to a different article.
• Here they added a massive unsourced list of rulers from the 9th century onwards.
• Here they cited the 19th-century physician Thomas Alexander Wise for Historical Vedic religion-related detail of Ancient India.
• Here they cited the 19th-century physician Edward Balfour for Rajput-related claim of a 12th-century ruler.
• And as I have already mentioned, Jadaun_Rajput is solely created by them and is full of issues: unreliable 19th-century sources (e.g., ref no. 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, etc.); primary or unacceptable sources (e.g., ref no. 7, 9, 10 12, etc.); ref no. 4 is a self-published source of a non-scholar, etc. Not to mention that the ref. no. 18 is misrepresented again.

• I finally, when I found a seemingly OK-sourced edit ([21]), I cross-checked the content to check its accuracy, as I have access to that source. To my surprise, the text which isn't directly quoted by them is copy-pasted from the source after making cosmetic changes, i.e. the edit is a copyvio. Here's the comparison of their text with that of the source:

Then I checked their other edit ([23]) at that article. And it is also a copyvio:

Here yet again, they copy-pasted from the source after making minor changes:

Note that I cross-checked their content additions of only 4 edits, as the rest of the text is mostly unreliably sourced. My today's time got wasted in cross-checking copyvios. So I will check their few more edits tomorrow. But is clear that they are creating problems left, right and centre at the caste-related articles. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: As you can see, I haven't edited in 4 days because I am allowing scrutiny of my edits. I acknowledge the issues you have raised including lack of compliance with WP:RAJ,WP:RS and copyright violation. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is also a copyright violation. And likewise many other editors didn't noticed that i had paraphrased my additions thats why i have not received any such heads up or warnings on my talkpage yet.

Since I have joined only 2 months ago, I am still learning to use wikipedia and its enormous guidelines but I promise to do better on the pages, unless I am abiding by the guidelines that have been pointed above.RatnaHastin^talk 03:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In April, when you added this nasty stuff, which the cited page of the Raj-era source doesn't even support, you were reverted by an admin and were given the proper explanation in this edit: "colonial ethnographers are not acceptable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable?". So you were made aware in April itself about the unreliability of the Raj-era sources. But you still continued adding that unreliable material in the main space.

I have glanced over your other content additions and pretty much all of them are at the caste-related articles and practically all of them are highly problematic. Here are the details:

• here you added a WP:UGC, but even that doesn't mention Rajput anywhere
• here you added an entry with fake refs, as none of the cited sources - [24], [25], [26] - mention that the subject was a Rajput.
• here you added another fake ref – it doesn't mention Rajput anywhere
• here again there is no mention of his caste in the cited source – "1 Rajput" is the name of the battalion
• here also the cited page has no mention of Rajput
• here also the cited source doesn't mention that he is a Rajput and it is also a BLP violation. Note that mention of caste in BLPs requires self-identification – see here for details
• here also you added a fake ref and created BLP violation
• here you misrepresented the source which mentions the subject as Ravana Rajput, which is a separate caste
• here you added multiple claims based on a tourist guide and a UGC, but neither of them are reliable for that detail. In fact, the tourist guide states that the canon is the largest in Asia, rather than the world. And your "small lake" claim is not even supported by these unacceptable sources.
• here you added an unreliable UGC, but it neither supports the "Rathore" surname added by you nor the claim that he is the only soldier to get that award.
• here you added an unsourced claim
• here you added an unsourced "Rajaputra" claim
• here you created an unsourced article

And here are some new copyvios:

• Edit: [27]

• Edit: [30], which they also copied to other articles: [31] & [32]

• This edit is copy-pasted from here, which in turn copy-pasted it from here on 12 August 2019

So practically every time they added content, they created problems like unreliable sourcing, fake refs, misrepresentations, copyvios, etc. Note that I have discussed those edits which weren't discussed by the other editors in this thread. In short, they should be topic-banned from the caste-related articles as they are here only for caste promotion. Even if they are allowed to edit other areas, someone should watch their edits as they may create copyvio problems again. - NitinMlk (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed by NitinMlk, Ratnahastin is not only doing Copyvio edits and Pov edits on caste articles, but also targetting the editors in the area on being reverted. This report is part of that agressive behaviour towards fellow editors. In past , as i already explained that LukeEmily, Chariotrider555 and me, all were dragged into such cases. We have a provision of discretionary sanctions in the caste area. I do feel that to avoid further massive disruptive edits to Rajput related articles, there is a need to ban him in this topic area. Tagging Diannaa for quick response. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NitinMlk , Heba Aisha and the other editors that Ratnahastin should be topic banned under WP:NOTHERE. There is another such editor Shinjoya but I will not discuss him in this section.LukeEmily (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Deb (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Ratnahastin should be topic banned from caste-related articles. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes on the said pages.  WP:CBAN states that the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a 'consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."

I'm involved in heated content related dispute with Chariotrider Heba aisha, NitinMlk, and LukeEmily on :

• Talk:Rathore#revert by heba.
• Talk:Rajput#Explaining my edit ,
• Talk:Rajput#Why shouldn't we remove the Russia Rajput image

They clearly aren't uninvolved editors ,it becomes apparent why they agree for sanction.

Secondly i acknowledge everysingle single issue with my edits as pointed out by nitin and im promising to do better, i have never received any warnings related to close paraphrasing yet thus i was not aware of it i have also reworded all the copy vios on Mihirbhoja,Pratihar page, im still learning to use wikipedia as i joined 2months ago.RatnaHastin^talk 14:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, you stated that: "Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes". Did you notice that an admin (Deb) has also agreed regarding the sanctions against you? Can you tell me how is he directly involved in content disputes with you? Also, when did I ever reply to your any comment outside this thread? I was pinged/mentioned at Talk:Rajput#Why_shouldn't_we_remove_the_Russia_Rajput_image. When I noticed that thread, I made a comment about user Shinjoya, along with replying to him a couple of times. But I have never discussed anything with you outside this thread. So your claim that I am involved "in heated content related dispute" with you is not correct. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitin Mlk: Actually, Ratnahastin is right. You are directly engaged in content dispute with him at Talk:Rajput not only in Russia Rajpoot disusssion but also in another thread related to origin section. So, WP:CBAN applies here. You and LukeEmily should have atleast tagged me when making my reference. Shinjoya (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjoya, no, I commented a total of four times in those two sections, and all of those comments were related to you, not him. In my first comment, I pointed out a comment by you where you were casting aspersions against an editor. In response to that comment, you pointed out an entirely different section to me with your this reply. Then I mentioned in my next two comment – i.e. this one & this one – that I will first comment on the other section mentioned by you, as I thought it would be better to have a discussion at WP:INB regarding the Raj-era pics. So I commented at the other section, where I discussed a non-HISTRS source, which you introduced in the main space, along with suggesting appropriate changes. But you never replied there.

So my all interactions were with you or in relation to you. And I have already mentioned that here. Finally, I didn't ping you as you aren't discussed here. - NitinMlk (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitin Mlk: Whether your interactions were directed towards me or Ratnahastin is immaterial here. You participated in two recent discussions in which he was pretty much involved. Both the discussion threads were filled with heated arguments from both sides and you supported the stance of Heba Aisha and LukeEmily and opposed what Ratnahastin was proposing. Shinjoya (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjoya, this is the second time you have misrepresented my edits. I have already mentioned that I made a total of four comments/replies to those talk page sections. In the first section, I made three edits (see [33], [34], & [35]) and mentioned that I will open a discussion about Raj-era pics at WP:INB to develop an overall consensus, which will help in stopping the day-to-day edit wars over them. I didn't support "the stance of Heba Aisha and LukeEmily". In fact, I didn't support any stance in that section.

My last comment was at the other section pointed out by you. I guess Heba wanted to mention Satish Chandra's statement twice, whereas you and Ratnahastin wanted to remove the repetitive sentence. I checked the relevant three paragraphs of the Origins section and suggested the changes which would also help in removing the repeated sentence. So there again I didn't support "the stance of Heba Aisha and LukeEmily". In fact, the changes suggested by me weren't even mentioned in that thread earlier.

So, please stop misrepresenting my edits. And I will leave it to other observers to judge my those four edits. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Ratnahastin and Shinjoya are doing POV edits to glorify Rajput caste by removing images and content they found derogatory. Their edits basically revolves around Rajput related pages and clearly they have some WP:COI issue with the said caste. This statement proves this. The personal opinion that all Rajpoot were ruling class is motivating them to remove images and putting image of forts. The lead of article itself talk about origin from peasant and pastoralist. The topic ban proposal had been opened against Ratnahastin and there is a need for one such against Shinjoya too. As pointed by LukeEmily. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations, as usual. Btw, what was wrong in that comment that you are referring it as POV here? Shinjoya (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal

(Non-administrator comment) From a cursory overview of this discussion, I am inclined to agree with the other participants that Ratnahastin (talk · contribs) should be topic-banned from making edits related to caste — henceforth, I am formalizing it. It's clear that they have serious BLP and POV issues, like this sequence of edits where they repeatedly tried to, including changing a generic death toll to refer specifically to Rajputs, and then undid Ravensfire's attempt to remove undue emphasis on caste in a different section (although the latter broke a reference). Additionally, their conduct at SPI shows that a civility restriction and/or a topic ban from WP:SPI or accusations of sockpuppetry may be needed as well. I suspect that Ratnahastin should be banned from interacting with Ravensfire (talk · contribs) as well, but don't have enough evidence yet outside of this ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. A topic ban is appropriate. Deb (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Topic ban of Ratnahastin based on the evidence listed in this thread. — Ched (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: What I get from this thread is that users like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and NitinMlk are trying to do a WP:BOOMERANG on Ratnahastin just because "they don't like him". He is involved with them in various content disputes. So, they found it an easy way to get rid of him through a topic ban. On what grounds do Heba Aisha, LukeEmily and Chariotrider555 accuse Ratnahastin of being a "caste warrior" when all these three users have themselves been accused of POV editing by different users? A look at their recent edits in caste related articles like Rajput, Maratha, Khatri, Bhonsle, Rathore and their respective talk pages makes it clear that they work as a team for degradation of various Indian castes through POV editing. These users were engaged with Ratnahastin in various caste articles.

As far as NitinMlk is concerned, I found something wierd in his behaviour. After taking part in some content disputes in Talk:Rajput, he came up with a series of copyvio complaints against Ratnahastin in this thread. He never interacted with Ratnahastin regarding the said issues, never discussed any policy and didn't even warn him for the said violations on his talk page. After putting these complaints, he starts demanding a topic ban on him. After that, Ratnahastin humbly admitted his copyvio mistakes on here and clarified that he is an inexperienced editor who wasn't fully aware of wikipidea's copyright policy and from next time, he would take care. But NitinMlk didn't stop there. He came up with a yet another series of reports. On checking these complaints, I found that they were very minute issues which were exaggerated in order to bring admin's attention. Interestingly, most of the incidents mentioned by NitinMlk aren't from caste articles but still, he desperately demands a topic ban on caste articles, which indicates a POV. When no admin paid heed to his nitpicking reports, Heba Aisha and LukeEmily came back again trying to "emphasize" the need for a topic ban. Its the duty of experienced editors like Heba Aisha, LukeEmily and NitinMlk to educate new editors about Wikipedia policies rather than trying to get them banned over content disputes. Users should discuss content disputes on relevant talk pages and if they are not reaching any agreement, they should try WP: Dispute Resolution. We should remember WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground. Imposing topic ban on an inexperienced editor who is ready to improve his editing style will be very discouraging for new editors. So, I oppose the proposed topic ban as its completely uncalled for. Shinjoya (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind there is no cabal, User:Shinjoya. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjoya, this is getting disruptive. You are assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on me. I was totally unfamiliar with Ratnahastin when I was pinged/mentioned in that section. I am neither "trying to do a WP:BOOMERANG on Ratnahastin" nor I "don't like him". I just focused on their content additions, which are very typical of a caste promoter. And I have already explained them above. And unlike others, I didn't mention their content disputes because my concern was their main space content additions. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support Topic ban of Ratnahastin: The evidence clearly supports POV edits. Both he and Shinjoya are WP:NOTHERE in my opinion as they seem to be doing POV one sided edits. Shinjoya himself has been involved in deleting negative content from Rajput and Maratha pages and involved in WP:PUFFERY simply by removing long standing academic content that is sourced. And when editors add it back or revert the deletion, they are "supposed to be degrading the caste". When Cambridge University and Oxford University sources are quoted, they think it is degradation. Both Shinjoya and Ratnahastin are causing a lot of disruption on Rajput related pages as well as others like Maratha and even Shinjoya has been warned by multiple editors. The other pattern I have seen is pushing the negative content from main sections down below on an article (as very few readers read the entire article). For example, if you look at the Maratha article, the Kunbi origin has been completely removed by Shinjoya from the leading section although several scholars mention in the origin section. They generally tend to support each other on these pages and it is no wonder that Shinjoya opposes the ban. This is causing a lot of headache. LukeEmily (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CBAN. As you are involved in content dispute with him in many pages, you are not elligible to vote here.Shinjoya (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Shinjoya is defending Ratnahastin as both of them are involved in edit warring at Rajput and related pages. It was due to this edit warring that they are coming in conflict with various established editors like Ravensfire, LukeEmily, Chariotrider555, NitinMlk and me. The latest edit on Rajput made by user is also directed towards glorifying the caste by removing an image. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CBAN. As you are involved in content dispute with him in many pages, you are not elligible to vote here. Shinjoya (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU read that. Nowhere in CBAN does it say that. That is for community bans, which has nothing to do with content disputes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support At this point, a topic ban is appropriate based on the evidence presented above.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic and interaction ban - appears to be plenty of evidence to support this as shown above. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 90 day TBAN and interaction ban for both Ratnahastin and Shinjoya. I think it's a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE in both cases. If they spend that time figuring out what kind of conduct we expect of people on wikipedia, they may be able to contribute meaningfully after the TBAN expires.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink, thank u first of all, but 90 day ban would have sufficed, if they had been making errors due to lack of understanding of policies. This is the issue of Caste system of India. Both, these editors, Shinjoya and Ratnahastin belong to Rajput caste and you will definitely notice same behaviour after 90 days, once the topic ban expires. Infact the user name Ratnahastin, itself if a title used by a Rajput chieftain. This is a WP:COI issue and both these editors will again involve in removing those things from Rajput related article, which they think is insult to community. See the latest edits of both. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink, on what basis are you taking my name? Have you seen my edits or are you just doing so because another user who has a content dispute with me wants me banned? Shinjoya (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Self Support and close I am accepting my 90day topic ban from caste pages until I can edit other subjects constructively as stated by Shibnolethink, it will give enough time read up policies and self introspection of my content addition and also will.admins are requested to close thread this now whose outcome is obvious.RatnaHastin^talk 23:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support close as Shinjoya is being discussed too by Shibbolethink. In my opinion, his edits are more problematic than Ratnahastin's, more POV pushing and more aggressive. And he is NOT a new editor, he has been around since 2017! LukeEmily (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing mention of me can't get me banned. You have to explain how my edits are disruptive citing examples. And remember, I have a lot of points against you too esp. your recent fabrication of sources at Khatri and WP:SYNTHESIS in Bhonsle, Maratha and Rathore. Shinjoya (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjoya, another editor who is completely uninvolved explained why he supports your ban [36]. He gave the reason but you accused him with a rhetorical question "what basis are you taking my name? Have you seen my edits or are you just doing so because another user who has a content dispute with me wants me banned?-User:Shinjoya|Shinjoya". Do you think he would make any statements without looking at your edits or simply because other editors want you banned? As he rightly mentioned, you are WP:NOTHERE. As for my edits, I tried to restore what you had deleted - whereas yours were removal of sourced material that you thought was negative. You can file as many frivolous counter complaints against me as you like. As I have said, the Maratha and Khatri and others need to be fixed as you have deleted sourced content or moved it away from the leading section. I have a number of points against you. And your attitude against other editors is obvious from this thread itself. And yes, I will show how your edits are disruptive and POV pushing.LukeEmily (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to propose permanent topic ban from caste related pages for both Shinjoya and Ratnahastin. The user name Ratnahastin, which is a title used by a Rajput prince indicates that, they are somehow affiliated to the said caste. We need permanent topic ban as their edits can't be neutral to their own caste and if timelimit of topic ban expires, they will do disruptive edits once again. As of now, Shinjoya is involved in RoyalPuffery by editing Rajput article as per his preconceived thoughts regarding the community.He is also deliberately removing content from pages like Rajputization, Rathore, which are also Rajput related pages. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to propose permanent topic ban from caste-related articles on Heba Aisha. She is certainly a WP:NOTHERE. She behaves as a gate keeper to caste articles and in most of her edits, she either reverts the work of other editors or restores to her preferred version. She violates WP:OWN very often and in her edits, we find a strong anti-Rajput, anti-Maratha and pro-Kushwaha, pro-Koeri POV which is not in line with our WP:NPOV policy. Shinjoya (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 90-day topic ban for Ratnahastin I don't think an indefinite ban is currently necessary for Ratnahastin as long as the user becomes aware of why this topic ban was imposed and how to edit constructively and not disruptively. I think we should provide some evidence before proposing to ban Shinjoya, as barely any evidence against the user has been presented yet. Also I would like to remind ourselves to remain WP:CALM before making statements proposing to ban editors in passion. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 months (90 days) topic ban per above. I don't think that there is a need of any interaction ban as of yet because the root of the problem will be solved with the temporary topic ban. Any recurring disruption in the future can be simply reported here and then we can think of other sanctions. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN for 90 days against Ratnahastin. No evidence of significant concern have been presented against Shinjoya. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the result of an AN discussion was to semi-protect the Talk:COVID-19 misinformation talk page, in order to minimize the drain on editor resources handling talk page disruptions from editors who were prevented from editing the article directly by existing page protections. The primary concern was increased disruption around COVID origins.

The Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page has also, in roughly the last week, also gotten significantly more IP-based unproductive edits on the topic, possibly a result of those edits having moved from the misinformation talk page to the investigations talk page. Particularly egregious examples of the disruption include low quality accusations, or requests/criticisms suggesting the article was not carefully read by the user. An additional sampling of IP edits from the last week:

• Content replacement vandalism [37]
• Unhelpful theorizing [38]
• An aggressive presumption of bad faith/shilling [39]
• Anonymous IP with "all my PhD friends" WP:OR [40]
• An existing ANI and ArbCom discussion regarding a protracted debate involving an IP editor (who has preferred not to use a previous account or create a new one, making conversation and identifying which IPv6 user is being replied to in a threaded conversation difficult)

Naturally, all of this is disruptive, and a drain on editor time to address. Would protection of this talk page fall under existing WP:GS/COVID19 towards focusing discussions on improving the article and reducing disruption? Particularly in the context of having precedent, and I'd suggest evidence that the protection mostly fulfilled the intended goal. The previous AN requested extended protect, but I tend to agree with the closing comment's justification for semi-protect solving most of the issue and leaving the option for escalation later.

Ping previous contributing admins @El C and ToBeFree: Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection would be a huge help - the situation is out of control [41]. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Original request: User_talk:El_C#semi-protect_Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19? So, to be more forthright: why would I want to be the one to protect that page? Obviously, it opens me to further undue attacks, which Committee members, clerks and other participants haven't really acknowledged (save for Drmies, though in fairness, there, it's mutual). Background: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_El_C. Anyway... El_C 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my intention is not to suggest that you are uniquely suited for the task, only to receive feedback like this. And this give me the impression that, as has been argued elsewhere (including the ArbCom case above and past ANI discussions), GS aren't getting enforced at a level to be effective. Not necessarily because individual admins are doing anything wrong, but because the effort and backlash are too high to result in action, and there's not enough motivation to solve those root issues to produce effective policing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was ever a GS as active as WP:GS/COVID19. Not to broken-record-it-up, but compared with WP:ACDS, WP:GS is pretty much disadvantaged from the outset. It's basically ACDS-light — because GS has WP:AN/WP:ANI, while DS also has those plus WP:AE/WP:ARCA (more often than not, superior forums). El_C 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in parallel to the ArbCom case. It is too early to have this discussion. When the case request has been answered (and the case, if accepted, has been resolved), please have a look at the situation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see today that the current proposal includes a change in the method of sanctions, so I agree that a delay would make sense. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as policy goes, I'd think it's covered under the GS which allows admins to take measures they deem appropriate. Although talk page protection is still very uncommon, and thus clear consensus at ANI is better I think. But given the recent discussion at ANI that found a consensus in favour of EC/semi-protection on another page in the topic but on this exact issue, the community seems to have already made its position clear on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree. IPs are offering some of the most diverse points of view on the page right now. Yes, there is some degree of chaff, but locking out IPs is really shooting the messenger. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@183.83.147.38: With respect, if a user is making valuable and productive contributions, they won't be hampered by creating an account. I'd suggest it's much easier to carry out a conversation and come to an agreement when users aren't an ever-changing string of numbers, particularly in protracted discussion with multiple IP users which can be mistaken for one another. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're discussing the topic of the benefits of IP editors, I'd like to point out that the above IP user has received a temporary ban on editing for harassment. While this obviously shouldn't be used to imply all IP editors are unproductive, I think it's worthwhile context both for how to interpret above user's comments, and for the depth of the issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "harassment"? The reason for my temporary block was a joke I had cracked on a user's page; I had no idea that it somehow constituted banworthy "harassment" on this site. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The joke in question was diff: "I write this in admiration of your valiant efforts to please your Chinese paymasters. Too bad it'll all come to naught in a while..." As a hint to editors monitoring this topic, I will issue long blocks for any other disruption that is brought to my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet another, non-productive "newcomer", Special:Contributions/Intelligible.Machine, who like the others seems intent on harassing me since their very first comment already contains a personal attack. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly support locking talkpage to non-registered users. First we made sure to kick off wikipedia all those that had unappealing opinions. Now we must make sure that there is totally no wp:Cabal that maintains the status quo at any price. This must be done even if it goes against the shifting mainstream public consensus shown by peer-reviewed articles scientific articles and even heavily left-leaning mainstream news outlets. We cabals cannot let the opinions of those easily swayed journalists count, especially since these weak-willed journalists did a 180 in less than a week. We must stand strong behind the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to let wikiactivists like this do their job of removing any mention of reliable sources that might have the potential to unsubstantiate the status quo without leaving the option of anonymous IP calling out their heavy biased pruning. Please give awards to such glorious wikipedians that defend the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at User talk:205.175.106.86 to warn them that any further poking of other editors or poorly sourced commentary at article talk will result in an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good on ya, John! GS covers this - we have Wikipedia:General_sanctions/COVID-19, Wikipedia:General sanctions#30/500 rule, and whatever else is relative to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions. Have I overlooked something? The only difference I can see is the part of DS/AE that prohibits an admin from overturning another admin's action. Atsme 💬 📧 14:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• One more making the same type of nonsense as the previous IP ("Wikiactivists", "cabal", not even reading beyond the title of the source they post [which actually points out many flaws with the reasoning]...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Stewart rekindled that posture Monday night in a segment that seems like a potential inflection point in the debate over the coronavirus’s origins." quote from the article whose mention you happily removed from the talkpage, thus styming from the start any potential discussion on the merits of including such a perspective in the article. very wp:npov indeed. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk page is filled with mainstream sources presenting dissenting opinions to what the wiki article in its current state implies. None of those mainstream sources are used in the article, and any additional discussion on said mainstream sources presenting disagreeing opinions has been removed by "established users". Said established users are now comfortable to even list said mainstream sources on the relevant talkpage. wp:npov in action. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here is the latest example of removal of any such discussion under the guise of mentioning of wp:cabal in the middle of a discussion where a small "collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" that defends the current status quo and disregards any regent developments discussed in mainstream news sources. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why one would consider a comedy show to be a reliable source. The bigger question is: have you even read the mainstream (non-scientific) source you're citing (beyond the title)? This clearly notes how Stewart is "oversimplifying complex issues to land a joke", the "chicken-and-egg issue" and so on. I'm not going to bother explaining NPOV and our preference for SCHOLARSHIP for a thousandth time when the best you can come up with is the above. @Johnuniq: btw, is the above block evasion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the presented source is a WaPo article discussing the said event. you stymied even starting a discussion on the merits of including such information in the article by dismissing any disagreeing opinions. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the source on which I just offered my comments. Too bad that you also insisted on posting accusations along with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you used the excuse of one "offending" comment to remove multiple other comments, all the other comments being direct links mainstream sources related to the topic. But then again, there is no such thing as "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" since removal of all non-offending comments together with a single other "offending" is perfectly within the rules agreed by the "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest". Indeed, all your edits have been about improving the subject to cover wp:npov without accidentally or intentionally falling within the scope of a "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a link-farm, and your comment did not suggest any tangible change to the article. In short, it looks exactly like any of the dozens of other previous disruptive edits in the area. The ironic tone of the remainder of your comment is not really acceptable, either. Again, go read NPOV, since you're citing it so much, particularly the bit about good research, due and undue weight, and the explanatory supplement guideline about dealing with an idea which departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: No, the IP is partially blocked from Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 to prevent further misuse of that page. Since the IP is not topic banned or otherwise blocked, they are able to chat here. The simplest way to get them to stop is to not engage with them unless they start doing what they should have been doing at article talk, namely discussing actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources, and without unduly repeating past arguments. As mentioned above, it seems undesirable to further discuss the original proposal (to semi-protect article talk) until the Arbcom case is completed. However, I would perform that protection if persuasion and partial blocks are ineffective. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to any further protections on this article. The science is very much in flux, and new contributors should not be bullied out of the process. I have been observing these pages and it appears to me that certain editors/admins are hyper-vigilant about maintaining a certain hegemony (perhaps unintentionally) rather than a bias-free reflection of where the science actually stands.

While we're on the subject, I take issue with RandomCanadian's above interpretation of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories as it pertains to the origins of SARS-CoV-2. This is an open scientific question, and it should be treated as such. Because there is currently scant evidence for any scenario, any hypothesis that has not been ruled out can not be considered a "fringe theory", and certainly should not be classified by wikipedia as "misinformation", or "conspiracy theory".

I will assume good faith here, and will not presume that anyone is attempting to administer their way to their desired article. I will kindly ask users Bakkster Man and RandomCanadian to return to the talk page and attempt consensus.KristinaLu (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are placed under general sanctions because many inexperienced editors waste time by making grand statements rather than following the advice in my message just above yours. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world who takes issue with what. If someone has been bullied, post a WP:DIFF showing the bullying and corrections will be applied. Otherwise, don't make evidence-free sweeping statements. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KristinaLu: I appreciate the WP:AGF here. While I disagree on some details you've presented above (better to cover at the talk page), I absolutely agree on seeking consensus and finding ways to get NPOV coverage of contentious topics. I think you'll find much of my talk page participation is trying to sort through edit wars or disputed content to try and find a way to build consensus. I certainly don't think my suggestion here is in opposition to that goal of consensus and NPOV, having suggested it only after a week of persistent IP-based disruption. And, as I mentioned above, it's very difficult to converse -let alone build consensus - with an IP-user (on one occasion, the participation of two different IPv6 users - whose addresses varied from day to day - with different views in a single conversation meant I mistakenly attributed comments to the wrong user). I wish I didn't think such a request was necessary, but the Talk page protection of the misinformation article did help us minimize disruption (and, I'd argue, better build consensus and improve the article).

I'll add that I still think semi-protection is a very mild inconvenience, and not a serious barrier to participation (like the originally proposed ECP for the Misinformation talk page could have been). It would limit only the drive-by comments (rarely productive, usually disruptive), and the 10 edit threshold would be easily met by the IP users engaging in actual conversation. Especially since it would only apply to these two Talk pages that appear to be targets of most disruptive edits, leaving other COVID talk pages for productive edits by those seeking autoconfirmed status (I'd very much agree with your concern if disruption increased to a level that all COVID-related talk pages were being considered for semi-protect). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom notice and subsequent discussion

• NOTICE ArbCom case accepted, resolved by motion and closed (ask the ever faithful clerk, Dreamy Jazz, for more details - took me a moment to realise exactly what it was when the edits hit my watchlist). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone with questions regarding the arbitration process for the COVID-19 case or in general can feel free to ping me here or ask at my talk page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the Arbcom case is closed, I am happy to semi-protect anything that needs it although I won't be fast. Currently, Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 does not need that protection but if problems resume, feel free to ping me from the talk page and I'll have a look. I would prefer that at least a couple of established editors have expressed the view that protection was desirable, with a brief reason. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Thank you! Things seem to have died down since this request was made, so here's hoping we won't need you. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent let's keep dissenting opinions like Chinese top official defected to US, gave Biden administration info about Wuhan lab, report suggests away from even accidentally being mentioned on a talkpage of the subject. We, an exclusive group of editors, should do all the bias check and make sure that wp:npov is filtered through our select group of involved editors that are perfectly not subjective. 2601:602:9200:1310:F05C:E555:CEBD:40A9 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Says the user who has caused a rangeblock[42] by IP hopping while being disruptive. How about registering an account and playing by the same rules as everyone else? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Slake000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sylheti Nagri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylheti language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylheti dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bilingual Sylheti Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Books written in Sylara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylheti Braille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a user by the name of User:Slake000 who has been messing around in some pages, and also has a poor command of English. His edits began on the Sylheti Nagri (a South Asian script) article, where he removed a lot of information and instead added pretty much the same information worded in a poorer manner with innumerable spelling mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that his edits have not really been contributory, rather they have downgraded the layout, format and structure. Other than myself, it appears that other users have also attempted to undo his edits on the stated article.

Putting that issue to the side, it seems that Slake000 has realised that the habitual contributors to the page are not keen on his edits so he created his own article titled Sylheti script. Realising that this constitutes the Wikipedian policy of CSD-A10, I marked his article for speedy deletion and notified him on his talk page. Instead of responding and notifying me, he continued to abuse Wikipedia by copy and pasting random excerpts from different pages. This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.

Now, I understand this noticeboard does not deal with speedy deletions, but this sort of behaviour that is being shown is unacceptable. I urge you to penalise this disruptive user. UserNumber (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[43]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[44] after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies[45]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier:, User:Glennznl seems to be undoing the reversions to Slake000's edits on Sylheti Nagri and threatening to report people that undo Slake000's edits even though his edits are illogical. UserNumber (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why this case was dismissed. The user Slake000 has now been causing major disruption in Wikipedia, and seems to be behaving like a troll. Several other editors have also expressed their concerns regarding him by either leaving a message on his talk page (such as myself and User:Chaipau), or by constantly deleting/redirecting his new articles. Examples of his articles include Sylheti script (issue solved by User:DGG), Sylheti alphabet (User:Uanfala tried to solve this), Sylara, Sylheti Braille, Category:Sylheti writing system among others.

These articles are mostly copies of existing articles but the difference is that his own POV is heavily exerted (perhaps he thinks that we will not notice) and there is too much unsourced OR. He has also redirected his page to Anonymous which really doesn't help his situation. He is not cooperating with any users, and is constantly edit warring. Other than those mentioned above, other users that I have noticed clashing with him (and I tag them if they want to input anything else) are User:SalamAlayka, User:Sphilbrick, and User:Shohure Jagoron. I would be highly grateful if you can look into this again, and perhaps prosecute him for his actions. UserNumber (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is awfully quiet, so I've notified WikiProject Languages for more input. This user is not a member of WikiProject Languages, and the discussion is described using only generic details. Additional evidence would be halpful. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More! At Chittagonian language yesterday, they advanced a fringe theory of the language being descended from the Pali language based on non-peer-reviewed sources and The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper. I confused that one with the infamous Daily Star in the UK, but another user had reverted a similar edit that same day on basis of being unreliable for this statement. Perhaps it was premature to push a formal TBAN proposal below, but it strengthens my case a bit. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Austronesier (talk · contribs) doled out an RS warning about the user's persistent use of unreliable sources, such as in the above incident. So far there have been no new edits outside of the Sylheti Braille article and its associated AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages created by Slake000

Below is a list of pages created by Slake000. Most of this seems to show disruption in the topic area of the Sylheti language.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sylheti Braille has been PRODded by me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sylheti dialects is a subtopic of Sylheti language, which only should be split out if the main page is too large to accommodate detailed info, or if the subtopic can be expanded into more than a stub. Half of the current version of "Sylheti dialects" is a content fork of Sylheti language; only sections 1) to 3) contain information directly pertaining to the subtopic. Sections 4) to 6) contain redundant, cherry-picked, and quite messy info about the main article Sylheti language. Badly needs a clean-up. –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone ahead and just removed those sections as irrelevant or of dubious relevance (and sometimes unsourced!). Any more comments about the page, or diffs about this user's conduct outside of the pages they created? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE 2: On closer inspection, I have concluded that it is indeed WP:SYNTH and have sent it to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilingual Sylheti Speakers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE 3: Sylheti Braille was deprodded by Slake000, who demanded "further review" despite that it was immediately obvious from search results that the topic fails WP:GNG. So I have opened another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylheti Braille. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

It's clear that this user is not listening, though at the same time nobody else is trying to act. Today they created a POV-fork article over the Sylheti dialect redirect. Given the disruption they've been making in this topic area, I propose that Slake000 be banned from editing about the Bengali–Assamese languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.": If this is true then, irrespective of POV edits and poor writing, this seems clearly enough to be vandalism and, if the user received sufficient warning of it, it should have been possible to handle the situation through WP:AIV, no?. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is the page I was devleloping, then he complained, I stopped editing that page, later another user redirected the page. User:UserNumber complained saying "it doesn't make sense". That page discontinued there Sylheti script Or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Sylheti_script.

Thanks, commented by user:Slake000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post by Slake000

Hi, I feel like User:UserNumber is editwaring and roll backing my reference work. And he believes Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali and don't letting us write anything about Sylheti Language.

Wikipedia should stay neutral about any subject and let everyone contribute. Specially Username is causing disruption in Sylheti language page claiming it a Bengali dialect and reverting all referenced edits.

At the same time in Sylheti Nagri page he is keeping only his narratives and nagative narratives from sources to discourage users.

I am just trying to contribute in this subject, which is missing. USERNUMBER hate Sylheti speakers and reporting me several times. Please look at his talk page (topics: van Schendel on Bengalis). Clearly a BENGALI Supremist and denying other communities and languages.

Here is the list of pages I have created with reference: Sylara, Sylheti dialects, Sylheti Braille, List of Books written in Sylara without disrupting any user. This pages need protection from Bangladeshi Nationalists who suppress our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talk • contribs)

I moved this from the bottom of ANI to this section.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Slake000 actually intended to report UserNumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slake000: Please refrain from WP:personal attacks such as USERNUMBER hate Sylheti speakers...Clearly a BENGALI Supremist and denying other communities and languages. Use the talk page of the respective articles if you disagree with User:UserNumber's reverts. –Austronesier (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather humorous reading this as a Sylheti myself. There are other Sylheti editors on Wikipedia who think quite the opposite, and have awarded me several barnstars for my contributions to the History of Sylhet and several articles relating to Sylhet and Sylheti such as List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Sadeq Ali among others. It is a shame that I get labelled the opposite of what I am for simply trying to suppress POV and maintain Wikipedia's guidelines. UserNumber (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserName even in that page List of works written in Sylheti Nagri you have removed all books written in Sylheti language in late 90's and kept onoy the list which you are forcefully relating to Bengali language and Dobhashi dialect. May I know the reason of this? When I am simply making lists of Sylheti languages or writing systems, why are you getting angry or upset on that. If any Wikipedia guidelines or quality issues, you could jus advise me to improve it, instead of removing Sylheti language related almost anything from Wikipedia. Comment by User:Slake000

This is to maintain Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. There is a big difference between historic manuscripts and recent self-published books. UserNumber (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atharv Bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atharv Bakshi

Atharv Bakshi seems to be determined to disrupt and change the images in infoboxes to their version of image. The socks are from IPs, which are dynamic. By the time an IP is blocked, the user seems to be done for the day and comes back in a day or two, with a completely new IP due to their ISP, Airtel. Bakshi doesn't show any signs of stopping. This is taking considerable resources of RC-patrollers/editors to report/revert and admins to block/revert the edits and the IPs. The SPI case does not list all of the IPs used by Bakshi, as some of them are already blocked for pure disruption, by admins uninvolved with Bakshi's case, or for sock-ing, by admins who are aware of Bakshi's SPI. I am looking for suggestions on better handling this and preventing further disruption. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airtel ranges are usually crowded, wide, and have erratic assignment patterns (Despairtel might be a more fitting name), so a rangeblock would be largely ineffective while incurring significant collateral. I think a filter based on two or three combined factors might do the trick, but this hasn't been going on for very long so they might simply get bored if they keep getting reverted and blocked for a little longer. --Blablubbs|talk 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted him editing from 106.213.34.58 (talk · contribs). Given his focus on Indian election articles, and the fact that there is regular vandalism and disruption from other IPs and new editors, I wonder whether semi-protection for Indian election articles (1998 onwards) might be worthwhile. Cheers, Number 57 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good suggestion. Let me know next time this happens. Deb (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb Happened today about an hour ago from the same IP. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaxServer, I've protected the 2007, 2009 and 2012 articles. If there are others that need to be protected, drop me a message. Deb (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. MOS:HON, MOS:POSTNOM Talk:Plowshares movement#Honorifics and postnominals
2. MOS:HON, MOS:POSTNOM
3. Roman Catholic Talk:Philip Berrigan#Roman Catholic
4. MOS:PEOPLANG, WP:NPOV, WP:V Talk:Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart (Josephites)#Tagged
5. WP:EGRS
6. WP:EGRS
7. WP:EGRS
8. WP:V, WP:EGRS Talk:Trayce Thompson#"African-American"
9. WP:V, WP:EGRS
10. WP:EGRS Talk:Klay Thompson#African-American Talk:Klay Thompson#Catholic
11. MOS:PEOPLANG Talk:Amanda Gorman#"black" and "black Catholic" are not proper nouns
12. Roman Catholic
13. Roman Catholic

Natemup has been insistently flouting consensus all over the place, edit-warring to push the POV and MOS errors (WP:3RRN: one, two, three times), denies that anyone is right about policies and guidelines in all this. As the record shows, I have started numerous talk page discussions in order to resolve the disputes, but the disputes have several common themes and the topic areas are wide and there is no centralized discussion. Recently on COIN due to citing himself and editing articles with which he has a close affiliation, brought to WP:RSN regarding the same self-published blog, a current discussion on WP:NPOVN regarding "Roman Catholic", continuing a current discussion on WikiProject Catholicism about "Roman Catholic", we typically hunt common vandals who remove "Roman Catholic"; frankly we are Romaned out here. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in the links above, there is no consensus on the Catholic vs Roman Catholic debate. I've only removed the term in places where it was either inaccurate, awkward, or otherwise unnecessary. The other matters are also currently in dispute (or settled), and Elizium has made a habit of trailing my edits to revert them regardless of merit or consensus. The issue may be personal moreso than canonical. natemup (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the disputes you have had with @Avatar317:, @Binksternet:, @Hijiri88:, @CorbieVreccan:, among others? Elizium23 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I feel the need to respond on a noticeboard to every editor dispute I'm involved in, but the edits I made on the St Joseph page were eventually integrated after other more level-headed editors got involved. The edits I made on the Yasuke page have not yet had that sort of intervention, but I plan to make an RfC or something soon. The issue (with you) on "Black Catholics" could also use a similar treatment, but I'm content with that situation for now. Generally speaking, the matter is whether one intends to improve a page or rather impede a user (or edits) they don't like. Your refusal to make even the slightest attempt to improve pages (with which I'm involved) without reverting edits seems to speak for itself. As they say, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. natemup (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Natemup: Sometimes the quicker action to improve articles is to prevent junk from being added to them, or to remove otherwise poor quality content. I contribute to many articles, but it takes more time to read several sources, cite them, compose a good summary, and figure out where it fits in an article than to keep "junk" out of articles. Just because YOU want an article to be bigger or have better coverage, doesn't put an obligation on others to do that. If editors add a poorly written summary of a Reliable Source, I'll generally reword it; but it is DEFINITELY not my obligation to search out sources if no good ones are supplied by the editor adding the text. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. I was replying to Elizium. natemup (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first saw Natemup at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, with Natemup disrupting the article so severely that his edits were revdeled.[46] More recently, Natemup showed up at the Catholics for Choice article to shoehorn in a contemptuous term – Cafeteria Catholicism – as if it is a neutral term for dissenting Catholic.[47] Natemup appears to be WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to further a dogmatic Catholic agenda. The most effective solution for NOTHERE editors is to ban them. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't shoehorn the term. I linked "dissenting Catholic" to it because they're synonymous concepts (regardless of wording; it's literally the description in the first line of the Cafeteria article). There's no point in pretending otherwise. Also, no editor is involved in that matter (or any other) without bias; I made an attempt to normalize an awkward adjectival mash-up and an ideological dispute is holding it up. In any case, the idea that my contributions overall are to damage Wikipedia or that I deserve a ban is patently ridiculous and clearly a matter of personal disagreement. natemup (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you are trying to force a dogmatic Catholic viewpoint even when that is not an accurate representation of the literature. The literature allows that Catholics may hold contradictory viewpoints, but the dogmatic church stance is that the Roman Catholic church is monolithic: there is only one way, their way. You have been trying to force that viewpoint across Wikipedia, rather than trying to accurately summarize the literature. As such, you are working against the WP:Neutral point of view policy. You are WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia in its stated mission. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're making things up. I have done no such thing here or anywhere else.

I am in total agreement that Catholics hold a variety of viewpoints, and the literature is in agreement that those who dissent from Catholic dogma or doctrine are colloquially called "Cafeteria Catholics". That said, I think there should be a page on "Dissent from Catholic teaching"; since there isn't, and Cafeteria Catholicism is basically the same topic by a different name, I added a wikilink.

The dispute on the St Joseph's page—where various anti-Catholic editors (unsuccessfully) attempted to shoehorn their own viewpoints into a page under the guise of a source none had read—is totally unrelated to the charges you're attempting to bring against me here. In fact, most of the issues being collocated above by Elizium are unrelated to one another and are an attempt to silence me rather than improve Wikipedia. natemup (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered Natemup about two weeks ago when he reverted my removal on American Solidarity Party of a large amount of material sourced to Facebook, reddit, and blogspot posts, then added additional "sources" (blog posts written by himself). I have had essentially two disputes with him over sourcing issues. Another editor has weighed in supporting my removal from American Solidarity Party, and the Reliablilty discussion of his blog at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_BlackCatholicMessenger.com_a_Reliable_Source? seems to also be getting to consensus against him. If he respects the consensus, and abides by Wikipedia's policies, then I will have no issues with him, but if he edit-wars against these consensuses, then I will agree with Binksternet, that he is WP:NOTHERE. I'll report back in a week or so. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nateump is grossly misrepresenting what he did on the St. Joseph's Indian School article. Natemup's initial edits there were to repeatedly blank sourced content, removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" with no edit summary or new sourcing added.[48][49][50][51] I reverted them as vandalism, and warned them on their talk page.[52][53][54] [The CNN source, already in the article, clearly cites, " St. Joseph’s Indian School – a 200-person boarding school in Chamberlain, South Dakota, that’s affiliated with a Roman Catholic charity based in Wisconsin." (bolding added) (Source:U.S. Indian school’s fundraising letters sent to millions signed by fictitious kids. David Fitzpatrick and Drew Griffin, CNN Investigations. Updated 9:53 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014).]

Natemup then proceeded to edit war in an attempt to whitewash the article to remove sourced content on abuse of children, often using misleading edit summaries, and refusing to engage on user talk or article talk. Many of these diffs are at the 3RR board.

• Deletes sourced content on child sex abuse lawsuits as "irrelevant"

This POV push has now been joined by North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has been active on talk for a long time, pushing the same POV, and claimed he was not going to edit the article. Now he is editing aggressively, as well. This school is well-documented to spend millions on p.r., and we have had a series of paid editors come to the article. Some disclose their connection, most do not.

Natemup only engaged on article talk after Elizium brought him to the 3RR board. As his first edits had been blanking, then removal of sourced content without consensus or discussion, I had reverted him as a vandal and warned him extensively on both user and article talk. But by the time I saw the 3RR report, Bbb had already called it - Due to it looking like a edit war at first glance, Bbb had declined to block him then and just protected the page. And it was late and I was too exhausted to go through and explain it all with diffs.

Natemup refuses to take any responsibility for his actions, as seen in his statement about his actions here: "I did not violate any rules and my edits were not even all reverts (or directly related to the dispute)."[55]

Natemup is clearly here to POV push, and is willing to misrepresent his actions even when the evidence is right there in front of everyone. He particularly has no interest in working in collaboration, or respecting policy. I agree he is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not, to my knowledge, obligated to use in a Wiki article the exact terminology used in a source. In fact, we are encouraged to put the content in our own words, and in this case the words established on this site as a sort of norm. It really doesn't matter what we call the Church, but the page for it here is titled without "Roman" (though it does mention it as a secondary name and devotes an entire section to explaining why the secondary term exists). It is fairly established on Wikipedia that "Roman Catholic" is only to be used in restricted settings, not in every reference to the global Catholic Church. Right or wrong, my removal of that term is hardly vandalism.

Plus you skipped the part where you (unsuccessfully) fought on the St. Joseph's page for the "source" you included without reading (as it's literally unreadable/inaccessible), claimed not to know how the source got into the article, and were defeated by consensus in the talk page. You also skipped my addition (and your removal) of a reliable source and additional info countering the info allegedly from the aforementioned phantom source. You and others proceeded to (unsuccessfully) argue against the reliable, readable source on the grounds that it's Catholic. My other content removals on that page concerned information that did not appear to have anything to do with St. Joseph's.

I encourage any and everyone to peruse the edit histories of that page as well as the extensive dialogue on the talk page. I have nothing to hide. I have a habit of using reverts rather than talk pages when dealing with obscure Wikis, as it more quickly gets other editors involved. I probably shouldn't do that, but I don't know of a better way at this point. Maybe RfCs or something? I should work on that.

In any case, your characterization of my overall contributions to Wikipedia (and to the St Joseph's page in particular) are manifestly false. natemup (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly established on Wikipedia that "Roman Catholic" is only to be used in restricted settings, not in every reference to the global Catholic Church. Please specify exactly where this is "fairly established". I have an ongoing interest in this topic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, editors who remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" are regularly blocked as vandals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussions cited above by Elizium, and elsewhere. I have no doubt that other editors have vandalized articles along these lines, though. Like the wording itself, it's case-by-case. natemup (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two discussion, one on a WikiProject talk page, and one on the NPOVN page. They are not RfCs advertised Wikipedia-wide in order to get the views of the entire community, and they therefore "establish" nothing. (The first has a section labelled "RFC" but it was not even registered as one, and only attracted a small number of participants, while the second also is a discussion among a small number of editors, some of whom also participated in the first discussion.) Your "elsewhere" is pure hand-waving, I asked for specifics. The long and the short of it is that it is not "established" in any way, and your actions in upholding it are therefore not valid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My idea that it is fairly established comes not from the results (or nature) of those discussions, but from what the participants related about previous discussions and practices. I also viewed a number of closed/failed proposals that included similar comments. Clearly there is some sort of practice in place, though it is clearly inconsistent and contentious. Of course, if there is *nothing* established in any way on the topic, then I don't see why the topic is even up for discussion here. Several (and perhaps most) of my edits on this matter had to do with wikilinks to the page entitled "Catholic Church" that nevertheless read "Roman Catholic [Church]" on their respective pages; that seemed like an obviously appropriate kind of edit to me. natemup (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, RFC registered in October 2020 and expired 30 days later. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, which is not indicated anywhere in the RfC. Was it advertised on WP:CENT? In any case, less than a dozen people participated, and the RfC was never closed, so it established nothing definitive, which is what Natemup is claiming. It certainly does not justify the removal of "Roman" from "Roman Catholic". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of bafflegab and derailing Nate engages in. I don't even know which sources he's talking about, and he's not describing my actions. He tends to lump everyone he disagrees with into one person and ascribe different people's actions to other people entirely. There is a very disturbing, concerted POV push going on on that page, removing or minimizing content around abuse of children, including trying to exclude testimony of survivors, and even Catholic sources when they include sad truths about the abuse that's happened at this, sadly typical, Indian boarding school. It's pretty ugly. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it seems like consensus is moving in the right direction here (and I therefore no longer need to fear ... what I fear, feel free to ask me in private), I will chime in and say that, if anything, Natemup's edits to articles that have little to nothing to do with Catholicism are worse than the ones alluded to here.[56][57] I am not sure if this is because WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR with regard to what counts as a reliable source for a scholarly topic like medieval Japanese history, but the result is the same. Therefore, I suspect that anything short of a site-wide block would only make this problem worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There has been only one user to participate in this discussion that was not directly involved in one of the disputes (and literally tagged into the discussion by the OP). And the only users tagged were of course the ones who opposed my edits. Surely that's not consensus, and it surely isn't the point of creating a noticeboard discussion. In fact, how is that different from canvassing?

  As to Corbie's response, I again have nothing to hide. The talk page on the St Joseph's article speaks for itself and I haven't edited the article since it was locked. Corbie added a source from a Dr. Landrum to establish that students at St. Joseph were kidnapped, assimilated, and forced to convert to Catholicism. She's never read the source, the source is inaccessible, and it has since been removed by consensus—which Corbie is characterizing as oppression.

  You, on the other hand, vandalized the page for "Yasuke" by refusing to allow him to be referred to as a samurai, despite nearly every source in the article and on the internet calling him such. You were called in to do so by another editor, who is assisting in blocking the edits now that you have backed out due to personal issues. If I should be banned for fighting that fight, so be it. natemup (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above accusation of "vandalism" (actually agreeing to the restoration, by User:Goszei and separately User:Havsjö, of the long-term status quo of the article in question, and seemingly in accordance with the consensus of professional historians -- I may be wrong about this latter assertion, as the topic is very obscure and I am reading between the lines of, among other things, Professor Oka's blog and Professor Kaneko's book, but, per this and, more importantly, CorbieVreccan's comment below, this is irrelevant) is typical of this user's behaviour. I posted a non-comprehension grab-bag of diffs of similar remarks here. He has been warned about this countless times both on his user talk page and on the article talk pages where he has repeatedly made such comments. I would advocate that he be removed from the project, since either he is incapable of understanding how disruptive his behaviour is or he is willfully pretending to be incapable of understanding how disruptive his behaviour is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As we see, Nate refuses to even acknowledge this is not about the details of his multiple content disputes, but about his refusal to follow basic WP policies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I went past the handful of vandalims reverts and warnings into reverting more involved edits with this user and attempting to dialogue with them on talk, I am asking an uninvolved admin to please make the call and finish this. I think everyone who has weighed in with diffs has shown it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, and that these responses by Natemup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have only reinforced that conclusion. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• B. Fairbairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a six year break, B. Fairbairn has returned to their behavior of trying to sanitize any and all foreign relations and similar pages and sections of pictures involving US politicians. This behavior has gotten them blocked three times before, and there are at least four previous ANIs on this behavior for this editor [58] [59] [60] [61]. For some reason, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/B._Fairbairn&dir=prev&offset=20191024144335&target=B.+Fairbairn they are back at it, and if it continues again, it's just going to be a headache for someone to go through and revert everything again. This is by far not their first time doing this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the user page for the editor in question is basically a giant table guide to how they will keep doing this; it's a table of pictures of US politicians side by side with whether there is a corresponding Russia picture, followed by collections of Obama "hobnobbing" with other world leaders. It's continued presence, while not itself violating policy, shows an intent to continue with this disruptive editing that they have been told repeatedly in the past was unacceptable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know the backstory here so I can't comment intelligently on any past issues or warnings. However, looking at these specific edits, there doesn't seem to be any instance of 3RR and - insofar as the content of the edits themselves are concerned - it appears to merely be decentering the United States from articles on countries other than the United States. It has always struck me as strange that every article about countries other than the United States features an outsized number of photos of American politicians and American military units. (Functionally, I understand the reason behind that is because the U.S. Government spends a boatload on public affairs staff and releases all of their images into the PD. As a result, the U.S. Army has more Wikipedia-usable photos of Iraq than anyone.) Fairbairn's userpage definitely magnifies the problem WP has in this regard to a rather astonishing degree. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think an edit summary of "boring" for removing pictures long present in articles is an indication that they are approaching some large issue with intent on working with the community on this. Nor do their 3 blocks for specifically this behavior, and 4 ANIs against them for the same. They are literally repeating the same behavior, just with a six year break. That's why I provided links. Please, read the past behavior. If it was as simple as you are making it out to be, I would never have brought it here. This editor has had many, many warnings made against them (from administrators), and has not learned. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've taken the time to sludge through this all now. "They are literally repeating the same behavior, just with a six year break." It appears three of his four past reports were for edit-warring, and the fourth was for WP:POINTY edits ("changing sides" to make a point). You said his previous blocks were for "specifically this behavior" but they were actually for edit-warring and harassment; the content being warred over didn't seem to be the problem, the warring itself was. In the above diffs I'm not seeing any 3RR, nor am I seeing evidence of pointy edits. He was previously blocked to arrest edit-warring and pointy edits, not to compel him to change his opinion on the centrality of images of Americans. He's certainly entitled to edit with that perspective as much as he fancies, provided he doesn't resume edit-warring, pointy editing, or harassment of other editors. If you disagree with his removal of these images, you can restore them, discuss the matter, or open an RfC. If you have evidence of 3RR it can be addressed to the WP:3RRN. As for "boring" as an edit summary; that seems not useful but I'm not sure it's a smoking gun. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A user knwon as Kambliyil is daily spamming large amounts of wiki pages on a regular basis. kambliyil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is the biggest spammer in wiki and is changing and adding irrelevant content and is editting content in every minute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kambliyil Please check the history of this user and see that this user got too many warnings and is doing thousands of edits without any use. This person is completely changing the structure of large amounts of wiki pages to suit his personal or political agendas. This person should be banned from wiki. This person got too many warnings and still this user is continuing his spamming and changing and vandalizing too many wiki pages at a time. This user is adding wrong and irrelevant information in large amount of wiki pages. If this user is allowed to continuie, then the entire wikipedia will be changed as per this users political or personal agendas. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandyept (talk • contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alandyept: I noticed there was a problem and commented at their talk. I've been caught up elsewhere but I was planning on warning them that they would be indefinitely blocked if they do not respond to the problems mentioned on their talk. It would help if you were to give two or three short examples of what you mean, with a brief reason why the edits are a problem for the specific cases you mention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alandyept: Hi, can you give some example? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 08:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The user Alandyept is engaged in edit war on the page Kerala cuisine. The user reverts sourced edits. According to Alandyept, the Malabar cuisine is a derivative of Thalassery cuisine. However, it is not the truth. Each of the cities has their own local cuisine - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/what-is-the-real-malabar-biriyani/articleshow/65090374.cms. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I assume that the user with IP address 2409:4073:4E84:DB7:7080:FA92:B909:95F1 and the user Alandyept are same. Both of them do the same thing on the page Kerala Cuisine. The user with the above IP address appears to remove a section from the page continousely since 28 May 2021. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Just look at this users history and see how much warnings this user has got. I dont know why this person is doing disruptive and large scale editting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kambliyil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kambliyil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandyept (talk • contribs)

Johnuniq The user kambliyil is balming me for disruptive editing whenrin the same user is the one who is doing large scale disruptive editting to large amounts of wiki pages on a daily basis. You can check my history as I am not doing this kind of unexplained edits little by little without any explanations. The user kambliyil wants everythig according to his wishes. That cannot be allowed. In kerala cusine malabr biriyani is known as Thalassery biriyani as is the only type of biriyani in whole of Kerala and it originated from Thalseery, rest are copies. This is speciafically stated in this book Karan, Pratibha (2009). Biryani. Noida, India: Random House India. ISBN 9788184002546. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandyept (talk • contribs)

@Alandyept: Hi, Please reply to this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/what-is-the-real-malabar-biriyani/articleshow/65090374.cms. The book you have shown dates back to 2009. The news report I have shown dates back to 2018. It is clearly mentioned in this report that the taste and flavour of the cuisine in each of the regions are different. The user Alandyept (talk · contribs) edits using several IP addresses those include:

• 2409:4073:4E84:DB7:7080:FA92:B909:95F1 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:4E16:1930:9598:46B7:E9FF:2713 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:20D:AE34:E473:637E:6C25:FF4F (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:495:BF58:5AC:9ACB:14ED:BFD6 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:2096:685A:7991:9B70:8970:F87 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:184:A9B1:D8FB:6DE3:F639:3AAC (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:219D:CA12:1527:C742:74E9:DF64 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:4D8F:7C4B:8C95:4506:CE19:220E (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:39C:E561:E438:5E:306E:51D4 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:380:D87D:8D65:8279:4035:1B8E (talk · contribs)

I think it is a sign of WP:SOCK as well as a violation of WP:EW. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kambliyil: That is not sockpuppetry. The editor likely just has a dynamic IP. The constantly changing IPs are not in their control. Please assume good faith. 122.172.236.3 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked for opinions at WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kerala dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq I want to say to the user kamliyil that there is huge difference between a ISBN published book and a news report. An intenrt article or news report must not be true or wont be that much trustable. These food items were here for ages. I mean before hundreds of years. What difference it makes between a 2009 or 2018 published article if the matter concerned is of hunderds of years old. If you want to refer to all version or copies of the same thing then there will thousands of copies of the same thing with little bit variations. That is not at all impotrant. Only original stuff should be here. Wikipedia should be informative with needed or required cotent. No use of putting irrelevent information in wiki. Johnuniq This user kambliyil is copying and pasting between wiki articles. For exmaple, several information is copied from Malabar wiki page and put into different wiki pages like Kerala cusine. Thst is not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:2e82:7a44:c470:faa7:8125:cf16 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:4073:2e82:7a44:c470:faa7:8125:cf16: Hi, you are true. That cuisine was there for hundreds of years. But nobody called it Thalassery cuisine. But the cuisine in each of the cities were different. The term Thalassery cuisine is used to denote the indigenous dishes of Thalassery. The news report I have mentioned above clearly states the differences between Thalassery cuisine and Kozhikode Cuisine. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: One of the revisions I named above (Special:Diff/1028979236) still has to be RD2'd. It was made on the user's own talk page and makes a degrading comment about the LGBT flag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I have rev del it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved administrator please take a look at the various allegations of improper behaviour (canvassing, personal attacks, gaslighting) made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of an abundance of caution given the canvassing allegations, I've notified every participant at the AfD of this discussion although the allegations are all made by a single editor and concern only me and two others. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that while I have participated in previous London Buses AfDs, I found them and this one via the main AfD list, which I browse semi-regularly. firefly ( t · c ) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My concern at this AfD was that this represents a WP:CANVASS violation, since a partisan group of users have been pinged into an AfD discussion. All users pinged !voted the same way in a AfD discussion on a very similar topic. While I assume this was probably unintentional, the way the canvassed users failed to recuse themselves from the discussion to avoid any risk of WP:VOTESTACKING, instead choosing to double down and dig in against me claiming I am making "false accusations" for merely pointing it out and to stop whingeing (sic) is concerning. Especially as one of the users is an admin and should be able to interpret WP:CANVAS correctly. Notifying a partisan group of editors to a discussion fails Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purely as a point of information (although not really being on either side of the debate), "whingeing" is a spelling accepted as standard by, for example, the Collins Online Dictionary ("If you say that someone is whingeing, you mean that they are complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant.") I'm assuming that your "(sic)" indicates thinking otherwise, and apologise for wasting your time if this was not the case. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andreas Philopater for pointing that out, I thought it should be spelt "whinging" and so thought it was a typo, but I can see now it can be spelt eitherway (spelling/grammar is not my strength!) Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do still need that uninvolved view because the allegations are continuing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

univolved nac: From my POV no canvassing occurred everyone from a related afd was pinged who coincidentally all voted the same way it is impossible to ping an opposition that wasn't expressed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, Can you provide diffs for personal attacks and gaslighting? As for canvassing, if all pinged editors were the ones who participated in the prior similar discussion, and nobody was omitted then it seems fine. If only one side was pinged then it would be bad. PS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:CANVAS explicitly states In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. (Note this was not reconsideration of a debate but a very similar debate about a very similar article). Also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification explicitly states notifying a partisan audience is inappropriate. So I cannot see how you reconcile that. Surely if there is no opposition, the right thing to do would be to ping editors from a different AfD or notify editors at a wikiproject etc. Or simply not ping anyone! Nowhere does it say on WP:CANVAS does it say it is OK to notify users from a partisan group simply because no other opinion is expressed - why choose to select users from that discussion when opposing views have been expressed in other discussions? Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: This little exchange relates to the PA and gaslighting. My gaslighting comment refers to being told that someone who was pinged into the conversation to say nothing apart from telling me to stop whingeing somehow found the discussion by their own volition. But none of this warranted ANI. Regarding the "continuing allegations" they are referring to this. Note, the user who pinged participants from the previous AfD has acknowledged it could be interpreted both ways. Any further discussion on the matter is an exercise in frivolous pedantry, and it is really up to the uninvolved closing admin to comment on whether canvassing has any bearing on the discussion! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no gaslighting just editors pointing out that no canvassing occuring and only you disagreeing with them, also telling someone to stop whingeing isn't really a personal attack, it may be considered uncivil but it is not a personal attack. 07:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)

Where am I complaining it was a PA? I did not bring it to ANI! So I don't consider it serious. But I've explained the gas lighting refers to a user who was pinged into the discussion to make an uncivil commment and then being told they arrived there not because they were pinged. But again, not something I consider important enough to be here at ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101: I've just realised I pinged you accidently, which explains the confusion. My ping was meant for @Piotrus: (fixed now). Talk about incompetence! Sorry about that. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tempers did get heated, but personally, I'd suggest WP:TROUTing people involved in it, then having them dring a cup of WP:Cup of tea and shake hands. There is nothing major going on there and it's best to de-scalate ASAP. Before things really get serious and admin intervention is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already made my peace with the user and was contemplating an apology on their talk page. I'd rather not have a trout, but a cup of tea would be nice! Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I cannot provide diffs because I do not believe they occurred - I posted here because accusations of those behaviours were being made (diffs of the accusations available on request) and felt that it was better to get outside input as the editor making the accusations showed no apparent interest in doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I request this discussion be closed, since everyone seems to agree there is no requirement for administrator intervention. I went ahead with my apology. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Polyamorph: (I replied on my talk page also), agreed and regarding canvassing I'm happy to drop this if others are too. I do find the guidelines a bit confusing, but I will be more careful and considerate in the future in deletion discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hatted the subthreads for focus. There's probably nothing needing admin attention here IMO, and the issue appears to be resolved amicably.[62][63][64] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 5.46.191.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 88.245.195.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Visnelma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as V.E. below)

We cannot make any changes because the page is protected.Our questions are not answered in the discussion section of the page. Even an interview made 2 weeks ago can be cited as a source.Black propaganda is constantly being carried out by one person. only anti-Turkish sources are added.I will give you a few examples. It is claimed that the Armenian Genocide took place in 1915, 1917. but the war of liberation started in 1919. The subject is deliberately distorted.after the Karabakh war. These attacks have increased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence#Influence_on_Nazis ""Nazilere göre Atatürk'ün başarısının en önemli nedeni Ermenilerin yok edilmesiydi"". Agos (in Turkish). Retrieved 16 June 2021. [110] This newspaper is an Armenian propaganda newspaper.

In this newspaper, the article of anti-Turkish writers of Armenian origin was cited as a source. Gündoğan, Kazım (4 June 2021). "Osmanlı ve Türkiye'de Yahudiler". gazeteduvar (in Turkish). Retrieved 8 June 2021.[64] none of them are historical documents and are just propaganda comments.

this causes wikipedia to be abused.This information is constantly being added by an editor without anyone responding in the conversation section. With the comments just 1 day ago or 2 weeks ago, this propaganda continues. please stop this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence#Ethnic_cleansing

almost all sources are the sources of an anti-Turkish Armenian writer. and these resources are repetitive and resource resources.

[97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [61]

The most recent source they added is an interview made 1 day ago. the previous source is an interview made 10 days ago and these are just comments.

propagandist : Visnelma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication Visnelma (talk · contribs) has been notified of this AN/I thread. I will correct that, but OP, I strongly suggest you stop accusing people of pushing propaganda. It makes you come across as just as much of a problem. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021" request i made few days ago. I tried to create counter argument with sources. Which was discredited due to one being news source and other being Lenin's direct words regarding the Independence War. First reason Contradicts with this users actions( He uses any source he can find the discredit the war). At the moment this user has the free reign to edit however he seas fit without challenge. That in itself is problem. Second reason is Very debatable considering direct words of someone who participated in the War being discredited due to being First Person Source. The problem is that there is systematic block on what the Turkish side can add to this site. If only one side has free reign while other side is blocked, then the term propaganda applies(Strongly). I sincerely hope that Turning page to propaganda is not the intention here at higher levels. --Oyond (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are telling the truth. but we have a message about this topic in the talk section. and it was never answered. deliberately only the discourses of Armenian writers who make anti-Turkish comments are added. This page is the Turkish War of Independence page. they exaggerated so much that the hitler started to open a headline and enter information under it because they took the Turks as an example. This is purely an intentional work. It doesn't serve the purpose of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genocide happened. Just because that upsets you doesn't make it less true. Deal with it. 2001:4898:80E8:38:725E:9119:2DBD:B368 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genocide you claim to have taken place took place in 1915, 1917. But the Turkish War of Independence started in 1919. What is wanted to be done here is to associate Turkey with the genocide. 1 of the sources is an interview made 1 day ago. another one is the interview made 2 weeks ago. In addition, almost 1 book is cited as a source about ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, has this IP ever been warned regarding WP:ARBAA2? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have one major question after having read this thread. Who is "we"? Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We" would be the Turkish nationalists/genocide deniers summoned as meatpuppets by Turkish websites, see Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Topic is on turkish news and Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Possible planned vandalism by Turkish far right groups. The history of the article (and talk page) from that time show semi-protection is a wholly necessary intervention to prevent co-ordinated disruption. FDW777 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 9 sources in the article in which you claim ethnic cleansing.

[95] "It seems, in the end, unlikely that the Turkish nationalist leaders, though secular in name, ever had any intention of allowing any sizeable non-Muslim minority to remain." *// expresses an opinion and does not present a historical document. *// [96] "Many Greek men were conscripted into unarmed labor battalions where the death rate sometimes exceeded 90 percent" Basso, Andrew (2016). *// there is no claim of ethnic cleansing and there is no document about the qualifications of these people. [97] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [98] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [99] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [100] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [101] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [61] Avedian, Vahagn Armenian nationalist historian

ethnic cleansing claims are made by prejudiced Armenian nationalist writers. Even today, we see this propaganda openly after the war in Azerbaijan. It is Armenia, which has been registered as an occupier by the United Nations. Instead, they describe Azerbaijan as an invader in their own newspapers and other propaganda. Do we believe in the decision of the united nations? Or Armenian propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.192.142 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been used as excuse to block anyone who disagrees with their POV. If you follow discussion: the people like the user above said sources are denialist, then when counter argument is made they say you dont have sources and this is "IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". When I bring sources the ask to make edit is denied based on contradicting reasons. One news article from very minor website is used as excuse to block any edits(And keep it protected indefinetly). If I have to tell you about my political view its very left wing. Most of the people who object are left wing as far as I can see in discussions at the moment. Also few users including one above is acting in coordiated fassion in Wikipedia in order to modify any turkish related article as they can get their hands on. They have free reign to write anything they can without any challenge(specialy in Turkish War of Independence). If you wish me to go more into details I certainly can. --Oyond (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if you are trying to portray the war that a country sees as a struggle for liberation as ethnic cleansing. this is a newsworthy movement around the world. On top of that, it is remarkable that the resources shown are the side that took part in that war and was defeated. The resources of a side that sees itself as justified despite being shown as an occupier by the United Nations even today. these sources are usually sources that include new newspaper interviews. These are the sources of the nationalist-minded writers of the side that entered the war and lost the war. Greece,France,United Kingdom,Armenia It is funny to say that a nation fighting against it was at that time starting a struggle to initiate ethnic cleansing.

Turns out all those liberation wars didn't involve the genocide of an entire people. Take your propaganda bullshit elsewhere. 2001:4898:80E8:8:6E40:B385:EEC:72A7 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people like you think there was genocide doesn't mean it was done.Even today, although the United Nations has registered that Armenia is an invader, Armenian sources show Azerbaijan as an invader. Armenian propaganda today is a brief illumination of the past.just like you are hiding behind a proxy and saying that there was genocide in the liberation war.

Can anyone explain what does Azerbaijan have to do with this war? 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Good question. Maybe because one admin pointed out "has been notified of this AN/I thread."...Maybe unsigned users should be ignored for the moment I can see flocks coming pretending to be something else in order to deviate this Topic from the real issue here. Limited access to Turkish Users to modify anything, organized cooperation(border line crusade) against any topic related to Turkish History Oyond (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limited access to Turkish users. Semi-protection of the article does not discriminate on race, nationality, gender, sexuality or anything else. FDW777 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Every page that group is challenged, the extended protection status is placed by one admin(wont name unless needed). Afterwards only your group has the ability to edit without any challenge. Who has the ability to change without discussing the topic in the discussion form indicates intentional bias. What I don't know if is a system being abused here by the group I mentioned, or is it intentional. Maybe You can clarify it for me. Want me to provide examples? I have two in mind besides Turkish War of Independence, Kemalism is being another. Let me talk on personal level here. I wanted to add left wing anti-imperialist perspective that indirectly supports Turkish War of Independence(more so identifying nature of the war). The more I get involved the more similar(group movement, propaganda) trends I see in side topics. Done by the same group of people which you are involved. I could pull list of users here if needed --Oyond (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of "your group" to describe myself and unnamed other editors is nothing but battleground behaviour. It is also ignorant of facts, if I am part of some anti-Turkish group it wouldn't explain why I persistently report sockpuppets of blatantly anti-Turk editor Cypriot Chauvinist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to the extent they say "I really dont know your problem with Greece and Cyprus" and "I really dont know your issue on Greek pages", among other things. I am neither pro-Turk nor anti-Turk, but what I am against is the concerted campaign by several editors to attack the best referenced part of the Turkish War of Independence article, because they are personally (and often, as a country) in denial about the ethnic cleansing aspect of it. FDW777 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actions speak louder then words and lets not victimize ourselves so easily. My questions are still not answered. Contributions and attitude and cooperations in both Turkish War of Independence and Kemalism speaks for itself. I dont have to the interest to dig into other past actions(At the Moment, though guessing more can be found), these are the only ones I see happening now.--Oyond (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a hard science. There is always some degree of "I like it" or "I JDL" with social sciences. The environment on the talk page of this article is pure toxic goo. After I saw comments about the content UNDUE from editors who supported inclusion of the disputed content, seeing they were not "Turkish nationalist" meat puppets, I made the naive request of asking the editors to seal the deal with an RfC. I could not get out of there fast enough. Editors defending the content claimed that there was a consensus for it because all the oppose editors were meat puppets and they didn't count. I strongly believe uninvolved editors should discuss the merits of the WP:MEATPUPPETRY claims. I don't believe that all the editors were meat puppets, making it impossible to evaluate the consensus while this is ongoing. It's not in the interests of the project to allow involved editors to ignore opposing editors in talk page discussions based on unsubstantiated claims of meat puppetry. Spudlace (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

one more distortion: 12:13, 14 June 2021‎ Visnelma talk contribs‎ 52,327 bytes −85‎ Non-factual date. Tag: Visual edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Naval_Forces As you can see, the date is written on the coat of arms. but there is blatant vandalism and propaganda.Turks go to mongolia. Actually, you are not Turkish. Why are our eyes not slanting? are the sources cited for such accusations. Although the date of establishment is written on the flag, vadalism is practiced.

you mean to say that the Turkish navy had corvettes and submarines etc. Since 1081? Does that sound right to you? Personally it sounds hilarious that one should take the establishment date in 1081 seriously just because it's written on the coat of arms. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that armenian. If you knew the history, you would probably know the size of the navies of those times. You would also know that a submarine was not invented. (...)

Another propaganda war.: but this is noticed by another editor and the source is removed. He shares anti-Turkish sources on wikipedia without any ideas.his only defense is his own shared resource. its been on the air for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch#Ataturk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visnelma is deliberately trying to make a propaganda.His method is to add anti-Turkish sources wherever he wants without anyone noticing. his only defense .is that the source he entered has been there for a long time.please stop the damage this editor has done to wikipedia. He is constantly making his own propaganda.it has an AN/I topic for it. However, he is not responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack and insult by 88.245.195.203 who also claims to be 5.46.191.4

The diff that contains insult written in Turkish and baselessly accusing me of "anti-Turkish propaganda"[65]. He also claims to be the one who started a discussion about me on this page[66]--V. E. (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues his attack against me although being warned by other users in the article talk page. (personal attack)[67] (previous warnings)[68] This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.--V. E. (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is also adding non factual dates to the articles and ignores the concencus on the article by doing so. He also continues his attack against me on his edit summary.[69]--V. E. (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complaint for you. reply to the complaint above. You should respond to the complaint about your blatant black propaganda against the Turks. In addition, the history of Istanbul University began in 1453. Celal Şengör is a geologist and has no expertise in history. Madrasahs were established by Fatih Sultan Mehmet in 1453 and the foundation of Istanbul University was laid. Just as it did not start directly from Oxford university as a university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch#Ataturk

As can be seen in the discussion, this is a systematic attack. and is constantly adapted by other editors. but after a while it keeps doing the same thing again.trying to change all Turkish articles from a source book that is generally anti-Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP has tried to carry this dispute to a completely unrelated discussion on Talk:Beer Hall Putsch in which Visnelma is involved. [70], [71], [72], [73] The IP's comments have been removed per WP:NOTAFORUM, and I warned them on their talk page that further disruption will result in their being referred to admins for sanctioning. [74] Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken Bro, As you can see, he is trying to show the anti-Turkish extreme theories as real. continues to do this everywhere. This is not a personal attack. It is the disclosure of his black propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk)

The user still continues to harass me on my talk page. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He was warned several times but he is still doing that. I kindly request him to be blocked.--V. E. (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't threaten you. I just said that I would expose your propaganda. You are using anti-Turkish sources. Even the German editors who see these sources express their surprise. they see these sources as extreme ideas and delete them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch#Ataturk This is exactly what I write in Turkish. I will refute your anti-Turkish propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk)

"As you can see today, you have come to the end of the propaganda you have been making for a long time. Let me tell you frankly. I will show people all the anti-Turkish sources and extreme theories you showed, and those people will delete these sources of yours. I made good progress from day one. Establishment dates of universities and institutions, linking the Nazis with the Turks I see that you are trying to make a lot of propaganda like this. In addition, the German editors realized what they were trying to do. It will be a very good reference point for me."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk)

Is it possible this user is Banana6cake.? 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very. A look at the IPs and Banana6cake shows no overlap between their editing times, with Banana and 5.46 editing on alternating days. Something indeed smells rotten here, and given the behaviour and the fact I've already warned the IP about discretionary sanctions I would take this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALso https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazycomputers&diff=prev&oldid=1029233125 user admits to being 88.245.195.203 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5.46's been blocked for 72h (same as the other IP). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP attacks against more editors

I was being target of IP attacks at Talk:Turkish Naval Forces which I just reported here in a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_resorting_to_insults_and_personal_attacks but I was unaware of the present discussion here. It was brought to my attention [75] by fellow user User:General Ization. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both the IPs used in this thread are blocked. Are there any other IPs that have been harassing you? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better if you take a look at the resources I wrote there instead of asking me why I changed my ip address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfsdfsdeef (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know why you're changing IPs/usernames. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TBan for User:Banana6cake.?

Based on what the IPv6 said above, I did a little bit of digging. I'm fairly certain that if the IPs aren't IP socks of Banana6cake. (talk · contribs), the difference is academic:

1. Banana6cake. and 5.46 edit on alternating days, and there is likewise no overlap in editing times between Banana6cake. and 88.245.
2. Their editing styles are similar - compare [76] to [77].
3. Both have a fixation on complaining about the use of Armenian sources - compare [78] to [79]

I am therefore proposing a topic ban from the Turkish War of Independence for Banana6cake. and any sockpuppets they have for the obvious IP sockpuppetry and for their nationalism-based battleground behaviour. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have filed an SPI. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look. You call us Turkish nationalists. One of those who say this is a Kurd. One is Armenian and one is Greek.

I am sending a source for the establishment date of Istanbul University.In the history of the university, he states why the foundation date is 1453. but you are writing your own claims again by telling us that we are vandalism. You don't even accept the history of the university. There is an intentional anti-Turkish attitude here.In the same way, you react against the intervention of the Germans. I've told you this over and over, but you just blocked me. You are the real nationalist here and it is obvious that you are anti-Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.194.180 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly evading blocks with IPs only damages your case. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBan from everything Turkish, broadly construed for Banana6cake and all connected IPs. Enough of this disruption in a subject area that is already fraught. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBan per above (Beyond My Ken). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question If, and I am not saying I know this to be true, that these IPs are sock puppets of this user, then why not just block? Topic bans are typically for editors with a history of otherwise good work who are problematic in a certain area. Users with few edits who resort to sock puppetry are typically not afforded this, but are rather blocked. I have not made a determination as to if these IPs are socks of this user but if they are then a block of indefinite duration would make more sense. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the editors for any contributions outside of Turkey topic areas. My experiences with them were on the Turkey topic area. If that's not the case, then I support an indef. block per HighInBC, instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if an admin decides to indef block Banana6cake for sockpuppetry or other disruptive editing, then this proposal would be moot. I don't see it as preventing normal admin action should it be warranted, just a step that the community itself can take to rein in the disruption in the absence of admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBan from everything Turkish, broadly construed I agree with Beyond.--V. E. (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has received many warnings (see their talk page), has been blocked once already, is likely the IP of a previous sockmaster (see below), and continues to make disruptive edits such as this and this at Moroccans (removing a major ethnicity from the lead). A relatively long block would be helpful, given the constancy of it over multiple warnings, blocks, and previous socking. Not sure what else to recommend.

With regards to socking: this IP is very likely the same user as the one reported in multiple sockpuppet investigations here. They're doing the same edits (adding Berber names or content, which is fine, or deleting mentions of Arab ethnicity, which is disruptive), and their edit summary here presumably refers to an earlier comment by 85.148.129.62 on my talk page here. I don't mind moving this to sockpuppet investigations instead if more appropriate, but I assumed that it's simpler to report it here since there can't be more than a temporary block on an IP anyways. R Prazeres (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuha Nakano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In mid-April, there was an edit war at Kozo Iizuka (sorry to say but I was involved in it). To resolve the edit war, I stopped reverting on 19 April and started a discussion at Talk:Kozo Iizuka#Discussion to resolve edit war. To Shizuha Nakano and 2404:2D00:5000:841:59F8:4B44:59D7:DC15's reply, I stated my counterarguments (25 April) and closed the discussion as resolved (5 May) after there were no further replies for more than a week.

Since Shizuha Nakano reverted again on 23 May and 7 June (mentioning "NNTR at talk" on the latter date), I asked them again to discuss at the talk page and at User talk:Shizuha Nakano (8 June). The response of Shizuha Nakano is another revert on 16 June. That leaves me with no choice but to file a report here. ネイ (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Add userlinks ネイ (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also been doing some bizarre, hateful stuff at Jessica Yaniv. They changed all the pronouns of a trans woman to who or whose and added an external link to an attack site in two unexplained edits (diff). They were reverted twice (once by me) and they re-reverted both times with not-great edit summaries. First re-revert: "Yaniv is Not operated transsexual. Should not decide he or she." Second re-revert: "WP:BOLD". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is pretty bad too, for all sorts of reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solarson919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the talk page of User:Bishonen a user named User:Solarson919 has been throwing false accusations for the last few hours, he has now started calling me false names and other derogatory remarks. All I did was reverted his unsourced misleading edits on the WP Jeypore. He has been harassing me since then. Odiahistory (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see his remarks under the section ( Possible Dummy or Puppet Accounts that needs your urgent action ) in Bishonen’s Talk Page. He has been baselessly accusing me of being sock puppet of Rodotype and RudpolhHitz, and so far I treated him with utmost respect. However, in his last reply he called me by false names and other derogatory stuff like “raging like an infant” etc. He has been harassing me for quite a while now. I could have insulted him as well, but thought of reporting it first. Odiahistory (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Please notify Solarson919 of this report on their talk page, as the red text at the top of the page and the yellow edit notice when creating this section dictate. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the ANI notice to the editor. Jerm (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Odiahistory is the one who actually started harassing me on Bishonen's talk page. I wasn't involved in the discussion there. The threw quite slanderous remarks my way, called me a sockpuppet of User: Sangramz and accused me of "peddling an agenda." Also his edit history suggests that his IDs been created to only "manage" Jeypore and related pages (less of the latter) and his language, mannerisms and an assumption (on which I've elaborated on Bishonen's talk page) gave me an impression that he indeed was User:RudolphHitz. Also the Odia rajput page in the talk page of which he accused me of "peddling some agenda against them" which was constructed purely on POV and has been subsequently deleted by an admin. I'd be obliged if you looked into it. Thank you Solarson919 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant lying. Anyone interested in this matter. Please visit the talk page of User:Bishonen and have a look at the replies of User:Solarson919. Ever since I reverted his edit, he is trying to divert the attention by baselessly linking me up with User:RudolphHitz & User:Rodotype who also happened to have done a few editing. If you look at the comments you will find out who started slandering about me being a sockpuppet, which I have denied and also asked the admin to check IP addresses of mine & those two users he’s linking me up with.

I’ve just simply reverted his unsourced & misleading claims on Jeypore page that did not match with the source which he keeps on editing along with another user named User:Sangramz. He has given me false names & remarks like “raging like an infant” even though when it is quite clear that he is the one who has been raging all along at me. Half of his edits involve glorification or promotion of some “Khandayat caste”. If you see his talk page and edit history, you will just find most of it related to Khandayat.

On the other hand, you can check my edit history as well. I’m not denying that I did not edit Jeypore page. It is one of my topic of interest and I think I have the right to edit and improve it with reliable sources. He has brought his accusations even here, still accusing me of having links with Rudolph & Rodotype. Please check his history and take necessary actions because he has turned my whole day into some sort of silly war, where he denies his shortcomings and because he has nothing else to accuse me of, therefore, he continues to slander me of sockpuppetry and unnecessary rage ranting. I’ll try not to reply again because I am sick and tired of this behaviour. I hope you take necessary actions. Thank you. Odiahistory (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done caste glorification anywhere. I'm saying this again and again that "kandha" and "Khandayat" aren't the same and on jeypore edit nowhere was the word Khandayat mentioned by either me or user: sangramz. Stop accusing me of caste glorification. Stop harassing me. I can't take any of it anymore. Please just stop it I'm begging you. I request the admins to take actions as he won't leave me alone now. Solarson919 (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha Don’t try to play the victim now. This is the complaint panel so will have to face it whether you like it or not. I can say the same about your baseless complaint on Bishonen’s page yesterday, who started that? Was that me? And What is Kandha and where is it written that the king was Kandha, can you explain? Just explain this to me (with sources) and I will take my complain back and never bother you again. Since yesterday you have created another propaganda that Kandha & Khandayat are not similar words, just for the sake of saving yourself. Whenever I ask you this question (which I did several times) you bring up that false accusations of sockpuppetry and insults and change the topic because clearly you don’t have an answer.

And this “begging you” , “can’t take it anymore” victim plea is another trick of yours to divert the attention of admins. You started with that false accusation complaining yesterday, then got enraged and personally attacked me, and now possibly afraid to face the outcome. Odiahistory (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more surprised that neither of you can indent consistently. Please, can both of you read WP:INDENT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the indenting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbear456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been reverted by no less than three different editors for relentlessly pushing blatant WP:PUFF and unreliable sourcing at Shawn Michaels. When informed that the sources he is using have been established by the community as unreliable, he wilfully restores them anyway.

User is simultaneously engaged in a WP:POINTY, vandalistic "revenge" project by removing well-sourced peer and journalist acclaim for Bret Hart (a career rival of Michaels).

WP:NOTHERE, other than to puff up the Shawn Michaels article into an unencylopedic fansite mess against the wishes of other editors. Cloudbearer (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to be a bit of a SPA. He also seems to be willing to edit war and not engage in talkpage communication. I think a block for a while might get them to calm down.★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with wrestling articles that brings this out? Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of professional wrestling terms#mark. Narky Blert (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A toxic fanbase, but perhaps we shouldn't venture into WP:FORUM. Cloudbearer (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a bit like idol culture, fans can identify and get very attached to their favorites.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit summaries. Almost all are mobile edits. So they probably are not seeing the comments on their talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell Drmies there's another wrestling thread at ANI, unless you are planning for the whole of Alabama to be powered by the steam that comes out of his ears. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, it's all about Euro 2020. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used to have a page for this topic, with really good information and references. Suddenly, it is gone. Can it be put back in place and protected? The people in this church are very secretive about the history of the church and probably asked for it to be removed; however, for the sake of knowledge and history, such information should be protected and available to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa.landen78 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa.landen78, I don't see any edit history at Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa, I'm not seeing that the page was deleted at all, as it was never created. Was this under another name by any chance? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unable to find anything. We do have articles on Laestadianism and Laestadianism in the Americas, where the "Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church" is referred to as "Reedites" and "Pollarites", but no deleted articles there, either. Woodroar (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article for Apostolic Lutheran Church of America. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2010F11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wallachia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User 2010F11 keeps replacing the flag and coat of arms of Wallachia [80] (this is the latest time, see history article). User seems not to have an actual valid reason to use these symbols, these are the arguments given by them: "I wanna add the 1831 flag in the info box!" "Probably many people would want to see it!" "Maybe everyone wants to see it!". I've explained to them they do not have stated any reason that complies with any Wikipedia policy to justify this change, but it seems of no use. To summarize what I said at Talk:Wallachia, the white flag with a crow (the one this user is not promoting) is by far the most common (there's not a source of this, because there's not a source that specifically says which flag of a dead state that had several others was more common), which you can see by simply looking up "Wallachia flag" on Google. Click on images, scroll down and you'll mostly see the white flag with a crow (or a blue variant which, as far as I know, is only a naval ensign) or some alternate (mostly not historical) variants derived from it. But you most likely won't see a red and yellow horizontal bicolor flag which is the one that this user promotes.

It is for this reason that I oppose using two flags (first of all because it's unnecessary, it would make sense if the state only had two flags, but it didn't) which have a clear difference in relevance at the same "level" if I explain myself. The red and yellow flag is simply not known by almost anybody, while the white flag is the most commonly associated with Wallachia. Which this user does not seem to understand. Regarding the coat of arms, this one (which this user promotes) is not contemporaneous to the principality (see description at the file's page), so it shouldn't be used. By the way, the white flag has been used since at least 2009 in the article [81] and it is used by Romanian Wikipedia (Wallachia is in Romania). The user has been warned because of their changes at their talkpage twice [82] and their changes were reverted by two other different editors [83] [84]. Super Ψ Dro 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peace4worlds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Based on the edits by user: Special:Diff/1029088632, Special:Diff/1029088632, Special:Diff/1029088632 (the claim is supported by 14 citations Special:PermaLink/1029088780#cite_note-24) and another edit Special:Diff/1025890795; I believe the user is pushing POV and is WP:NOTHERE. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a request to deal with the user Mwiqdoh who is tracking other users' contributions and even harrassing them (example), mimicking their edit summaries and sending false accusations like here and here. He is also removing content from these users' talk pages despite being told to stop doing so (he removes the warnings being sent to him).--Sakiv (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this [90] considered harassment? Take it your own way, but I was pretending that we were in a editing competition on how could make the better edits and I said that I made a good edit and he did too so he is trying to bounce back. [91] You already explained that this was not appropriate [92] and I understood and moved on (and as you can see, I never did it again). I am not tracking anybody's contributions, I just check whoever's user page I'm on's contributions just to see what they're editing and see what things I should edit. It's not like I check the same person's contributions to stalk them. (People give me ideas!) For example, I quickly checked out Sakiv's edit history and came across List of countries by average annual precipitation, and thought that would be fun to improve. And I ended up improving it a bit. [93][94][95][96] I'm not very creative so I need ideas on what to edit. You're actually tracking MY contributions. [97] I don't mimick people's edit summaries. If I like an edit summary I'll use it, that should be taken as a good way. I am not sending false accusations, I can prove that SteveMc25 sent that a few seconds before the game ended, what I can agree is I pushed it a little too far, but it wasn't a lie at all. [98] I'll be nicer in approaching someone who did a harmless edit. [99] I don't mean to remove content to other people's talk pages. I have reasons for doing so though. 1. They were my edits. [100] (removed literally 8 minutes after adding, not like it was an age-old message that everyone saw). 2. Nobody replied to them. [101] And I do remove warnings sent to me. If I have a warning, I read it, learn from it, and move on (same with disambiguation links). Also, the warnings you gave me were extremely unfair (just like Stevie fae Scotland's warning). [102][103] On, England national football team results (2020–present) there was a discussion between me and you between adding yellow cards. [104] Then you were ignoring me [105] so I removed them, [106] and you warned me. [107] So you ignore me for the discussion but when I remove it myself you warn me of vandalism (even though there is an ongoing discussion about it). Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They (the cards) were already there before any discussion began between us and you should have waited to reach a consensus before removing them. You have been told to stop mimicking by SteveMc25 and I also warned you that it is inaproppriate. You have been given more than one chance but unfortunately you can't change this behavior. It's clear that you don't know the purpose of why we are all here.--Sakiv (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would've (and was doing) with the cards, [108] but when you ignore me [109] [110], it's not really a productive discussion. I'm not mimicking him! Is there a rule that says editors are not allowed to use the same edit summaries as other editors, even if it's a good edit summary? Mimick means to imitate (someone or their actions or words), especially in order to entertain or ridicule, [111] which I am not [112]. The only thing you warned me that was inappropriate was this, [113] which I listened to you [114] and I didn't do that again. [115] You never told me using a valid edit summary in an appropriate situation was wrong (just because someone else uses it). It's not about chances, everything I've done wrong I've been told about, and had never been done again. Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has just accused me of cheating.--Sakiv (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I'm still editing my comment as you can see, [116] once I am done you can judge it however you'd like. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwiqdoh, it's really past time for you to stop stirring up disputes and then attempting to turn them into emotional bru-ha-has. I've had my own interaction with you recently, in which I asked you to stop a certain behavior and you attempted to convert it into a personal, emotional issue. Editors here are not just judged by the quality of their edits, but on how well they can collaborate with other editors and, from time to time, resolve disputes. A big part of that is graciously accepting correction from other editors who have more experience. Sakiv has been editing here for more than 5 years and has contributed more than 30,000 edits. Assuming this is your only Wikipedia account, you have been editing here for less than a month, and have contributed less than 2000 edits. It's just possible that Sakiv knows some things about editing here that you do not yet know. You might stop arguing with everyone who offers you guidance, about either the substance or the tone (as you perceive it) of the request or warning, and listen to what they are trying to tell you. I can assure you that if you do so it will make your career as a Wikipedia editor much more pleasant, if not longer. General Ization ^Talk 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't base this on your personal experience with me, read my responses, please. I provided 26 pieces of evidence (which you are free to look at). I do listen to sakiv when I am told I've done something wrong (look at my response with all my sources and claims), but I haven't done anything this time, truly. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then move on, and stop repeating the same pattern of persistent bickering in response to simple warnings. General Ization ^Talk 04:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even about that. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGain, if you read my response, you'd see I said "I read my warning, and moved on." It's that he's trying to BAN me. Do you not want me to defend myself or give reasoning? Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going after you. Stop pretending to be targeted. You persisted in your undesirable behavior and as a result I made this request.--Sakiv (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were, I'm just saying that if someone's requesting to ban you, you need to defend yourself. My behavior is not undesirable as I explained in my responses. Occasionally I may do something wrong and I just need to be reminded that I can't do that, but what have I done here? Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mwiqdoh's Allegations

- Harrasment – [117] Mwiqdoh's response: Not even harassment. Explained here: [118] and was told that it was a bit unnecessary and looked weird [119] and I listened.

- Lying – User_talk:Mwiqdoh#False_reverts. Mwiqdoh's response: Was an overreaction but not a lie. Explained here: [120] and said that I'd be nicer (which I have done so far): [121]

- Deleting talk page content – [122] Mwiqdoh's response: Was something I did wrong. But, it is an inappropriate use of talk pages (WP:OWNTALK) stating, "talk pages aren't social media websites" and what I said was improper usage so I deleted it.

- Removing Warnings – [123] Mwiqdoh's response: Clean-ups are allowed. Especially, if you already read and understood the warning.

- Mimicking – [124] Mwiqdoh's response: Using the same edit summary as someone else appropriately, is not mimicking someone.

- Tracking people's contributions – Mwiqdoh's response: "I am not tracking anybody's contributions, I just check whoever's user page I'm on's contributions just to see what they're editing and see what things I should edit. It's not like I check the same person's contributions to stalk them. (People give me ideas!)"

Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Mwiqdoh has done

Talk page removal - Mwiqdoh has removed things he said on other people's talk pages.

Arguing - Mwiqdoh has argued and bickered over small things.

Removing Warnings - Mwiqdoh has removed warnings (but there isn't anything wrong with that)

What Mwiqdoh hasn't done

Harassing - [125] does not meet the harassment guidelines. It may be unnecessary (which he has been notified here [126]) and he followed the heads-up. It was not harassment though

Lying - Mwiqdoh has been placed in the argument section for the stevemc25 incident, but it was not a lie. (As proved here [127])

Mimicking - Mwiqdoh has not mimicked any user in a humorous matter. Anytime he had copied someone's edit summary was in a valid situation, as such: [128].

Answered honestly by Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since no admin appears to take it as a priority to review @Mwiqdoh's 38 pieces of "evidence" (which I thoroughly understand) and either admonish them or praise them, I will simply offer one additional (unsolicited) observation for the editor to consider. As in real life, when someone here seems to chronically find themselves in conflict with others, and then consistently to claim that they've been misunderstood or are being treated unfairly, it usually means that they have misunderstood how to interact with other Wikipedia editors and avoid conflict (or, sometimes, that they are actually seeking conflict, consciously or otherwise). I cannot say for certain that any of these are the case here. However, it is not considered a virtue to take up a considerable amount of admins' time to moderate and/or defuse minor squabbles that expand to become major incidents as a result of failure to get the point or drop the stick. The editor would do well to spend more time reviewing Wikipedia policies, listening to what other editors have to tell them, and occasionally walking away from conflict even if they think they are right or are being misunderstood. (No reply expected, nor will debate be undertaken.) General Ization ^Talk 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: But I just want to know what I did wrong here that requires admin to get involved. Mwiqdoh (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwiqdoh: Appears to me that, whether or not you violated Wikipedia policies, you persistently annoyed at least one and possibly several other editors. See above my suggestion for how to avoid doing this in the future. General Ization ^Talk 15:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: OK, thanks for your advice. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an current dispute with an editor who I strongly believe has a bias against articles involving black subjects and promotes systematic racism through his actions. I have tried to make arguments why these articles he proposed to delete are notable but the editor is not able to communicate his reasons for deletion effectively, brushed me off and is continuously changing his reasoning for deletion. In addition, two of the articles were proposed for deletion or flagged within one minute of each other and I am not sure how someone can review properly sourced and written articles this fast. I have called out his behavior and he started having his friends try to silence me and now he is also threatening to report me to this board unless I apologize to him and take back all accusations. It is very common for individuals to be in denial when called out for being racist or when showing unconscious biases.

I am fairly new to wiki and I am interested to bring diversity, equity and inclusion of black creatives and academics to this platform and then find these kind of editors trying to block accomplished and notable black individuals. It is really disheartening but I don’t believe threats or racism should have a place on this platform so it would be good to resolve this dispute with your oversight if this forum is able to provide a fair and non bias environment.

Please advise on next steps. Thank you Soupmaker (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker[reply]

I don't see any posted evidence, or the name of the person you are talking about. I also don't see that you have notified the person as is required when discussing them here. It is not really reasonable for us to react to this because without being able to investigate the edits ourselves we can't really make a judgment. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Okay I am seeing what you are probably talking about here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu. I think you had better support your accusations as they are serious accusations. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Soupmaker: the next step if you want an administrator to intervene (which is the purpose of this page) is for you to identify the editor about whom you are speaking, and for you to notify that editor that you have submitted a request here, which is required. See the notice near the top of the page and a suggested template you can use to provide that notice. If you are looking for advice rather than intervention, and would prefer they not be notified at this stage, the WP:TEAHOUSE is probably a better place to inquire for general advice on dealing with this sort of issue. General Ization ^Talk 06:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The handle of the editor in question is Onel5969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupmaker (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have given User:Soupmaker a final warning about personal attacks for saying "he reality is that this editor has a clear racial bias and we need to call out racism when we see it" when referring to User:Onel5969. I have also notified User:Onel5969 of this discussion. Short of very clear evidence that these accusations are true I will be treating them as actionable personal attacks going forward. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. But can you explain to me how this editor is able to review two articles within one minute? We are talking about the articles for Sean Canty and Emanuel Admassu. Please check the time when both were submitted for AfD.Soupmaker (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker[reply]

This editor has made over 470,000 contributions to Wikipedia over 11 years without ever being blocked. They are good at what they do, that is how.

You have been asked to provide evidence. The fact that they have nominated a couple of articles for deletion is not enough. I suggest you show a concrete example of what you are talking about or withdraw these accusations. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is able to rapidly review articles concerning academic subjects for notability because they are intimately familiar with the criteria set forth at WP:NACADEMIC, and have participated in many discussions concerning those criteria. You will need to provide evidence that the editor is not applying those criteria equally to academics of all races, or you will need to swiftly withdraw your accusations of racism. General Ization ^Talk 06:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that AFAICT there was no nominating of two articles for deletion anyway, and definitely not of those two articles. One was PRODed then sent to AFD. One was simply tagged with a notability concerns tag. The timing is also off as there was 56 minutes between the last edit and the PROD+notability tag. There was over 9.5 hours between the last edit and the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the editor who filed this did so after I requested that they apologize for their personal attacks and retract them, or I would be forced to bring the matter here. Initially, I attempted to ignore their behavior, they continued, another editor pointed it out to them, they continued. Finally I asked for an apology at the AfD, instead they escalated their behavior. I think their actions speak for themselves. In the end I hope these comments are not only redacted, (several of which already have), but revdel'd as well. I won't comment on what action should be taken on the editor, I'll leave that up to the admins. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined onel5969's actions in the volunteer role of WP:New Page Patroller in respect of the article Emanuel Admassu which has been repeatedly and disruptively pushed into mainspace by @Soupmaker following draftications I find onel5969's actions of PRODing and then AfD for community review totally appropriate. Under these circumstances checking Soupmaker other actions is totally expected and the tagging of the article Sean Canty for notability concerns is reasonable, proportionate and expected. I find allegations against onel5969 presented here at best unfounded and lacking competency. I suggest Soupmaker either presents some specific examples of the allegations or presented an owned apology and undertakes to improve behaviour. Having skimmed over 1000 of onel5969's curation log I see a commendable spread of diversity with no outstanding bias obvious to me. I'm unclear if revdel's are appropriate but if not done and this case unproven (unfounded) then the personal attacks remaining in discussions are countered by the closer or an oversighter in those discussions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a non-issue, and should probably be closed. To echo HighInBC's comment above: Onel is good at what they do. I have never seen a hint of any kind of problem in their AFC or AFD work. They are a credit to the encyclopedia. I think the core of the issue here is that Soupmaker, who I have helped in the past, doesn't have the same high level understanding of our notability rules that more experienced editors (like Onel) have. They've come to my talk page multiple times to ask about whether one architect or another was notable. That's perfectly fine, and I am happy to help, but it reflects inexperience with our notability standards-- which, let's face it, take some time to learn. Anyway, this report should be closed a there is nothing to complain about.--- Possibly (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should not be closed while Soupmaker remains unrepentant and unblocked for their personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I have given the user a warning, I have no objection if another admin feels this is already actionable. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe in forcing Soupmaker to disavow the remarks they've previously made. I doubt that this will actually cause Soupmaker to change their beliefs on the subject. A forced apology isn't an apology at all and there'd be no real use to it.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 00:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sanctions are not intended to change beliefs. They are intended to promote restraint and constrain misbehavior, in this case violations of three prime Wikipedia tenets: NPA, civility, and AGF. General Ization ^Talk 00:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Apologies need to be sincere rather than forced, but there is a very real use to one: it might help convince us that Soupmaker will stop this misbehavior voluntarily and save us having to block them to prevent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to see some sort response from Soupmaker here, with either a retraction of their accusations or compelling evidence of their truth. Paul August ☎ 22:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is essential support is shown for NPP's. In my opinion Soupmaker has raised the ANI and is expected to respond where necessary at intervals of not more than 48h (the fact it has WP:BOOMERANGed on them is irrelevant). Depending on the nature of that response there may or may not be sanctions. If there is no response I would suggest Soupmaker is indef suspended pending a suitable appeal when they would be welcomed back, and I do think they could be a valuable contributor. If no suitable response/action is forthcoming I will suggest to Onel they consider recuse from NPP work for a month or two or three to demonstrate the impact of not taking sanctions .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not understanding why Onel should "recuse from NPP work for a month or two or three to demonstrate the impact of not taking sanctions". Are you suggesting that Onel do so as a protest against action not being taken against Soupmaker? Onel certainly has the right to do this if they feel it's appropriate or needed, but I'm wondering if the purpose of your suggestion is as unclear to others as it is or was initially to me, probably because of the multiple invocations of the term "response" in your comment, each with different meanings. General Ization ^Talk 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ization: I suggest Onel considers that option if he feels insufficiently supported, though it is unlikely Onel was trained at Wallisdown like I was so the balance of probabilities is that they would not take that action. But given Onel's requesting revdel's seems like they feel well scummered and could walk if nothing done like you seem to suggest. I am inclined to say little more on the matter, we really need ANI raiser Soupmaker to follow through here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I, for one, appreciate Onel's hard work, dedication and competent new-page patrolling. I can understand feeling discouraged and wanting to take a wikibreak after getting undeservedly abused by other editors (it happens to me sometimes, and I imagine to anyone else active in the project) but I hope that doesn't happen here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PBE thread decision time

It is now over 48 hours, that is since 06:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC), since Soupmaker last made a contribution to this thread, which was to request the community to explain some things to him, or any contribution at all to the English WikiPedia. I, and I hope we all, hope Soupmaker is well and we all know Real Life stuff happens outside WikiPedia and I have seen the community is always willing to be open to any reasonable excuse RL stuff has intervened (any we need only the briefest mention that has happened and we don't need to know any specific details whatsoever). But there is also a proportion of cases where people stay away from ANI discussion simply to avoid sanctions and immediately continue with repeat low-level behaviour when the ANI is closed. I am sure we very much want Soupmaker contributing to Wikipedia as his perspectives are important, though there needs to be an appreciation of WP:NPA and an undertaking not to disrupt. The one option is a significantly long block 3/6 months or indef. to ensure Soupmaker needs to appeal future troublesome behavior will cease; (and the admins should be really very open to unblocking if reasonable appeal is made that future troublesome behaviour will cease) - this sends a strong precedent to consequences of abuse of NPP patrollers. The other option is to hope Soupmaker has reflected on their behaviour and that further trouble will result in an immediate block ... in an ideal world and if it works well this can be the best ... but it can but at BOOMERANG risk any person who might bring Soupmaker for what others see as too trivial an offence. I am aware there is an ongoing AfD with regards to a Soupmaker article and other XfDs/redirects might follow on that outcome. On reflection I am minded and somewhat of the hope an admin finds Soupmaker's behaviour actionable but with being very open to any reasonable appeal. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patterson–Gimlin film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PDMagazineCoverUploading seems to a case of WP:SBA, and could probably use some attention from an admin:

• "[I] am prepared to die on this hill & engage in a revert war with you"[129]
• "Yeah they do, asshole" [130]
• "Nope, fuck off" [131]
• etc.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly very out of line. I have given an only warning for personal attacks and they already have a final warning for edit warring. If another admin thinks this is actionable now, I have no objection. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a situation involving two articles (basically just one), and two editors (probably also just one). I came across Dabi Rajput and Dabhi Rajput on the uncategorised list, and noticed that they're essentially the same. So I draftified them before this creates even more of a fork, and was planning to ask the creating editor to choose which one they want as the primary title.

Only I then realised the editors are different (well, maybe not, but technically yes): Dabi Rajput and Dabhi Rajput, respectively. I'm not saying there's any puppetry involved, I think it's just a misunderstanding — it looks like the accounts were created in order to create those articles. All the same, if the users are the same, they obviously need to be advised accordingly.

I don't know if there's also an issue with the user name: judging by the article, this Dabhi Rajput is a collective name for a group of people, so one could argue that a user name like that implies shared use?

Finally, I hope I've not made the mess worse by draftifying things, because now it seems there's a bit of a muddle with the way the pages and talk pages relate to each other. (If I have, sorry!). Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:J. Jimenez Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Conmebol32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Qatar221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fifa22concaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conmebol16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This hoax article has already been deleted under CSD G3 once today, but was then recreated by an obvious sockpuppet of the original author. Various socks of the avian and quacking variety have edit warred to remove the {{db-hoax}} template since. No meaningful dialogue has been had, despite warnings. I don't want to waste SPI time with this, or edit war with them over something which I realise is petty - could an admin nuke the article and block the quackers? firefly ( t · c ) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]