Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Praxidicae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.

Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane ^talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm, 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? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.

Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.

I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.

I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.

Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Störm, I'm trying to understand what led to these edits: [1][2][3]. Could you explain what happened there? --Blablubbs|talk 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Blablubbs I am patient about this. They are continuously attacking me as they think I have damaged their Google Knowledge Panel profile. I think this IP should be blocked as they continuously removing alternate names from the article. Störm (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Störm, why do they think that? And could you link me to the knowledge panel thing? I couldn't immediately see it in the IP's contributions. --Blablubbs|talk 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Look at [4], [5], knowledge panel. They are vandalizing and doing nothing useful. Störm (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Störm, sorry, missed the knowledge panel thing somehow. Here's the sequence of events that I can see: It appears that someone is attempting to spam (the living) Ramzi Najjar: On 11 May, Seraphimblade deletes a G11 version of that article. On 18 May, someone recreates the spammy article and it gets draftified. On 26 May, you create an article about him in mainspace. The same day, Praxidicae brings up sourcing concerns on your talk page. You then G7 the page and immediately recreate it; this time, it's about a different Ramzi Najjar. That article gets AfD'd. A Lebanese IP, possibly the subject of the previous iteration, then shows up at the AfD to complain that you hijacked "their" page, referring to the page about the living Ramzi Najjar that had previously existed in mainspace. Am I parsing this correctly? --Blablubbs|talk 12:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; Icodense99 mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by scope creep and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Störm: What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentionally deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This thread was archived, but I think there are multiple issues still to be addressed. @Störm, Praxidicae, Dane, Celestina007, Blablubbs, and Girth Summit: (I think that's the main participants - apologies if I've missed anyone). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

@Lugnuts: Thanks for unarchiving. I agree that there are outstanding issues here. --Blablubbs|talk 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just happened across this thread and find it rather disconcerting. If anything, I think perhaps a month-long volunteer t-ban from BLPs by Störm will provide adequate time for some introspection as well as time to re-read the relative WP:PAGs; consider it a type of refresher course. The actions by Prax were certainly justified. I am very disappointed to see the types of issues she brought to our attention about Störm's editing; a productive user with over 80k edits. From my perspective as a VRT member, we occasionally confirm published birth dates of notable people, but it involves highly confidential information that is characteristic of our work at OTRS - it's primarily about WP:V. VRT agents are completely neutral, so the chance of a COI is slim to none. Editors can certainly suggest that a BLP contact WMF if a DOB is that important, but you must be able to provide a published date, or conflicting date(s), even if archived (see Way Back machine). While it is certainly acceptable for an editor to corroborate a birth date with published material, it is not acceptable to create dates based on unpublished information; thus OR. In this particular case, I'm not convinced that a formal block or t-ban would create anything but bitterness, and we don't want that, especially considering that the behavior does not involve vandalism, incivility or 3RR style disruption that needs expedient intervention. However, I am of the mind that the community does need some form of convincing reassurance, which explains my opening proposal for a volunteer t-ban. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We're still awaiting a reply from Storm, not just for a volunteer t-ban, but the plethora of un-answered questions about (possible) COI and the lack of disclosing the EXACT source for the biography/biographies they have created. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

|}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

---

• Proposal: Störm is indefinitely topic banned from BLPs, and from articles about groups, companies and organisations (anything that would be covered by WP:NCORP), broadly construed. As usual, this would be appealable after six months of productive ad properly sourced editing in other areas. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Thank you Girth for spending time in summing up the pertinent points, and expanding on them. Certainly the 'I got confused' excuse seems weak, which I would attribute to a novice editor, or someone with WP:CIR issues. For someone with more experience, such as Störm, this raises more questions, esp. in light of the COI concerns. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I believe this is the only sensible option since Störm has failed to convincingly address the concerns surrounding their problematic edits to BLPs and possible promotional editing (which there is more evidence of than what has already been posted here, but what's already been shared is convincing enough IMO).
  As it wasn't mentioned in Girth Summit's comment, I'd like to reiterate that Störm created two articles on dewiki that were deleted as spam (in fact, they're now indeffed on dewiki for spamming), and when questioned on this, stated that the articles were "given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals" [7] (making it not only spam but a copyvio). While this didn't happen on enwiki, I consider this to be another demonstration of their repeated failure to understand policy - even if you believe the dubious relative story, it is deeply concerning that a user with 80,000 global edits and several advanced permissions on enwiki would think that it's perfectly fine to create spam pages because their relative asked them to.
  I would also question whether the TBAN should be broadened to include websites (which were what the dewiki creations were about) and perhaps everything currently included under the A7 criterion as these are frequent targets for promotional editing. Spicy (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The evidence presented by Girth Summit and others above, together with the lack of any convincing response from Störm, seems compelling. Paul August ☎ 10:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support — per rationale by Lugnuts. In fact, I would have supported even if it were an indef block proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I suggested a boomerang 18 days ago; better late than never, as Cheech might say. ——Serial 12:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support TBAN with an explicit website restriction and/or indefinite block, mostly per Spicy. The sheer volume of problematic creations, insufficient explanations, sudden disappearance and frankly unconvincing denials push me over the edge; I believe this passes the duck test for, at the very least, insufficient COI disclosure, which is a very serious breach of trust. I also believe that Störm's creations, especially those made while he held the autopatrolled right, should be systematically reviewed for potential notability, due weight and BLP issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support There are too many concerns to allow Störm to continue to edit in these areas. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I just finished looking into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramzi Najjar (see my cmt there). This is a total mess. Previous revisions talked about a different Ramzi, as can be seen here. Storm's edits hijacked that page and changed the article subject to a different Ramzi, who is declared as being dead. Apparently for some period of time Google declared that Ramzi as deceased (and it appears an IP on the AfD, presumably that article subject, is reasonably quite upset about that), but it seems Google now recognises them as two distinct individuals. In any case, hijacking articles is not how you write about a different individual sharing the same name, and this alone would make me want to support a TBAN. The other evidence suggests possible undisclosed paid editing and other BLP editing issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at the admin log of this article suggests a different story. The issues on that article might just be a confusion due to admin action on this article. (as explained by Blablubbs above) it seems there were three separate article creations, one that was deleted by Seraphimblade as G11 (the one about the book author), a creation by Storm and deleted as G7 by GB fan, and then a recreation by Storm (the current article). But then it seems Missvain undeleted all previous revisions, including of the different pages, such that the history is now rather confusing. I don't understand why history would be restored like this, and it seems like an error. Can some admin delete those previous revisions from this article? (possibly after the conclusion of this ANI if necessary) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Just adding a note to indicate that I support Spicy's proposal that this be widened to include websites - obviously writing articles about commercial websites on behalf of family members who own them is just eye-poppingly inappropriate. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support though I will say, right now, that anybody who needs this severe and wide ranging a series of editing restrictions ought to be indefinitely blocked as they quite clearly lack both the trust and the competency needed to edit without further issue. I will, however, endorse any and all sanctions upto and including blocks or community bans. Nick (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal is a good one while allowing Störm to edit in other areas to regain the trust of the general community. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support restrictions, for two reasons, concerns about paid editing, and concerns about respect for verifiability.
  • • My initial involvement with this thread was about a dead person, but Störm's apparent lack of concern for significant coverage raise doubts as to their ability to originate BLPs. So does the way that they failed to distinguish a living person and a dead person with the same name. (In Wikipedia, that is what disambiguation is for.)
    • That AFD is still a mess. It appears that some editors still either are confused or are trying to cause confusion about two people with the same name.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Update I see that yesterday Störm added the retired tag to their user page, stating they are gone for good. This along with their indef on DE.WP and other editors in this thread also suggesting/supporting an indef here too, maybe that would be the simpler outcome to apply. With the standard 6-month offer, of course. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, was thinking something similar - though there's consensus for editing restrictions and retirement must not provide a way to circumvent any editing restrictions, so close this discussion and log the editing restriction, formally notify Störm and remind them they can't clean start as they're subject to active editing restrictions. Nick (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

serious WP:HOUNDING by Ravensfire

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

text comparison

a) Quote from the source[22]: Bhoja I first consolidated his position locally (including against the feudatories holding Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar), before turning his attention against the old ... enemies — the formidable Palas of Gauda. Their text: Mihira Bhoja first consolidated his territories locally by crushing the rebellious feudatories of Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar, before turning his attention against the old enemies :Palas and Rastrakutas. b) Quote from the source: Bhoja I then turned towards Central India, the Deccan and Gujarat. Stepping into a struggle for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... The raid was repulsed by Dhruva II. ... Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa ... Their text: Mihirbhoja then turned towards Malwa, Deccan and Gujarat. In Gujarat he Stepped into a war of succession for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... the raid was repulsed by Dhruva II.Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa. c) Quote from the source: The enmity between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas smouldered on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the king of the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas ... jointly attacked Pratihara territories sometime before AD 888. A major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas followed at Ujjayini. The Gurjara-Pratiharas were conclusively defeated. ... however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas, ... towards the end of his reign Bhoja I exterminated the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas. Their text: The rivalry between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas continued on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the Rastrakuta king of the Gujarat jointly attacked Pratihara empire in AD 888, with a major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas at Ujjayini. The Pratiharas were defeated. however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas,towards the end of reign of Bhoja,he had successfully exterminated the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty. d) Quote from the source: ... this may refer to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan ... Their text: This may be reference to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan. e) Quote from the source: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja I expanded his boundaries eastwards ... into ... Pala-held lands ... Their text: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja expanded his boundaries eastward into Pala-held territories. f) Quote from the source: ... that many of the kings of India obeyed the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, whose mighty army had 150,000 horses and 800 elephants. Their text: ...that most of the kings of India acknowledged the supremacy of the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, ... whose mighty army had 150,000 strong cavalry and 800 war elephants.

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

text comparison

} a) Quote from the source: Bhoja’s coins at sites like Baghera (old Vyaghra; also Varahnagar), ... south-east of Ajmer. Bhoja’s ‘Adi-Varah’ type of coins remained prevalent in Rajasthan ... (Such coins are mentioned in the Kaman Inscription and in the thirteenth century text Dravya-Pariksha, by Thakkar Pheru, who served as mint-master etc. to Delhi’s Sultan Alauddin Khilji). Their text: The Bhoja’s coins ... at sites like Baghera (Vyaghra or Varahnagar), southeast of Ajmer. Bhoja’s ‘Adi-Varah’ coinage remained prevalent in Rajputana. ... Such coins are mentioned in the Kaman Inscription and in the thirteenth century text Dravya-Pariksha, by Thakkar Pheru, who served as mint-master and economic adviser to Alauddin Khilji.

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

text comparison

} a) Quote from the source: ... led by King Dharmapala, faced Nagabhata’s forces, which included contingents led by his Rajasthan feudatories, at Mudgagiri (modern Mungher/ Monghyr in Bihar). Nagabhata II was victorious. The Chatsu Inscription of Baladitya of AD 813 states that Shankaragana, a Guhila chief fighting on behalf of Nagabhata II, fulfilled his vow by ... Their text: ... led by King Dharmapala himself, faced Nagabhata’s forces, which included contingents led by his Rajputana feudatories, at Mungar Bihar Nagabhata emerged victorious. The Chatsu Inscription of Guhila feudatory Baladitya ( 813 AD) states that Shankaragana Guhila, who fought on the behalf of Vatsaraja fulfilled his vow by ...

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)

@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)

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]

text comparison

a) Quote from the source: Nagabhata I (r. AD ?739-760?), ... was originally perhaps a feudatory of the Chapas of Bhillamala. ... He gained prominence after the downfall of the Chapa kingdom in the course of resisting the invading forces led by the Arabs who controlled Sindh. Their text: Nagabhata I (739-760),was originally perhaps a feudatory of the Chavdas of Bhillamala He gained prominence after the downfall of the Chavda kingdom in the course of resisting the invading forces led by the Arabs who controlled Sindh. b) Quote from the source, (page no. 12 of this PDF): Nagabhata I extended his control east and south from Mandor, conquering Malwa as far as Gwalior and the port of Bharuch in Gujarat. He established his capital at Avanti in Malwa, and checked the expansion of the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sind. Their text: Nagabhata Pratihara I (730–756) later extended his control east and south from Mandor, conquering Malwa as far as Gwalior and the port of Bharuch in Gujarat. He established his capital at Avanti in Malwa, and checked the expansion of the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sind. c) Quote from the source ([28]): In the battle of Rajasthan (738 CE) Nagabhatta led a confederacy of Rajput clans to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through west Asia and Iran. Their text: In this battle (738 CE) Nagabhata led a confederacy of Pratiharas to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through West Asia and Iran. d) Quote from the source ([29]): Nagabhatta I was followed by two weak successors Their text: Nagabhata I was followed by two weak successors

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

text comparison

a) Quote from the source: According to ... Radhanpur Plate Inscription and the Prithviraj Vijaya ..., Vatsaraja even led an expedition against the distant eastern kingdom of Gauda (Bengal), then ruled by the Palas under King Dharamapala. ... As such Gauda ... came into conflict from time to time with the Imperial Pratiharas Their text: According to Radhanpur Plate Inscription and Prithviraj Vijaya, Vatsaraja led an expedition against the distant eastern kingdom of Bengal, ruled by the Palas under Dharamapala. as such palas came into conflict from time to time with the Imperial Pratiharas. b) Quote from the source: Dharamapala ... was deprived of his two white royal umbrellas, and forced to flee, hotly pursued by the Pratihara forces ... The Prithviraj Vijaya describes Durlabhraj I as having ...The Baroda Inscription of AD 812 also refers to Nagabhata’s victory over the Gauda king Dharamapala. Their text: Dharamapala, was deprived of his two white Royal Umbrellas, and fled, pursued by the Pratihara forces ... The Prithviraj Vijaya describes Durlabhraj I as having ... The Baroda Inscription ( AD 812) also refers to Nagabhata's victory over the Gauda king Dharamapala. c) Quote from the source: Through vigorous campaigning, Vatsaraja had extended his dominions to include a large part of northern India, ... from the Thar Desert in the west up to the frontiers of Gauda in the east Their text: Through vigorous campaigning, Vatsraj had extended his dominions to include a large part of northern India, from the Thar Desert in the west up to the frontiers of bengal in the east

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Support At this point, a topic ban is appropriate based on the evidence presented above.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Requesting page protection for Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

"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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

  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)

• 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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

Ongoing - User:Slake000 (continued)

• 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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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.

Pages created by Slake000 (talk · contribs)

Page	Date	Description	Action
Sylheti Braille	2021-06-08	A Braille system for the Sylheti language.	No action yet. Only primary sources, notability is questionable.
Sylheti alphabet	2021-06-09	A promotional article about a non-notable Latin-based Sylheti script invented by a self-published author. Later recreated at Sylara.	Unilaterally redirected to Sylheti language#Writing system on 2021-06-12, which the user subsequently restored twice (1st, 2nd).
Sylheti dialects	2021-06-11	An overview of dialects of the Sylheti language.	No action yet. Probably okay.
Sylara	2021-06-12	Recreation of content previously at Sylheti alphabet.	PRODded by Austronesier (talk · contribs) on 2021-06-15.
List of Books written in Sylara	2021-06-13	List of books written in the Sylara script. All books are self-published and by the creator of the script.	PRODded by Austronesier on 2021-06-16.
Sylheti dialect	2021-06-13	WP:POVFORK duplicate of sylheti language.	Restored redirect to Sylheti language.
Bilingual Sylheti Speakers	2021-06-15	About people who speak Sylheti and another language.	No action yet. Possible WP:SYNTH violation.
Category:Sylheti language	2021-06-11	Topic cateory for the Sylheti language. 9 pages.	No action needed.
Category:Sylheti writing system	2021-06-11	Category about written Sylheti. 3 pages.	Will be CfD'd shortly for failing WP:SMALLCAT.
Category:Sylheti dialects	2021-06-14	Category containing only the eponymous article.	Will be nominated for speedy deletion at WP:CFDS.

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

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

" 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Persistent disruption by socks from Atharv Bakshi

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas

• 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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

User:B. Fairbairn reported by User:OuroborosCobra

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

WP:NOTHERE by CarrotJuice101

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

---

CarrotJuice101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite warnings on their talk page, the user continues to make disruptive edits bordering on vandalism. As I believe their contribs should show, they've achieved a 100% reversion return for they efforts. Most recently, CarrotJuice101 has repeatedly replaced the cover art at Lady Madonna with a version they uploaded to Commons, which shouldn't be there and certainly has no place in the Wikipedia song article. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. If someone could look into this, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. No pun! El_C 13:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Kambliyil

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)

@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)

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

Persistent cheating by Mr.Rajvanshi

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

---

Mr.Rajvanshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a vandal who repeatedly keeps trying to create the Abhishek Nigam article. The article was deleted via a deletion discussion. Sock puppets repeatedly keep recreating the article, but experienced editors and admins keep moving the article into a draft. Abhishek Nigam was then salted because of the repeated recreation. The disruptive editors then repeatedly resubmit the draft, but the draft has been repeatedly declined due to lack of notability. That's why Mr.Rajvanshi keeps trying other tricks: creating the article under different names to evade scrutiny. First as the repeatedly deleted Abhishek nigam, that is, with a lowercase n. This was eventually, again, moved into a draft in good faith by people not familiar with this case, which unfortunately resulted in two identical drafts under different names. Abhishek nigam was then deleted and salted. But Mr.Rajvanshi still keeps cheating and moved the draft into mainspace again against consensus, this time under yet another name, Abhishek Nigam ( actor ). This name was then changed again to Abhishek Nigam (Actor). This resulted in yet another deletion discussion. Mr.Rajvanshi then decided to try the previous trick and requested unprotection for Abhishek nigam, lying that they improved the page (no, they did not improve the page in any way, they just moved it into mainspace against consensus).

So, I think it's time to say enough is enough and block the user indefinitely. Editors and admins keep wasting their time cleaning up the mess caused by this user. As the vandalism policy explicitly says, gaming the system equals vandalism (recreating articles under different names and using sock puppets is even explicitly mentioned as a form of vandalism). The user is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to promote their pet subject(s) at all costs.—J. M. (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Aimbots are not allowed! El_C 13:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you also salt the article which you just deleted and plausible variants to prevent more shenanigans like this from this vandal?Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've WP:G4ed the targetless redirect Draft:Abhishek Nigam. An application of NaCl might not be misplaced. Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor deleting citations

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

---

User Thethxrn has recently been reversing my researched citations for the La Crosse Aris FC page. Latest edit summary was inappropriate and disrespectful. Asking for action to be taken to put an end to the behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScottDL (talk • contribs)

@TheScottDL: when starting a discussion at ANI you must notify the other party. I have done this for you. Laplorfill (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that TheScottDL (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I see only one edit that involves removing references: Special:Diff/1028413599. However, Special:Diff/1028782961 is indeed a personal attack. They do seem to make unsourced changes as well in these two edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that this personal attack, this harrasment and this egregious vandalism make it very clear that User:Thethxrn is not here to build an encyclopedia. Laplorfill (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thorn personally believes that the above user does not know how to spell ("harassment"), and as a result, his criticisms are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thethxrn (talk • contribs)

• This is a homophobic insult and should be RD2'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  EDIT: Homophobic personal attack and blanking at Laplorfill's talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(non-administrator non-involved comment) Support indef block for egregious personal attacks and revdel the homophobic insult on the tp. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A note that @Bbb23: has indef-blocked Thethxrn. My thanks to Bbb23. Laplorfill (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

 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)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

Turkish War of Independence

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

• 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)
• Support TBan per above (Beyond My Ken). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

Disruptive editing and probable sock IP

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)

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

User:‎SP Eatcha

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

---

• Sockpuppet(SP of Eatcha), that's not me. -- Eatcha 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• They are pretending to be me, I'm happy to be checked by a CU. -- Eatcha 06:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Shizuha Nakano

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)

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)

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

Personal attacks

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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

User:Blackbear456

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Page removed for Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Continous replacing of flag and coat of arms in article

• 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)

User:Peace4worlds - NOTHERE

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)

Date-changing vandal from Illinois

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

---

• 107.19.24.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beep (Bobby Valentino song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I never know where to report these things, but as I'm looking at an IP user I believe to have been blocked repeatedly before, I'm bringing it here.

Could I persuade you to block this IP (or relevant IP range) from Cicero/Homewood/Chicago (Chatham), Illinois: 107.19.24.146. Their primary activity appears to be changing dates to something wrong but almost believable (e.g., making songs or albums come out four or five years later). For example:

• Beep (Bobby Valentino song) their favorite target, I think
• The Rebirth
• List of Yo Gabba Gabba! episodes

They often make a series of edits on each article, changing not only release dates or dates of birth, but also changing dates in ref cites including URLs and archive-URLs, even when they don't point to a real resource.

Usually I trip over their work in music articles, but today I saw something new: adding maintenance tags with long-ago dates to video game articles (not that the articles don't need more citations, but they add the tags, I believe, just to add the fictitious dates for them). Examples: NBA Live 06, James Bond 007: Nightfire.

Based on just a quick glance at the "Beep" (Bobby Valentino song): Revision history, it seems they've been doing this since at least January 2020 (see this series of 7 edits). As they change IPs periodically, they don't seem to get stopped for long. I do not know how you can efficiently block them, although some earlier incarnatations have been (and are still) blocked:

• 107.19.24.146 most recent edits, active March and June 2021 (incl. today)
• 173.15.3.77 March and June 2021
• 173.165.80.201 June 2021
• 73.110.34.48 May 2021
• 71.201.137.75 May 2021
• 73.110.34.79 May 2021
• 99.57.37.191 April 2021
• 98.227.243.98 April 2021
• 2603:300a:1e8f:d000:7cc6:c548:752c:fac6 April 2021
• 98.227.242.153 April 2021
• 108.252.133.42 February 2021, blocked for 2 years by User:Newslinger
• 2600:1702:3310:6c30:8c79:6b06:e097:e4a4 January 2021, blocked for 3 years by User:Materialscientist
• 108.228.72.35 July 2020. Strong behavioral match but in Memphis, Tennessee
• 2601:586:8400:e700:d04b:ae98:d119:defb June 2020. Behavioral match but in Miramar, Florida
• 2600:1702:3310:6c30:4b2:a034:e910:fec5 January 2020. Strong behavioral match but in Ashburn, Virginia; blocked for 3 years by User:Materialscientist

Again, this list is based on just one article, Beep (Bobby Valentino song). They also hit other Bobby Valentino and Jay-Z articles, as well as other artists'. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the most recent IPs and semi-protected some articles. I can try range blocks if they come back on the same IP ranges. For example, Special:Contributions/73.110.34.0/24 is obviously them, but it hasn't been used for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NRP, I really appreciate it. Um, is it expected that I "close" a thread that's been resolved? Or do we just wait until it gets archived in due course? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to Block this user M.Bitton

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

---

This is a request to block this user M.Bitton. Since the first time I wrote apparently about his tribe, he has been always deleting all my contributions, and the reason ? He's making some comment misrespecting me and some others that I can't even understand. I gave many resourceful evidences and each sentence I made I was bringing the talk of the scholar saying it, I put also the genetic study. Mr has deleted everything and all my different subjects I was talking about, and the reason? he wasn't personally agreeing on one idea according to his theory so he deleted everything. You can see this on this injutified deletion. I invited him to a debate with all possible evidence even though all the saying of the scholars I pu them as reference, he deleted my request on his page. Since then he's deleting every thing I write, maybe for one idea he don't agree with he delete all my editting even though they cover many subjects with evidences of course. I don't know whether he took things personnaly. All along his user page same problem is there with many users, so I am just asking to block him or at least prevent him from deleting everything he doesn't agree with. Plus, my information are always approved by other admins and appears, only when Mr came and then there is an automatic deletion. I started to get confused, I don't know how bringins full real evidence , in french and english, every sentence is proved, but the moment one idea don't please to him, everything is deleted. I just wanna know what kind of information wikipedia would accept then if not the ones of pure scholars sayings and that's why I inented him to a quick debate but always delete my requests and keep on his automatic deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeRobert93 (talk • contribs)

As it says at the top of the page in big red letters you must notify the user of this report, I have done so for you. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~).Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LeRobert93! I have reviewed your "request to block this user" [M.Bitton]. "Deleting" (or reverting) another user's contributions is a normal part of the editing process on Wikipedia. From a review of the editor interaction analyzer, it appears M.Bitton has reverted you in four articles. In none of these cases was WP:3RR violated and in each case M.Bitton articulated a valid reason to do so. For instance, in this edit [85], you were reverted because M.Bitton said you misrepresented a source. Reviewing the source, that does appear to be the case. In the edit you cited, the revert was followed by an extensive and ongoing discussion on the Talk page, one in which you are participating. Given the very limited number of instances in which M.Bitton has reverted you and the apparent validity of each of those, I'm disinclined to believe that "the moment one idea don't please to him, everything is deleted" without further evidence. Thank you for working to expand WP's coverage of Berber-related subjects. Please consider visiting the WP:TEAHOUSE where additional guidance and advise on editing WP is available. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Range of Indianapolis IPs puffing up music arranger Belford Hendricks

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

---

• 2600:1700:B401:9D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using a range of IPs from Indianapolis has been puffing up the legacy of music arranger Belford Hendricks. They have coatracked promotion of Hendricks into other articles.[86][87] They have been using peacock words such as "talented" (every arranger with a biography on Wikipedia can be described as talented) and they have added lots of unreferenced, unverifiable claims. They have edit-warred at the same articles,[88][89] added claims that are contradictory or verifiably false, for instance here claiming that Hendricks arranged the song just a few lines below a description of someone else arranging the song. And here where Hendricks supposedly arranges the song but the article already says that there was no arranger. And where Hendricks is inserted despite a verifiable source saying a different guy arranged the song.

One thing this person has not done is respond to any communication, or initiate communication. Can we apply a rangeblock to stop the disruption and perhaps get a conversation going? Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the /64 range for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive behaviour

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

Potentially biased editor

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

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)

(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)

(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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • @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)
        • 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)

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)

Editor off the rails wrt Bigfoot video

• 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)

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)

Dab(h)i Rajput(s)

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)

NPA from User:Hanoi Road

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

---

Previously blocked user Hanoi Road (talk · contribs · logs), in an otherwise reasonable discussion about WP:VER, has suggested that he be banned for this series of attacks. It's not clear whether all are leveled at me, or some at Sarah777 for removing them. It's immaterial really. I see no reason why the user's suggestion, to "please get me a ban", shouldn't be honoured. It's a reasonable suggestion in the circumstance. Guliolopez (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Guilopez/Sean Lucy

Absolutely no reason for this citation request, since all poets names are listed as UCC English alumni during Lucy's tenure. Several of the articles name Lucy specifically. All attempts to mollify this Gulio have hit a brick wall. This isn't about "editing". Its about "winning". A glance through the article will confirm the request is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Road (talk • contribs)

I've blocked this editor indefinitely but other administrators should feel free to lift the block after an appropriate unblock request or community review. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Guilopez,_Lucy,_etc. ——Serial 11:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Draft:J. Jimenez Torres - blatant hoax and socking to remove CSD templates

The quacking is loud in here....

• 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)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thank ye kindly! :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Black Kite, sorry to butt in, but I noticed you only salted the Draft talk page. Probably not intentional? AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oops - fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've tagged the photo which was in the draft, File:Jorge Jimenez Torres in Arsenal.png, as a hoax - it's of Bernd Leno (Bernd Leno) of Arsenal. Narky Blert (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential WP:HOAX (or COI) concern/s

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

---

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

I would be grateful if an admin(s) with a close interest in Wikipedia hoaxes could take a careful look at the concerns regarding potential HOAX / COI raised at Talk:Anthropocentrism#unverified content: possible WP:HOAX (or WP:COI)? and Talk:Man of Science, Man of Faith#unverified content: possible WP:HOAX (or WP:COI)?, where I have expressed perplexity regarding recent edits made by User:RoopeM / User:Rudolfian (apparently the same individual, given that, in the past, User:Rudolfian appears to have routinely blanked content on the user talk page of the similarly-named User:RoopeM; see [132]). I would prefer not to get involved any further. Thank you, 86.186.168.245 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's now clear to me that this is not a problem of WP:HOAX, but rather of COI / WP:SPS, and (possibly?) gf usage of multiple usernames. (Communication about such matters is not really my thing :) 86.186.168.245 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• I wish the user 86.186.168.245 had contacted me directly about any potential concerns. There is obviously no reason to suspect COI/HOAX/etc. Please see edits/contributions for context. I hope this is not a retaliatory action from a disgruntled user getting their content deleted or edited, but I'm happy to discuss any such matters. -- RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I hope this is not a retaliatory action... Fwiw, no (just an annoying waste of time). 86.186.168.245 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding ISBN 978-952-94-3600-2 the only reference to this I've been able to find is here. Book: Rudolf, R. M. . 2020. Circulus Vitae: Ruminations on the Value of Truth. New York, NY. RMR New York Publishing . 978-952-94-3600-2 SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • sigh and that is just because it is a mirror of Wikipedia. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• RMR New York Publishing = R.M. Rudolf. This is absolutely a self-published source, and a conflict of interest for the editor who keeps adding it. Woodroar (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• comment Rudolfian's first edits were to promote a website owned by someone with a name virtually identical to the other editor. Now that second editor is pushing edits for someone named R.M. Rudolph. They appear to be doing each others promotional work to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• I do have concerns about them being socks though. Rudolfian's first edit was to RoopeM's talk page tinkering with what appears to have been a draft in progress there. And again Rudolfian's first edit after a long break was editing RoopeM's talk page again. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for working on this. You might have assumed correctly that Rudolfian and I know each other personally as we work at the same university. However, there has been no cross-promotional intent and any such incident must be coincidental as we're obviously familiar with each others work. Thanks again for helping to clear this up. Happy to elaborate if needed -- RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RoopeM, I think y'all do a bit more than "work at the same university", and I can say that with some technical evidence to back it up. So you haven't explained why the other account is cleaning up your talk page (which is just weird for another person to do), nothing has been cleared up yet, and "cross-promotional intent" is irrelevant: your edits are promotional. I'm not sure what the best way forward is. I'm inclined to block the Rudolfian account since that's the newest, or we could block both accounts since those promotional edits are not acceptable. Woodroar, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, none of this adds up. A "Philosopher" working at a university—I guess we're to assume a professor—makes up their own publishing company and releases a crank psychology paper/book (which is outside their field, by the way) and their colleague thinks "I'll just spam Wikipedia with this psychology source by my friend in the Philosophy department". I've heard of publish or perish, but this is ridiculous. And because publishing is so important in academia, it's inconceivable that neither the professor nor the paper/book would show up in Google searches. Then you've got the editing history of Rudolfian (talk · contribs), who less than four years ago was spamming "lawbots.info" across Wikipedia (1234). The Internet Archive doesn't have the entire site archived, but what they do have says things like automated legal services, awards for robot lawyers, best lawbots, free lawbots for startups, free legal services. That doesn't sound like any professor to me. Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It seems that some clarification and context is needed. There were 3-4 psychology articles in total that had numerous factual errors and misleading information about Anthropocentrism that had to be corrected. This might have been otherwise acceptable but the previously provided information and sources weren't relevant to the article/section. That said, please see the entire edited text and investigate the edits from the anonymous user 86.186.168.245 who also coincidently started the conversation about this account after the appropriate edits were made. I wonder if this temporary account might be linked to the irrelevant sources that were repeatedly planted in this section of the article (9 times in total within 2 paragraphs and across other articles). These irrelevant sources were deleted in the process of fixing the erroneous/irrelevant information. I apologize for upsetting this user but the section was so bad that changes had to be made. One of the new sources added while fixing these articles (and the one debated here) is a limited edition book mostly compiled (but considerable expanded) from the university lectures. This is an original work so it seems to be the best source for the information added in the article. The second mention of the source was merely an interesting curiosity mentioned in a TV episode article (not part of the fixed academic articles above). On a side note, we would still like to be able to correct erroneous information in the future. Apologies if some rules were broken in the process. For somebody who is not that knowledgeable on this process here, please also advise how to appeal these decisions. (The website mentioned was a legal information site managed by a non-profit Access-to-Justice organization and part of the work was to create awareness around legal automation.) -- RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 4:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
      • The present anonymous user created/developed that section with some care (completely legitimately, under multiple ip addresses); cf. [133][134]. If User:RoopeM had merely intended to challenge/discuss the content, that would have been absolutely fine. Instead, both there and elsewhere, there was a concerted effort to introduce promotional content (including the apparently phantasmatic red link, "R. M. Rudolf"[135]). Imo, the blatantly self-promotional approach displayed by these two accounts (as described/documented above) is damaging to Wikipedia and a waste of time and energy of multiple gf contributors. I would support an outright ban for both accounts. Of note, I only stumbled on their (suspicious) recent changes by chance. 86.186.155.210 (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Just for the sake of clarity and transparency, are you the same person as 86.186.168.245? Based on your writing style and account activity, it seems so. I think I'll have to start investigating this further. RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, User:RoopeM, fwiw, I'm clearly the OP (though I'd far rather not have been - sigh). 86.186.155.210 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
          • You should have disclosed that. And which parts of this article are your contributions? Are you the original creator of this article or the section in question here? You seem overly protective over certain sources that seem irrelevant to the article/section. Also, there are still no promotional inclusions anywhere; the fact that somebody is more familiar with certain sources does not imply that (simply googling your sources is not good scholarship). But I see a certain bias how the sources (especially the irrelevant ones) are used in these abovementioned articles and the articles seem to be in need of an overhaul. RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
            • User:RoopeM, I already provided the requested links above (ie [136][137]; and my editorial approach to reliable sourcing was appropriate - cf WP:SCIRS, including WP:SCIRS#Choosing sources). Please note that this is not an appropriate place to intitiate content disputes (and anyway your apparently ad hominem approach to content criticism may be considered inappropriate). Regarding "promotional inclusions", I have no conflict of interest there, but there is real reason to believe that you do have in your editing of those two pages (as well as in the rest of the history of the two closely related accounts). Hence this thread. I think you need to address those concerns rather than threatening to go after ("start investigating") the editor who raised them. 86.186.155.210 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest indef block of both RoopeM and Rudolfian. The technical evidence says the accounts are connected, per the comment from Drmies above. There's also COI and IDHT, with RoopeM adding articles (supposedly) written by Rudolfian and refusing to understand why that's a problem. Or there's CIR, for the crank psychology claims about "Holy Ghost complex" (added by RoopeM but attributed to Rudolfian's work) and a "psychological phenomenon" named after a character from Lost, all cited to an academic article that was (supposedly) self-published by Rudolfian and can't be found in Google. Anybody who knows anything about academia would understand how ridiculous that sounds. Or the defense from RoopeM that Rudolfian refspamming lawbots.info is that it was a "legal information site managed by a non-profit Access-to-Justice organization". Even though the site is down, the Twitter account and lack of online evidence show that's false as well. There's plenty more but I'm not interested in outing anyone here. The on-wiki behavioral evidence should be enough. Woodroar (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• RoopeM, you are now blocked, temporarily, for harassing the editor who reported you here. This whole "are you the same as" when it's clear as daylight that a. they are and b. it's completely irrelevant is beyond irritating: it's harassment. "You should have disclosed that" is ridiculous, and "I think I'll have to start investigating this further" just adds to that. In the meantime, I note that this lengthy post failed quite spectacularly to address any of the questions that were asked of you--it's an exercise in deflection, nothing more. Now, Woodroar presented some more evidence of you and your fellow researcher not being here to improve our beautiful project, and I am going to look into that, with an indefinite block for the both of you being a possible outcome.

  Finally, let me pose a rhetorical question: do you really think we are this dumb, and that you can just boss other people around, threaten them, and refuse to answer direct questions?

  Update: the Rudolfian account is blocked; I'll add, for the record, that this was CU-confirmed, and that no one here believes that that is not the same person as RoopeM. It seems, rather, that the one was used to spam Lawbots.info, and the other to spam the person's own article/publications. Putting all that together and adding the harassment here I think there is enough reason to block the RoopeM account indefinitely also. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• And 86.186.155.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), thank you for doing the heavy lifting here, something you were clearly not interested in doing but which helped us improve the editing atmosphere. And thank you for your article edits. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you all (and for the understanding - really not my preferred activity :) 86.186.155.210 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

IP editors at Uday Samant

There's a range of several 157.119.84.* addresses that keep making the same unsourced BLP edit to Uday Samant, which keeps getting reverted. Any chance that range could be blocked from editing that particular article? (Note: I've not notified every one of those IPs of this ANI, only the most recent one. If I should have, mea culpa, and please advise.) Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Irritating. I placed a partial block. No worries about the notifications. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

IP user adding copyrighted material

Source: https://www.istanbul.edu.tr/tr/content/universitemiz/tarihce Edit1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_University&diff=1029218632&oldid=1029217045 Edit2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_University&diff=1029215549&oldid=1029214716 Edit3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_University&diff=1029214436&oldid=1029209660

--V. E. (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP in question, 88.245.195.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked by 331dot (talk · contribs) for 3 days. I have redacted their comment and tagged the page to request revdel per RD1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account

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

---

Pizzafan300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Pizzafan300 seems to be a sockpuppet account to the blocked user Jonah250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Both are aggresive editors who just want the pages for themselves, undoing edits and offending other users. Pizzafan300 appeared just two or three days after Jonah250 was blocked and started editing in the same pages as him (like Child's Play (2019 film) or Sing 2 pages).

Adjunting both contributions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pizzafan300
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jonah250

You can see the same aggresive behaviour and even Pizzafan300 talks about Jonah250 in one of his recent contributions despite not knowing him. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: Pizzafan300 revealed he is Jonah250's brother. But still with the same aggresive behaviour and edit warring.

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Disruptive account should be blocked. ♟♙ (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE, though this was a duck screaming into a megaphone to me. "Brother", sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, while Jonah250's userpage says "retired", the account isn't actually blocked, FWIW. Probably could be as a really obvious sockpuppeting scenario, up to you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it, since that account is "retired" I'll leave it as is for the moment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

And that account and others were blocked as socks. This can be closed up now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Serious BLP issue with Hussan Naqvi

Hussan Naqvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently creating invalid articles and adding unsourced material to articles after multiple final warnings, and efforts to engage on their talk page by multiple editors. Their latest edit is an extremely serious WP:BLP violation: [138]. They are clearly not going to change their behavior. Request that they be indef blocked as they are unable to follow the most basic policies. Laplorfill (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked, with some guidance on what they need to read if they want to be unblocked. Adding content like that without sourcing is not on. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

IP resorting to insults and personal attacks

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

---

Admin attention please. IP 5.46.191.4 making PAs [140], [141], [142]. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you attacking Turkish pages as a Greek? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Naval_Forces explains why it was founded in 1081 on its corporate page. What will you do with your end comments? Do you intend to change the establishment date of the Turkish navy with your views? In your next step, will you claim that the Turks are actually Mongols? Mr Greek?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk)

This is getting absurd. 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible that this user is Banana6cake.? The overlap is extensive and one appeared to defend the other. 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Already being discussed at [143]. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

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

---

Camila_Maciel_Estefani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User removing wikipededia editings without prior notice or discussions about the topic. User alsos flags wikipedia's editors accounts as spammers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexCoelho (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• AlexCoelho, the formatting was wrong, you didn't sign, you didn't notify the editor, and that editor's name must be wrong. Will you please read the instructions first, and employ proofreading skills? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I suspect this may be related to a situation on the Portuguese wiki, where the filer was recently indefinitely blocked CiphriusKane (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Take a look at this. It's a revenge filing CiphriusKane (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Estefani has never edited enwiki. That shows the complaint to be harassment by AlexCoelho who is carrying their WP:BATTLEGROUND here from ptwiki. WP:BOOMERANG indef applied. Cabayi (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks y'all. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• (post-closure non-admin comment) I dropped a heads-up notification on the Portuguese blocking admin's TP. In my admittedly limited experience, ptwiki is pretty much on the ball. I remember alerting a different ptwiki admin to a cross-language collection of garbage which was being picked off piecemeal in enwiki and ptwiki, and their version of WP:AFD saw their side of it off in short order. I declined an invitation to comment, on the grounds that I only read the language, but neither speak it nor know their rules (which seem similar to WP:N), and they were doing very well without me. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by Dornicke and clearly WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Dornicke's most recent comments at Talk:Uyghur genocide caught my eye while I was checking my watchlist (thread). I initially intended to write this out directly on Dornicke's talk as a bit of unsolicited advice to encourage the user to reconsider their approach to editing, but after taking a closer look at Dornicke's contributions, I started to notice a clear pattern of tendentious/BATTLEGROUND behavior and what appeared to me to be attempts to right great wrongs that is egregious enough to warrant a block, in my view. Examples include [144], [145], Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, and this message to Jweiss11 from December, which I consider to be completely beyond the pale. Given the tenor of this user's edits recently, I believe they are a net negative to the project and are clearly WP:NOTHERE. At a bare minimum, considering the user's recent edits focusing on China-related articles, I think that a topic ban from articles relating to Uyghur genocide and China, broadly construed, would be appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I went back a couple years in their edits, I am seeing a regular pattern of accusing other editors of being anti-communist or anti-Chinese. They seem to be very combative when people disagree.

I am curious to see their response to these concerns. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: there are general sanctions in place for Uyghur genocide. The editor was only informed of the discretionary sanctions after their recent talk page posts were made, which began with this edit and ended with this edit. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: That's true, but my intention with the thread was to focus more on the WP:TEND behavior and harassment demonstrated by this editor, rather than the content issues surrounding the article in question. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense; just wanted to make sure any reviewing admins were aware of the sanctions regime being in place and the (lack of) applicability here regarding editor conduct. It also makes page-specific protections possibly come into play, even absent the awareness requirement being fulfilled, so I figured that this might be something to note. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Spare me the little theater and go on with your censorship, as you do with everyone who do not cope with American/anticommunist mandatory biased bullshit in this project. Don't pretend it has anything to do with rules, just show your true authoritarian face. Let people know your asking for blocking people for mereley pointing American bias in discussion pages, without a single edit in articles. Let people know you want to censor editors and stop of even talking about US political bias in talk pages. And China is the dicatorship, huh? Aahahaha. Anglophones... Dornicke (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you see that kind of talk is exactly the concerns that are being talked about here. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a place to hold up one ideology while bad mouthing another. Personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. If you are able to please tone down your rhetoric and try to assume good faith, if you are not able to you may not be here very long. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is unfortunate that you chose to post a jeremiad that can be summarized as, "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" in a thread that also includes statements accusing others of political bias and being anticommunist shills. Consant invocations of bias, and not one diff about it. There is a long tradition at ANI where BATTLEGROUND and disruptive editing concerns provoke posts that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified. Good to see the tradition is being upheld. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you want me to pretend I believe this is somehow a serious "trial", unbiased. To make my role in the little theater LOL. Go ahead, censor, ban, do whatever you need to keep your government official narrative enforcer safe from non-Westerner narratives. Do what you need to keep Americans in the bubble, protected from ideas that are not alligned with your billionare corporative media. Forbid Africans, Latin-Americans, Asians of editing. "Make Wikipedia Great Again". Isn't that the point? Making this a chauvinistic, "patriotic", pro-American biased project, alligned with US government geopolitical narratives? Then go ahead, I'm not American, I'm not European, I'm your enemy. You need to protect your patriotic citizens from my dangerous, non-capitalist, subversive ideas of how there's no genocide in China. Who knows I may ask about where are Iraqi weapons of mass destrutction tomorrow, right? Go ahead, make the US Department of State proud. Ban me. Dornicke (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a place to hold up one ideology while bad mouthing another." - That's exactly what wikipedia is. A place where one specific ideology is forbidden. That's why there are no communists editing here, they are all banned. It's forbidden, it's a non written rule of this McCarthyst, chauvinistic, pro-American biased project that you guys try to pretend is a encyclopedia. It isn't. Now spare me the theater and go on with your censorship. Let's make a good use of taxpayer's money. Dornicke (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, as you say. I have indeffed this user. If they want to play nice in the future they can try to convince the community of this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive mass deletion behaviour

Jan Żaryn's bio article in question has been a subject of a rather heated discussion on what constitutes material inclusive which could be included in a BLP and which does not pass muster. These seem to be two sides, represented by Volunteer Marek (VM), GizzyCatBella and Lembit Staan on the one hand, and me, François Robere, Mhorg and CPCEnjoyer on the other.

The article has already been subject of an apparent edit war (see history in late April and early this month), with the same change (being a translation of a "Criticism section" from Polish wiki, not ideal but mostly OK for inclusion in general) being reverted by VM six times, three of which in a 12-hour span. (see History, 2 June 18:50-3 June 06:05).

After that, an RfC on Jan Żaryn was started by a user which was later found to be a sock (discussion deleted, log), but he reposted content from the François Robere's proposal, which is in the archive, so for this one, I have no objections, the RfC was OK). Having determined that the proposal would stall until the article gets more scope on that person, I decided to do some expansion, noting that the RfC is pending so an NPOV template is there as a precaution. For various reasons, which I mostly dispute, however, I have seen wholesale deletion of article content for what I see are (mostly) spurious reasons and mere guises to delete content they don't like. To be clear, there has been some productive discussion, which means not all is lost, but I start to lose patience after further deliberation becomes more inflammatory and edit-war-provoking and less about moving forward. Please evaluate the following evidence and break the impasse.

Evidence

1. Editors from the side of deletion misrepresent policy as regards consensus. They have tried to claim that since I (or other users) have not obtained their consensus before adding some info to the article, it is to be deleted until consensus is established. (first edit referencing an archived discussion on criticism section where only VM seemed to be a lone dissenter for most of the time, and it involved 3 active people). However, that interpretation goes contrary to WP:BOLD and is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP; this also is almost exactly the phrasing of "Please do not make [any more] changes without my/their/our approval", which is indicative of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (particularly as concerns VM). Such behaviour even has its own essay on Wikipedia. Some more context to this will be provided in the following points. 2. Editors have engaged in wholesale, and, in my view, mostly unjustified deletion of content. The users have raised several objections, but not everywhere and in such a way that they can hardly be interpreted as serious. a. Reliability estimation against general consensus. GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek seemingly have a grudge against oko.press, which they said was unreliable in the discussion on RSN, but were in a minority. As the page says oko.press has "rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 discussion". Despite my (and other users) pointing to that (or challenging their deletion) and my proposing that they start an RSN discussion if they want to relitigate it, the discussion was not started but they still insisted on deleting oko.press-sourced claims as late as 15 June. I will return to that comment. I also find troubling VM's comment about dismissing, without proof, the majority of Italian newspapers as yellow journalism. b. Behaviour violations. Named editors have cast aspersions on the behalf of users of opposite viewpoints (see: calling advocates of using oko.press "Icewhiz socks", accusations of advocacy); have accused me (and probably other editors) of "dirt-digging"/"POV-pushing" without presenting evidence of my (or anyone else's) "frequently misrepresenting" sources (a frequently made accusation by opponents which I further explain below); overreached in their powers regulating the RfC (NB the user has only reminded me of 500/30 policy when I started to disagree with him (and even then he couldn't enforce it); and equating non-EC user's post in a 500/30 article to vandalism is far-fetched). Also, some of said editors made unproductive and snark comments against other users. c. Mass deletions. While a revert itself is OK - not everyone is an ideal editor, I find the massive and repetitive deletion of claims/sources as disruptive. By Lembit Staan's own admission, applicable to VM too, both delete huge swaths of text and dismiss WP:PRESERVE, even as BLP does not explicitly, nor implicitly, overrule that guideline. They deleted whole paragraphs in a span of 3 minutes (see History, 7 June 5:00-5:03 and 10 June 3:54-3:57), during which no person is conceivably able to make a thorough and well-guided analysis of content to decide whether it should be axed out. The most egregious examples, though, were here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" in one of the edits and making explanations for deletions vague or such contrary to general consensus, even as the sources in these paragraphs cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim); here (claiming being "false" and wasting my and their time on proving "falsehood" of the fragment even as the supporting quote and its translation (source could be found by diff of revert) was given from the very beginning), and here. Volunteer Marek was repetitiously claiming that either the added info is a BLPVIO, OR or misrepresented, though given his explanation that Semper fidelis is still appropriate to be used in the contexts of being "always faithful to Poland" even as the motto was no longer used for 70 years at the time and Lviv/Lwów is no longer Polish, and GizzyCatBella's assertion that it is not notable (despite being covered by two academic (!) sources), it might simply seem they want that info out because it might make the article's subject look bad (ditto for comments on Judas's beating in Pruchnik), widespread coverage of the events (including in academia) notwithstanding. One of the most recent edits about a largely irrelevant addition for the article's subject of description of for what Żaryn's parents became recognised by Yad Vashem, prove my point; this edit would make no concern were it made in the article of Jan's parents. Also, they have claimed that I was making original research on the materials cited. It might have happened, but at least there was a dissection of the sources and some discussion, after which the section was reformulated. However, justifying deletions by making OR themselves or trying to argue the reliable sources to be wrong based on personal perceptions is a no-go. I therefore believe there is substantial evidence that at least part of the reverts were made to conceal statements that the editors saw as controversial or potentially damning (however well sourced, agreed upon in RS/academia or pertinent to the article as e.g. views on foreign policy), not as legitimate, good-faith reverts, given behaviour that is repetitious, often made with no good explanation for the deletes (or with explanations that don't withstand even mild scrutiny). It is also reminded that any revert made must be clear of why it was made (WP:ONUS footnote 3), not just throwing vague "NPOV" or "V" or "OR" or whatever, as this is an insufficient explanation; or especially repeatedly claiming about poor sourcing and OR without clarification even if an obvious conclusion comes otherwise if actually perusing RSN and the sources (WP:YOUCANSEARCH). 3. Allegations of tendentious editing/addition of undue material. I have repeatedly been accused of making tendentious edits on the article's subject, so far that I was accused of conspiring to add more "defamatory" material and of making an attack page. Actually, my reason of expansion was exactly for the page not to be or sound like one, as I have noted in my RfC vote (though I did agree that the Polish version of criticism was pretty OK as it stood). The users have repeatedly deleted information I have provided as if it was violating neutral point of view. In fact, I have only reported sources in WP:PROPORTION to what I was aware was his coverage in reliable sources, with a particular focus on scholarly resources, and all of these were unanimous as far as my query went. The users in question have contributed NO additional material to his biography (other than the Szeligi house, which has nothing to do with Jan Żaryn personally at all), and instead mostly (apart from the productive discussions I've noted above) moaned about supposed BLPVIOs, UNDUEs etc., which more looked like WP:SEALIONing because they usually didn't offer any solution but to delete, nor did they offer any of their resources to show that indeed, there were RS sources casting him in positive light, even if I haven't found any in RS (because I haven't indeed). Finding more information (in proportion to the other side's coverage) is a way more productive way of rectifying any potential NPOV concerns than simply deleting ad nauseam. As a good illustration for that, they correctly found what I meant to write basing on the sources, which I couldn't formulate well (overexaggeration of szmalcownik claims about Jews, which is a point Libionka made in the work cited in the same sentence), but instead of correcting that, they chose to delete the whole sentence altogether.

4. It is not to say that my edits were perfect, though I tried my best. Some corrections by these users have not been contested as I saw them as an improvement to the article. Some of explanations of other edits, such as the one here, are certainly not appropriate justifications. However, there were many more reverts (including the more expansive ones) of questionable or outright negative value, which I ask editors to evaluate

I request experienced editors to analyse behaviour as presented above, preferably double-check the edits and make actions towards these users as deemed necessary.

PS. I have received objections from Volunteer Marek, accusing me of filing the request in bad faith, misrepresenting the case's facts and omitting what he considers to be important details. However, I consider none of these objections to be truthful or substantiated, as I show in the complaint (and in the answers) well. For instance, his remarks still show failure to acknowledge general consensus about oko.press (by mentioning two sources to the claims he deleted even as there originally were three, one of which was oko.press, which he also deleted, with the note that he considers it non-RS). Anyway, I hand over the evidence for evaluation and I am waiting for your response. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@all: To be clear, the dispute on the talk page has separated among the lines of editors willing to preserve information and editors who were deleting it. You may want to argue you are no-one's side but in plain terms, any editorial conflict has at least two, which can be grouped according to the behaviour exhibited. It doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should argue for each other. Which is why "we" are not "plaintiffs" (nor I am one) - this is my personal statement. I'm not "united" with someone in "prosecution" against anyone, though I believe that these actions of users are worthy of administrators' attention.

@Lembit Staan: that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues... of which most of these "misrepresentations" were not discussed (probably because they were few of them after all), the perceived "lack of knowledge" of Polish issues serving as an excuse to justify exclusion of well-covered events and criticism because it was, in their opinion, totally appropriate behaviour (even as the sources I found said it wasn't), and the "outright original research" accusations which, if anything, seems to be a problem of a few editors, in fact. The difference is that allegations of misinterpreting sources can be discussed with no problem on the talk page (as was done in my case); while challenging one's political/religious views (as expressed in comments to edits) is something that goes beyond the scope of the talk page, and is anyway unproductive, therefore I haven't discussed that, not wanting to escalate the dispute.

As far as I understand, this ANI alleges a wrongdoing from the side of the "opposite party". Well, beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Well, actually, you were the one who got it. You said on 10 June that you were "more and more inclined to file a complaint for a ban of editing this article by some people" after accusing me of dirt-digging (even as you didn't mention me by name). The problem is, so was I (minus the ban option, which I included in the draft but then decided to drop it, as, after all, I don't like arguing to ban people in a dispute of which I am party unless in obvious cases), because I was unhappy not only with the mass deletions but with at least some aspects of the general behaviour too. I nevertheless decided to wait one week to see if the dispute subsides, making only minor additions unrelated to the disputed content (such as changing signature format) - it hasn't helped. Which is why the case is here. Since impartial review of edits and actions is badly needed, anyone, in fact, can and should submit evidence (and should expect it to be challenged). Go for it.

Whether this is the appropriate venue, as you say it is not - if we go into user misconduct/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry territory, we can't solve it by RfCs. At least not until we solve the -puppet issues and return to civility. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not a "side" in this dispute. I came to this page noticing the RFC via WPPoland. I had no previous interest in the subject of the article. In fact, I mostly tried to stay away from editing political articles. Szmenderowiecki cannot deny that I quite often worked hard to verify the additions made by the "opposite side", copyediting them, and to my dismay finding that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues, and outright original research. Quite a few sources cited showed an outright bias against Zaryn (not surprizing and possibly justified: he is a conservative and Catholic, and the critique is from ...er... "non-conservatives and non-Catholics"). As a result these sources are spinning the news to present Zaryn in negative light and using biased language. I am not saying that Zaryn is a very "good guy"; he definitely deserves a lot of criticism. But this criticism must come from analytical neutral sources, rather than from the cherry-picking of his individual says and deeds, turning his page into a collection of negative WP:TRIVIA. Therefore I see the above as a persistent violation of WP:BLP.

Seeing a rather chaotic RFC, after dust settled a bit, I suggested and tried to implement the discussion of individual episodes in individual sections. Szmenderowiecki, if he believes the "other side" is wrong, is very free to start a separate RFC for each separate episode, to attract more independent people.

As far as I understand, this ANI alleges a wrongdoing from the side of the "opposite party". Well, beware of WP:BOOMERANG :-) Lembit Staan (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. What happening at this article smells hard of sock/meatpuppetry on the "complaining side", already duly noted in the article talk page. One of the tag team ("VikingDrummer (talk · contribs)") is already blocked. In addition to the listed "plaintiffs" , there are apparent "sleepers" Nulliq (talk · contribs), V.A. Obadiah (talk · contribs) BSMRD (talk · contribs); perennial revert warrior Trasz (talk · contribs), as well as Potugin (talk · contribs), maybe more. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to notice the filer separating editors into sides. I'm not a member of any side, dear filer. I don't have time to address this now, but I will present my analysis later today or early tomorrow. (to be continued) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, for now, I'm going to put my report on hold pending further developments here. I believe the matter should be attended to and continued at a different venue because of the involvement of globally banned Icewhiz aka "VikingDrummer (talk · contribs)" throughout the discussion[146] on BLP's talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: Please leave me out of this. I am nobody's sock or meat puppet. I voted once in an RfC that was linked to after a cursory review and I do not care about Jan Zaryn or this dispute. BSMRD (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely nobody's sockpuppet (George Soros doesn't count, right?), although one time I've enthusiastically read through the whole saga of IceWhiz, which I've learned about thanks to User:GizzyCatBella. Regarding my role in all this: from my point of view, there's a problem with a certain editor's annoying habit of removing sourced content he doesn't agree with. However, my last streak of reverts of this kind of behaviour was, in retrospect, badly timed, and also quite silly. Also sorry for the delay in response; I took a few days off, so this silliness doesn't escalate.Trasz (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way that this is an incident, or that administrators will desire to wade through these long paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I recommend instead taking a look at the much shorter statement by Lembit Staan above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies If you don't want, then perhaps some admin who's less invested in supporting Volunteer Marek and his versions [147] will? After all, that's what our admins are meant for? The evidence is damning. Volunteer Marek doesn't add any content in these cases, he's just hindering other editors from doing so. PS:Lembit Staan - it's something quaint when I'm being named as someone's meat-puppet or a sockpuppet just after a couple of talk page comments that were not to your liking. It's not constructive at all.
That's all I can say. Obviously I fully support this complaint, but I already know that it will end with "no action necessary" or - why not? - a 'boomerang' to VM's "adversaries". --Potugin (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

”Drmies protects VM” - gee, where have I heard that piece of nonsense before? That was like a line on certain off Wiki forums... four years ago? And you’re a new account (sorry, “from February”)? And you know this history between myself and Drmies because.... oh right, cuz you’re a “lurker”. Lol. Volunteer Marek 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Yes, Googleing something or someone('s usernames) (such as "Volunteer+Marek+Drmies") and reading a few Wiki-critical threads, verifying diffs provided there (you weant me to offer them?) and so on ain't a particularly challenging problem. Do the same query! What are the first several hits you'll get? Now focus on the gist of the complaint above which is your disruptive behaviour.Potugin (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Potugin, that's all great and very exciting, but you'll have to admit that that diff of yours was pretty ridiculous. And, by the way, all this makes it even less likely that anything is going to come out of this thread. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol wow you’re not very good at this. If you are truly a new account (sorry, “from February”, I keep forgetting) *why in the world would you google that* in the first place? Afaict this is your first interaction with, ahem, “volunteer+marek+Drmies”. All you’re doing here is just providing more evidence that your whole “I know all these esoteric things about Wikipedia history because I’m just a lurker” cover story is bogus. Keep talking.

And my behavior isn’t disruptive (removing text which misrepresent sources in a BLP is constructive actually) and when I google that I just get link to Drmies’ archived talk (your search results reflect your past search history so that also says something about you). Volunteer Marek 17:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Potugin, if you think this tiny little copyedit is somehow an endorsement of someone's version of the article--well, I won't finish that sentence. And admins are here to do certain things, yes, but part of being a productive Wikipedia editor is knowing what kind of dispute resolution to seek, and when, and in what forum, and how to phrase it. Posting an ARE type of complaint on ANI is not a good way, as this very thread proves. For starters, this is not an "incident". Drmies (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, thank you--I read it, but it really is only an injunction for admins to maybe check for socking and to send this whole thing back to a talk page. I think Lembit Staan's comment makes sense--but again, there's nothing much actionable. And much of the original complaint is highly specific, content-oriented, and requires way too much digging for an incident. For instance, the filer argues that OKO press is reliable, or reliable enough, and cites "rough consensus" (but I don't know where from), but Rosguill's revert of VM here doesn't support that. So I'd have to figure out where that supposed discussion is in the RSN archives, whether it shows "rough consensus", as the filer claims, whether there's hanky panky going on, and whether that discussion was dominated by socks and brand-new accounts. And that's only the start of one of the points.

Personally it's more relevant, I think, for whoever wants to do it to start an SPI if they really think there's socking going on--but I think we know there's a ton of meating as well, and that's always more difficult to prove and to do something about. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I think I originally described the situation regarding OKO press as a rough consensus for reliability; VM objected to that characterization yesterday (Special:Diff/1029121994) on the basis that there were participants in the discussion that should not have been allowed to because of 500/30 restrictions for the subject matter. At the time that seemed like a reasonable objection to the categorization (even if removing it entirely, instead of recategorizing it, struck me as somewhat bad form), so when I restored the listing I moved it to no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Rosguill--I wasn't even aware of that page, and I saw in the history that it's being curated by people I can have faith in. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Rosguill moving the source to “no consensus” after I raised objections. I do have some concerns about that project/page seemingly declaring itself unilaterally the arbiter of WP:RSN discussions (in essence effectively “closing” those discussions) but that’s unrelated to this dispute here (and yes, I agree with Drmies that the people currently active there are good editors, my concern is what could happen if OTHER editors became involved it and instrumentalized the project in their POV disputes). Volunteer Marek 16:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this has three parts: first is the legitimate disagreements between the sides - there I put Lembit Staan, the OP and others. I would've liked to see more civility there, but I don't think admin involvement is necessary. The second part is a different matter: one editor who always assumes bad faith, repeatedly removes others' contributions, PAs constantly, and does little to promote compromise or improve articles on his own. This editor's behavior sours the discussion, leading to frustrated submissions like this. If that editor is removed from the TA (again), or preferably from everything Poland, it would reduce hostilities and allow everyone else to work through disagreements more civilly.

As for "socks" - they exist on all sides, and SPI has shown (surprising) effectiveness dealing with them. The "socks" are not the antecedent, they're the consequent; removing them may lower tensions, but will not resolve the problem. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah. The socking is pretty much exclusively from one “side” (sic). Hell, that “side” (the Icewhiz and friends side) even went so far as to create a couple false flag accounts recently which pretended to be me precisely because they’re the only one socking (and then, an actual Icewhiz sock reported me to SPI, but it didn’t work and they got banned instead). You want me to run down the exhaustive list of all the socks and sketchy accounts which have popped up since the end of the ArbCom case? You want me to go through who the other editors involved in the sock-initiated-disputed are/were, and which editors seem to *always* defend the socks, agree with the socks and enable the socks? I’m not sure this is the right place for it, but we could most certainly look at if any active editors have WP:MEATPUPPETed for these socks. We’d look at “bothsides” of course. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Icewhiz and friends"?

Regarding non-Icewhiz "socks", see comments by SarahSV and myself here and here. François Robere (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SaraSV in that comment lists several accounts which were also Icewhiz [148], [149]. That comment is fine and it agrees with what I said. It is NOT however about “non-Icewhiz” socks so I’m not sure what your point is. Your comment [150] ... well, thanks for reminding everyone about that one and providing such a nice illustration of how long you’ve been going to bat for Icewhiz socks (again, no idea why you think this is about non-Icewhiz socks). There you defend the socks, and ask everyone to worry about “false positive” and outright dismiss the concerns about socking as not serious (even though ArbCom had to pass a special remedy for this topic given the sheer scale of the socking). You demand “99% certainty” or some such. And you accidentally reveal that you have knowledge of Icewhiz’s geographic location somehow (you’re trying to argue that these socks didn’t match his time zone). Not sure how you’d get that. And guess what? That SPI too ended with a bunch of socks - the very ones you were defending - getting blocked [151], [152].

again, thanks for that. So... you got any more diffs of yourself defending and enabling Icewhiz socks you wanna shows us? It saves me the trouble of having to go back and look for them myself. Volunteer Marek 22:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if Volunteer Marek could actually address anything presented in here, rather than resorting to the classic claims about sock/meatpuppeting. To add to this, this isn't the only case of Volunteer Marek mass removing content with "vague" explanations,[153][154][155][156][157] which I assume was a response to me participating in the talkpage of Jan Zaryn article. Perhaps you should consider that the reason people disagree with you is that you are in the wrong, and not that they are a sock/meatpuppet. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Void accusations. I looked at the first two links, they have short, but pretty clear edit summaries. For the fist link, the case is 100% clear: WP:SYNTH. If you do not know what it is, you better read the policy carefully. The second case is a bit trickier: the accusations of RFA by Burmese junta hardly belong to section "Criticism". General advise: If something is unclear, you have to ask for explanations in the talk page. "Edit summary" has only enough space for a brief statement of the reason and of course may seem "vague" for some. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I was addressing Volunteer Marek. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues... - following is a comment by Szmenderowiecki: ...of which most of these "misrepresentations" were not discussed... - Why on Earth I have to discuss all sloppy/tendentious editing I see? I am not a wikilawyer. I just read the source and fix the article. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

! @User:Rosguill and Drmies - I believe the spreadsheet presentation of all socking accounts popping up after the Icewhiz ban and a list of specific editors who consistently show up supporting those socks (or vice versa) should be soon presented at the appropriate forum. That will illustrate the magnitude of the socking/meat puppeting problems Poland-related areas are facing now after the Icewhiz ban, and possibly some answers could be found. The harassment certain users such as Volunteer Marek suffer from it is enormous. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I was here before the Icewhiz ban, and I can confirm that mass socking, harassment, impersonations of particular editors, or even death threats (!)[158] posted on their talk pages started immediately after the ban. I'm honestly shocked. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I think there is an SPI and that's where this should go, yes. From what I understand there's a lot of meating going around as well and that makes it even more difficult. I hate to say "ArbCom is that way" but that's the way it is. User:KrakatoaKatie ran CU on Icewhiz and maybe has records--but again, that type of data is probably of limited use. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to block LouisianaDavis and Caux9 for repeated Sockpuppetry lie and dishonest behavior

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

---

It appears that despite LouisianaDavis’ previous denials in a sockpuppet investigation [159], LouisianaDavis is a sockpuppet and among others? of Caux9 see : [160]

LouisianaDavis tried to hide the connection that unmasked him here : [161]

• Both accounts LouisianaDavis and Caux9 are editing on the same article Étienne de Perier
• Aggravating circumstances: Caux9 is not a newbie in Sockpuppetry: he is blocked on French Wikepedia for that (also on the Perier Family) see : [162] [163]

• I request the indefinite block of the sockpuppet account LouisianaDavis
• I request Caux9 be blocked at least one month (as in French Wikipedia) as the last warning for this repeated dishonest behavior.

Thanks --Belyny (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

For information @Bbb23:

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

Deception

User:Micahhadar is deceptively adding content. He said he added content copied from Caste system in Kerala 1. But he added content ""descendants of Assyrians, Jews and that they were Upper castes,"" as his own opinion with zero sourcing which is not in the page. Some copied sources cant be clicked. Admin block him.2402:3A80:51A:268D:0:65:70B4:9A01 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, you are required to notify anyone about whose editing you bring complaints to this page; see the notice in red near the top of the page. You have not done so. Admins will not block anyone until they have at least provided an opportunity to hear both sides of the story. General Ization ^Talk 18:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I say speedy close. A purely editing dispute, with no discussion in article talk page whatsoever. IP, you are required to try resolving the disagreement in the article talk page first. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This also seems to be a content dispute than conduct right now. Has there been any discussion of this anywhere? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Only in a personal attack by a seemingly related IP at User talk:Micahhadar and in the ES which that user included while reverting it. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If anything, I see a potential WP:BOOMERANG, as the IP seems to think it's appropriate to use rotating IPs to pursue a dispute here, and to attack an editor whose edits they disagree with:

• • 2402:3A80:521:C05F:0:70:77F3:2E01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Personal attack on Micahhadar's talk page)
  • 2402:3A80:529:A0:0:65:70B3:E001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Reversion of edits at Caste system among South Asian Christians
  • 2402:3A80:51A:268D:0:65:70B4:9A01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (ANI report without notification to the subject of the report) General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Range block placed. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please ask this editor to stay off my talk page

Hello community, I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the opportunity to edit Wikipedia these past 5 months seeing as it has easily become my new favourite pastime. However, I may have made a grave mistake by disclosing on my user page that I was previously blocked for Sockpuppetry as a Newbie editor back in January 2021. I evaded my block and upon realising that it was also an infringement, I made the disclosure to Arbcom, got unblocked and asked to continue with this account. What brings me here is that Celestina007 (talk · contribs) since she first came to my talk page in March has continued to unfairly cast veiled aspersions [164] [165] [166], Outright accused me of paid editing [167] [168] and went on a power trip and tried intimidating me [169]. I have taken it all in stride because I understand that she is passionate about eliminating undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing especially in the Nigeria-related space I however do not appreciate this continual harassment without proof or without reporting to appropriate quarters. More recently, She placed 4 warning messages [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] on my Talkpage because I removed the {{notability}} maintenece template at Siene Allwell-Brown because the AfD closed as no consensus and the sourcing was enough to prove notability. I reverted the warnings [175] placed on my talk page and politely asked that she should not post on my talk page any further. She ignored this and posted 2 more times [176] [177].

I just want the community to ask this editor to stay off my talk page and stop inhibiting my work as these accusations, assumption of bad faith, snide remarks and witch-hunting/nitpicking (for want of a better word) have severely hampered my enjoyment of editing. Thank you! Princess of Ara_(talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I have aided them severally in their endeavors. They have an unusual manner of archiving so digging out diffs are quite arduous. In AFC I have encountered them and accepted/published their submissions, an example is this this, this I have never casted aspersions. I would have proposed a boomerang indefinite block on their account but I can’t do so because I have access to non public information of which I am not to disclose on-wiki, I am however willing to share this information to any sysop or functionary. Everything I have told them is factual hence do not fall under the scope of “casting aspersions” As aforementioned I am willing to share via email why I feel an indef block on them might be the best possible route. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone accusing me of Harassment, they are on my watchlist thus it is not unusual if I run into them every now and again. That isn’t harassment. I left a UPE warning template on their tp because of this: Draft:Uzor Arukwe. I declined the article on June 9 and told them specifically not to resubmit the article any time soon seehere. To my surprise barely 4 days after they resubmitted the article which was reject by Hatchens. This appeared to be COI editing, thus the UPE warning template. I’m incapable of disclosing non public information if not they would have been indef blocked a long time ago. I am willing to point this out if any sysop wants to see for themselves. Yes! Sockpuppetry was what indeed got them in trouble because technical evidence substantiated or showed this, The sockpuppetry case is just one aspect. Infact after Arbcom gave them a new lease they began the same type of editing that got them in trouble in the first place. I feel horrible about this, It is very unfair that editors aren’t sysops or functionaries are restricted from viewing the evidence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Accusing Princess of Ara of having history of running a UPE ring without evidence after they explicitly told them to stay away from their talk page as can be seen here and also accusing them of returning to sockpuppettery without evidence is uncalled for. Casting aspersions and possible civility issues. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 has been asked politely not to post on Princess of Ara's talk page. We commonly expect editors to respect such requests, except when required to post by policy such as an ANI notification. Celestina007 should avoid posting on Princess of Ara's talk page. If there are violations of Wikipedia policies in Princess of Ara's editing, Celestina007 knows the proper avenues to pursue. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Based on what Schazjmd stated above I wouldn't leave any personal messages on their TP. I respect Schazjmd Having said, let the record reflect that I do infact have proof if they do not want me to post on their talk page I wouldn’t. I can carry still carry out my anti UPE activities, I don’t see how interacting with them impedes my anti UPE work. So there you have it, your wish is granted I wouldn’t be leaving messages for you anymore.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment  – Accepting my articles at AfC and being able to inhibit my work by disturbing my peace are not mutually exclusive as is clearly demonstrated here. In our "first" interaction, Celestina007 told me that she had A mountain of evidence [178] [179] that implied that I had been compensated to create an article for FK Abudu and said she was going to submit the evidence to functionaries. It actually beats me how an anti paid editing editor has hard evidence against a rogue editor but lets them run amok for months, putting the integrity of the collabourative project at risk.Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Princess of Ara, could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies? The two diffs you provided above where I mentioned that I had a mountain of evidence, were never targeted at you, but was targeted at FK Abudu. I said I had a mountain of evidence that they were trying all they could to get a biographical article on Wikipedia, it was a statement clearly targeted at them and not you, Anyone can read the diffs and confirm what I’m saying, so if I might ask, why were you being intentionally deceptive to the community? Why did you deem it fit to lie against me or did you think I wouldn't scrutinize the diffs? Lying is really bad faith editing. I wouldn’t be posting on your talk page, rather I’d let templates do the talking. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a mountain of evidence to corroborate what I just stated above, an evidence I would be sharing with functionaries only & my senior colleagues followed by It’s a lot evidence I have but can’t be discussed on wiki as that would definitely constitute OUTING. It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in Outing who? This is simple deductive reasoning. Since Celestina has affirmed she won't be 100% staying off my talk page, I'll like to request a formal ban on interaction between myself and her. Thank you. Princess of Ara_(talk) 05:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara, rather than apologize for being intentionally deceptive to not just me, but the community as a whole, you are speaking of “deductive reasoning” meaning you just “guessed” By Outing, I was clearly referring to FK Abudu and not you. The diffs you yourself provided clearly show you weren’t telling the truth, its literally right there and anyone can read it. In any case, A formal iban is ineffective, you have asked me to stay off your page I have agreed to do so, so what’s the bone of contention here? An IBAN wouldn’t help you evade scrutiny, i can still very much template you if/when I observe you violating our TOU so like I said it doesn’t change nothing but you are welcome to try. Celestina007 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in If you were referring to FK Abudu as you claim, pray tell, why was I the one in a Catch-22?

I'm requesting an interaction ban because I don't want you to template me either. Leave processes to other members of the community. It's that simple. Princess of Ara_(talk) 07:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is not the first time Celestina007 is accusing other editors of bad faith editing without evidence and also displaying civility issues while casting further aspersions. The most recent one is accusing Horizonlove of sockpuppettery without evidence or creating a sockpuppet investigation as can be seen here. Horizonlove archived their talk page after answering them as can be seen here. Unhappy, they reverted Horizonlove brazenly as can be seen here. While all this was going on, they threatened Horizonlove with an indef block even without being an admin I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and But I can assure you that an indefinite block is being arranged for you if you continue down this path, Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing. Liz came to their talk page and warned them about threatening other editors with a block even without yet passing an RfA as can be seen here. It's true that this editor is fighting UPE, but their method is way too wayward. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck, They fight UPE with valiance but the methods are on the aggressive side. At the risk of outing myself, my "actual" first interaction with Celestina was on my account that got blocked. I came to Wikipedia as a die hard fan of Erica Nlewedim and tried to create a page for her because I felt she was deserving of one. I jumped right in without reading the rules because I felt I couldn't be wrong. Little did I know. I edited the preexisting draft article and went to the pages of editors [180] [181] [182] [183] [184][185][186] [187] that !voted in the AfD to kindly review and publish. I didn't know about forumshopping at the time, some of whom offered constructive corrections relating to the promotional tone of the article [188][189] but I inadvertently got bitten [190] [191] by Celestina and got my account blocked. It all happened so fast. The reason I got a check user block by Drmies was because another fan of Nlewedim's gave me her login details after putting out this tweet thinking that having multiple people contribute to the page was going to help with the validity of Nlewedim's page. I created another account after getting blocked because I genuinely enjoyed contributing, any other new user may have gotten discouraged and not come back to the collaborative project.

  I've definitely come across various instances of them ABF, biting new editors, badgering editors to admit COI/UPE and being generally aggressive. See some instances here:

  1. [192][193] They were corrected by Samwalton9 to stop being aggressive.
  2. [194] - ABF
  3. [195]
  4. [196]
  5. [197] - Older users not spared
  6. [198]
  7. [199] corrected again
  8. [200]
  9. [201] - Untrue Assertion
  10. [202] - ABF
  11. [203]
  12. [204] [205]
  13. 2 Consecutive warnings

Princess of Ara_(talk) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Considering that, as a result of a report filed here by Celestina007, User:Nnadigoodluck only a week ago was stripped of all their permissions and topic banned, I'm reserving a helluva lot of judgement on their opinion. I'm surprised they're not taking a vacation from ANI actually; it might be safer if they do. As for User:Princess of Ara, well; I'm not sure, on balance, that the general thrust of C007s allegations do not have a whiff of likelihood to them. ——Serial 13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, why should I take a vacation from ANI? —Nnadigoodluck███ 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  While I understand that a previous block for sockpuppetry is grounds for additional scrutiny, I do not appreciate the still unsubstantiated veiled aspersions. Princess of Ara_(talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• With the diffs Princess of Ara shared, it shows that Celestina007 has been aggressive, uncivil and bitey to both new editors and old editors way back in 2017 and I'm surprised she's still exhibiting such behavior in 2021. In 2017, after Jamie Tubers reverted them on OC Ukeje article because their edit did not conform with the WP:MOS, they approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, accusing the very much older editor of not understanding the English language because they are from Nigeria and offered to teach them because they attended an Ivy League institution. They said can I advice you do a course or two in English Language before proceeding to edit articles, I may be lacking the understanding of some Wikipedia policies, yes, but to not know well enough the English Language is worse still. However if you need tips on the Language i am readily available to offer it to you. I speak Spanish and Italian, and 9 other African Languages also, So please rather than 'try to be in the good books of Jamie' put your time to things more constructive and she continued I am not afraid of you unlike most Nigerian editors, so yes, I am very bold and would continue to be bold if that upsets you, you may as well retire now, and hey, a little spelling mistake does not take away the fact I have an IQ of 132 and speak over ten languages excluding english. In the end let us work together and produce better Wikipedia articles. Thank you sir. In 2020, after M-Mustapha commented on this AfD they nominated, they accused them of operating multiple accounts without evidence. In their words Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to.. They further accused the editor of having a poor command of English language Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. I believe the real reason why all these are still going on till today is because they were given a free hand and they believe that it's okay to harass other editors. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Nnadigoodluck, All these diff digging because like Serial Number 54129 stated I busted you here for possible undisclosed paid editing and had two-third of your possible UPE works deleted? You do know nothing is going to stop me from destabilizing UPE rings right? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

786wave tendentious edit warring

786wave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
mentioned user edit-warring with multiple editors on Van, Turkey article despite warning not to. Edits range between misguided to outright POV-pushing to genocide justication in the talk page. I've lost count of the reverts too. User seems WP:NOTHERE to me, with clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, appropriate administrative action needed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Said user also feels confortable making rude ethnic-based remarks and generalisations:

• An edit summary saying:We need some Greeks to join in the fun. Armenians eat too much delicious pastirma. LOL
• They were exiled to Lebanon. Plenty of radical Armenians exist there. 21:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked for a little while. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Their edit summaries and other stuff on talk pages show WP:BATTLEGROUND. Plus they remind me of this LTA case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 and some other sockmasters with similar nationalistic POV. I suggest indef block and checkuser. Wario-Man ^talk 08:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, older contrb. Show Armenian genocide denial language as well. WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:NAZI mindset make a good recipe for an indeff block. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent original research and BLP violations on MP articles, unresponsive editor

• Kendalandrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- xtools
• Previous ANI, BLPN

Articles:

• Lubov Chernukhin (pre-trimming revision) (history -- see broken down removal diffs)
• Vladimir Chernukhin (revision)
• Robert Courts (revision)
• Brandon Lewis (revision)
• Theresa Villiers (revision)
• Lev Mikheev
• Viktor Fedotov
• Aigul Nuryieva (AfD)

Kendalandrew has persisted in writing negative BLPs relating to members of UK Parliament and their editing violates pretty much every core policy of Wikipedia. The account's sole purpose is dedicated to exaggerating Russian involvement in British politics. Usually this takes the form of doing original research using primary sources - specifically their interpretations of company accounts or charity reports (or often just no sources at all) - to introduce WP:UNDUE content into WP:BLP articles, They did not respond to concerns raised at ANI (archived without action), BLPN, on their user talk, or on article talk. Instead, they just revert without summary editors removing problematic content.[206][207][208]

Frankly every other edit they've made is troubling. More broadly, see content at [209] for example; almost none of the sources even mention the article subject. The editor is just copy-pasting the same boilerplate negative text across various articles of Members of Parliament and other BLPs.[210] Even the parts of the prose that are validly sourced to reliable secondary sources - a very small portion of their edits overall - is written in an UNDUE fashion. In short, the editor is using the articles of BLPs as a soapbox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

From looking at just one of the "Receipt and defence of donations associated with Russian influence" sections I can see we have a problem here. Issued them with a BLP discretionary sanctions notification, which will at least allow this matter to be dealt with at WP:AE (where there is less background noise) if things continue. I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't allow things to continue at all... FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Before you consider this matter I would be grateful if you would review: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53538224 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/21/tory-donors-husband-given-8m-by-kremlin-linked-oligarch https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/27/lubov-chernukhin-tories-tennis-record-donor-uk-russia https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/22/enemy-of-democracy-oligarch-says-putin-wants-to-harm-uk https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-electoral-commissions-private-concerns-about-russian-tory-donors/ https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-01-12/owner-of-tory-donor-company-chaired-firm-linked-to-russian-corruption-allegations https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lubov-chernukhin-and-alexander-temerko-big-spenders-who-made-friends-of-prime-minister-and-his-mps-j65fm0fvq

In essence this is a matter of importance to UK users of Wikipedia; that has previously been reported by credible journalists, and their work was cited in the articles and updates that I wrote. In addition, I referenced to the underlying sources that evidenced the payments (the Electoral Commission and register of Members Interest, both government websites). Companies House data is similarly statutory information provided by the Government. I did not interpret it - it is a fact that it shows a business connection between parties (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03820643/filing-history) in an entity that was loss making, controlled from Cyprus, and now dissolved (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03820643/filing-history).

The fact that several serving politicians have received funds meant that I updated those pages with similar content tailored for the quanta of funds and origin of those funds. As a new contributor I am open to being coached on how to be a better contributor.

ProcrastinatingReader is correct that the matter is concerning: Reuters, the Guardian, the BBC, The Times, OpenDemocracy and the Bureau of Investigative Journalists all agree. I think the issue is the documented receipt of funds, ProcrastinatingReader thinks the issue is that I have recorded it on Wikipedia. But because it is concerning it should be on Wikipedia so the aggregate of evidence and journalistic opinion is consolidated for UK readers who want somewhere where they can go and get a summary and follow the citation links to the underling high quality journalism so they can fully inform themselves.

Of course you can leave the piece about Robert Courts as it is now - a 'puff piece' of uncited work about his passion for blues guitar and which church he attends (I wonder where that came from) - but I think the documented fact that he accepted £18k from the wife of a former Russian Minister with issues pertaining to the source of funds is what belongs on Wikipedia.... think of the message if it is not. Deleting the text without attempting to edit it to get rid of the issues smacks more of censorship than an attempt to help me get it right. I hope that Wikipedians will consider the message they wish to send. Kendalandrew (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kendalandrew: Companies House, Electoral Commission etc data are not acceptable at the sole sources for any information per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm not sure why we're even talking about it anyway. You claim Reuters, the Guardian, the BBC..... all agree on it, it shouldn't be hard to find such sources covering the details. Sources which do not mention the subject are not acceptable. Whatever problems with Russian influence on UK politicians that may or may not exist, whatever all those sources may have said about it, it's your responsibility to find reliable secondary sources which discuss such concerns in relation to the particular subject you are adding the information to. Not relying on Companies House data or EC data, nor on original research/synthesis using sources which don't mention the subject, nor any other crap like that. If there are no such sources, the information stays out. It does not matter if you believe the information is of interest to UK users, no sources no coverage in our articles. If general concerns about Russian influence on UK politicians have been raised by secondary sources, it may be acceptable to cover this in some article. But not in relation to any particular person if there's no secondary sources documenting it's a concern for that particular person. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. In the entry (now deleted) about Robert Courts I cited https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53538224 (among others) which met all the needs you state above. The current article includes insights such as "Courts initiated and led a parliamentary debate on human rights in West Papua. This historic debate was the first time MPs had ever debated West Papua in the House of Commons" but now the article omits that he took money from Lubov Chernukhin and property developers, or (as a lawyer) supported proroguing parliament which the supreme court ruled unanimously against, or wrote an article in support of Dominic Cummings with respect to his breach of lock down regulations, all of which are highly relevant to his position as an MP. It does mention his church membership, children and blues guitar, which is not cited and which make no difference to his work as an MP. If you read my contributions you will see that they were all cited to high quality sources such as those listed above. The electoral commission links were put in so the reader could go straight to the donations referred to in the articles. So where do we go from here? Do I reinstate and modify? Kendalandrew (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment commenting here since I deleted most of their content. I assumed good faith at first, and found the edits by the user via recent changes. But upon inspection it looked like they created pages and large sections with several glaring guideline violations. All of the added sections of the articles contained content not connected with the subject of the particular article, and in some cases only referenced them once. The sections were tangential in nature. Here's what I have issue with:

WP:ATTACK - the created articles exist primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.

WP:UNDUE - borderline the entire articles were about recent political contributions, with negative connotations solely.

WP:CSECTION - sections created essentially titled "controversy"

WP:NOTE - the subjects are not notable outside of their political contributions (imo). If we create articles based on how much money individuals contributed, countless articles will need to be created... the user included an entire section with multiple paragraphs in Theresa Villiers regarding a £2000 contribution. Many people contribute that sum and more to many different individuals. Would create a notability slippery slope.

WP:NOTNEWS - WP is not a newspaper re: notability (holding a position in a government, then contributing to a political campaign happens very frequently--though I inherently disagree with the premise--doesn't seem notable).

WP:CITEKILL - more articles don't mean notability

In my opinion, this user came to WP with the intention of creating attack pages and sections. Lastly, some sections are almost entirely comprised of quotes from various sources (Wikipedia is not a list of quotes. The quotes are wholly cherrypicked to support their BLP attack pages and sections. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Other articles that were affected but not included in the list above: Suleyman Kerimov (prime edit) and Alexander Temerko (prime edit). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A block request

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

---

Can Pipsli be blocked from editing for replacing a external link on Anschutz Entertainment Group with a link to the website the account is representing? Note that the account was already globally locked by Hoo man on Meta Wiki.

The account has been already globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Subtle sports vandalism

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

---

I'm seeing a pattern of subtle vandalism on sports pages, and need some advice on what to do. The edits change numbers on sports pages very slightly, and are coming from a bunch of different IP addresses within a short amount of time. I suspect someone may be using a proxy or something like that. But I might be completely wrong about everything I just said, which is why I'm asking for advice. Here are some examples: Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are some of the IPs I've managed to catch, there might be others:

• Special:Contributions/61.6.142.167
• Special:Contributions/2600:6C5C:6C00:1E96:A82E:2225:98D8:227D
• Special:Contributions/2601:602:C801:4010:B9E5:D0E5:60AA:374C
• Special:Contributions/61.39.210.93
• Special:Contributions/102.181.134.60
• Special:Contributions/98.214.140.12
• Special:Contributions/94.6.106.5
• Special:Contributions/161.142.177.143
• Special:Contributions/2603:7080:D53D:5D00:4008:96EF:D787:7455 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheerful Squirrel (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Cheerful Squirrel, this is not an ANI matter. I looked at a few IPs and they have nothing to do with each other. Vandalism happens; you revert it and you leave them a warning, and then at some point you report at WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: My worry is that one person somehow has access to a bunch of IPs and is doing the same type of vandalism with all of them. Consider these three edits, I think they make the comparison clearer: [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Cheerful Squirrel, that's five edits, not three, and what they have in common is that they were unexplained sports updates made by IP editors. Happens a million times a day. There is no reason to believe that these IPs, which geolocate to all over the world, have anything to do with each other. Plus, as others pointed out, THIS ISN'T VANDALISM. Irritating unexplained sports editing, sure, but not vandalism. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Cheerful Squirrel: how is this edit vandalism? An episode of that show was broadcast on 17 June, see [216] so that looks like someone updating the episode count correctly to me. Laplorfill (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • oops. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Looking at this one, if you read the article it says that "Brown faced Dhiego Lima on June 19, 2021 at UFC on ESPN 25. He won the fight via knockout in the second round." which is why an editor updated the number of KO-wins. While a source would have been ideal, I certainly wouldn't call that vandalism either. You may want to go back and check. I think there's a good chance most or all of your examples are not vandalism. Laplorfill (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Mcfoureyes evading block

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

---

• Mcfoureyes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2600:1700:7E31:5710:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Mcfoureyes was blocked indefinitely six weeks ago, and at the same time the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2602:30A:C012:8570:0:0:0:0/64 was given a week-long block. Since then, Mcfoureyes complained on their talk page about being blocked, then they found a new IP range. I have seen a few hundred edits worth of block evasion in the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7E31:5710:0:0:0:0/64. The giveaway is the restoration of major edits made earlier by Mcfoureyes, including this 88kb whopper.[217][218][219]

The areas of interest are also an indicator: animal taxonomy, comics, film, TV. It's the unique fingerprint of Mcfoureyes. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate for six months. We can close this thread. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Trap133 and multiple nominations for deletion

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

---

Trap133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User Trap133 is a new editor, though they state they have been an IP editor some time ago, and are thus very familiar with Wikipedia. Their editing pattern is unusual for a new editior in that their contributions record shows a susbtantial desire to delete, delete, delete. To my regret I have introduced them to Twinke, though it would only have been a matter of time before they discovered it. I was clear on their talk page when I made the introduction that we are 100% responsible for our editing actions whatever tools we use. But they have used the tool to go on a deletion rampage.

Two editors have warned them, very politely, for their actions, Phil Bridger and Soumitrahazra. I am concerned about their reply to the former: These articles literally did not cite any independent source. All fails WP:GNG that's why I quickly tagged them. My work is to tag them deletion is in the hand of admins. I have checked every and each article. It seems to me that firm education is required, together with some form of limitation on their massive deletion campaign, unless, of course, it can be shown that it is policy based and correct. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. Based on behaviour alone, this is definitely him. Same copy paste rationales. Same obsession with deleting as many Indian schools as possible. Just look at the number of AfDs in the space of one hour! Same as many of the other previous socks in the farm. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Spiderone With respect. I am not him. My edits are not only related to Education. I just started tagging educational schools and colleges from yesterday night you can see my previous edits. I edited articles related to Islam, and more and of course I am not a Sockpuppet user. Trap133 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think they might actually be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid instead. Regardless, they're obviously not new and not here. Spicy (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Spicy would you mind, if you have not already done so, logging this thought at the Phoenix man SPI, please? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No matter. I have cross referenced each to the other. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just to point out I was on the cusp of bringing this here myself; but it appears Trap133 has gone from one angle of mass deletions to another assisted by use of twinkle to make scrutiny nearly impossible. Did not seem to consider alternatives to deletion per WP:PRODNOM and is now disruptively swamping the AfD area. Agree (without delving deeply) has WP:DUCK characteristics of previous users; and I think there is an issue where people have a high delete/contribution ratio which can mean WP:NOTHERE as participation to delete can be very low cost. Not helped I think by a periodic MOTD message inviting new users to get involved in deletion which is not a balanced startpoint.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Trap's first edits, their eighth edit ever was to this AfD, with the editor who started the AfD having similar edit summaries to Trap when adding tags for notability/COI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Trap133's edit pattern has now changed. Still very "productive", but still highly proilific. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

With 31 delete nominations just today, I don't believe this editor is really here to build an encyclopedia. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• SPI outcome is blocked as Sock. What happens to the swathe of destructiondeletion discussions? Do folk with admin goggles have the ability to dispose of these en masse or is thast against policy? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think they can be speedy kept unless any other users voted to delete, in which case those ones need to stay up.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat at Steve Pieczenik

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

---

IP editor 171.4.216.166 made what appears to be a possible legal threat in an edit summary at Steve Pieczenik. In their edit summary they state "Slander is prosecutable - keep that in mind when making revisions about "conspiracy theory". Your IP address is recorded!" PohranicniStraze (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have blocked that IP. Objective legal threat or not, clearly meant to have a chilling effect in a content dispute. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I have also revdel'd the edit summary. Our users don't deserve to be threatened. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Diane Molly Handerson

Diane Molly Handerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues to add categories not supported by text, often religious categories added to biographies of living people.

• [220]
• [221]
• [222]

Numerous detailed warnings on user talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Historical policy of the Law and Justice party#Jo Harper

I am not entirely sure how this process works, and apologies if this is the wrong venue for raising this concern. There appears to be some form of content dispute on the above article which has descended into personal attacks across several of articles in the same broad topic, apparently the Holocaust in Poland. An admin intervention would be very much appreciated to prevent it from deteriorating still further. Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hm, a discussion that was started as an attack on Volunteer Marek by a sock of a globally banned editor, and I would be very surprised if one of the other participants was using their original account as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually it started when indef-blocked editor Masdafizdo (talk · contribs · block log) removed legitimate content that I've added back in April.[223][224][225] VM and the sock joined later and fought among themselves[226] while I tried to settle it on Talk.[227] When there was no reply for ten days I went ahead with my edit, but VM immediately reverted it and attacked me.[228] This behavior recurred in other articles, leading another editor to file #Disruptive mass deletion behaviour. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • As you well know Francois, this indef banned editor, Masdafizdo, was one of the two joe-job accounts that were used to file a false SPI against me. This SPI was filed by another sock globally banned editor, the one who attacked me on the page. You did not "try to settle it on talk". What happened is that I called out VikingDrummer, now banned as a sock of globally banned Icewhiz [229], as a sock, and you jumped in to defend that sock saying I was "casting ASPERSIONS". The sock was then banned. Which means my "aspersions" happened to be 100% correct. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • No, I actually don't know that, since I don't follow SPI. I also don't know what "joe-job" means, nor do I care. I alerted admins to that user[230] while you restored their edit, attacked me and questioned another editor who reverted you, and now you're blaming someone else for your actions? François Robere (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
        • You may not care, but a "joe job" is an account made specifically to look like someone else, so you get mad at the wrong person. On Wikipedia, it's usually an account created specifically to make you think one person is recruiting friends, socking, or forming a WP:CABAL to attack someone else. It's a smear campaign. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
          • In other words, "false flag". I'm still not clear on what it has to do with VM reverting one blocked account to another, attacking me in an edit summary, repeating his accusations on Talk, then calling his response "adequate". François Robere (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite:, I have no opinion although Volunteer Marek's personal attacks on other editors certainly don't make me particularly sympathetic. The real point is that it's clear that the discussion will further deteriorate without some kind of outside intervention. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I did not make any personal attacks. I made accusations against an editor that was an obvious sock. SPI confirmed it and the sock was banned. I also expressed frustration at the fact that right after that sock was banned a few more accounts. either new ones or ones that have never edited this article, popped out of nowhere. You asked me to AGF, but AGF is not a suicide pact - the socking was obvious and that's the reason why the editor's comments were struck. Which you should have noticed. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Brigade Piron and Black Kite: Since his T-ban was lifted back in December, VM has insulted or attacked other editors numerous times, including at one time hosting a dedicated attack page against me. He was warned by admins at least three times,[231][232][233] but no sanctions. Whatever else is happening in the TA, there's no reason VM would treat people like that. François Robere (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) (Edited 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC))
        • You're right, François Robere. But what is the truth? (He was warned by admins at least three times, but no sanctions) - Volunteer has succesfully created a persona of a left/progressive user, which is why our mostly American liberal admins favour him, and also ofc. the connections (old users know each other and cliques tend to form). But what did Sandstein tell the community back in 2019 [234]. Thus I quote a well-known Wikipedia figure:

Setting aside the main issue for a moment, I find Volunteer Marek's conduct here worthy of interest. They note that casting aspersions is prohibited (-->Has it ever changed? - Potugin), and that accusations must be backed by "actual diffs, not innuendo and bad faithed insinuations", and that if an editor "can't back up that attack, then he deserves a ban". I agree. But I intend to apply these principles to Volunteer Marek. In the same section, they write without providing evidence that "this is an obvious "payback report" for the fact that Icewhiz's partner in edit wars, Yanniv, recently got indef blocked", and accuse another editor of being part of a "tag team", among other instances of vitriol and confrontative statements that have at best a remote bearing on the diffs that are the subject of this enforcement request. This is inacceptable and disruptive conduct. I note that Volunteer Marek has a relatively long record of AE sanctions going back to 2011, both in the Eastern Europe and in the US politics topic area. This has got to stop. I am topic-banning Volunteer Marek for six months from anything related to Eastern Europe. I am leaving the thread open to allow discussion of the original request.

[235] At times I really feel like tempted to publish something myself, and you suspect where. Isn't constructive criticism appreciated by Jimbo, right? Discovering hoaxes is a right thing to do? Why does the situation never change? Where did I find Sandstein's estimation thereof? Simple! From a Wikipedia critics' forum!
Why does this travesty have to go on? Because said user has been building up some kinda "fake lefty progressive" persona in topics apart from Poland with his lowest-effort (often mutually contradictionary!) posts such as here [236] (stop removing 'well sourced' material - where were the sources then?) [237], [238] (why was William F. Buckley, Jr. not a RS then?), [239] etc. etc. etc. There are quite a lot of them actually, this is why American "liberals" defend him. What we get is a picture of an Eastern European tribalist defending the absurdest myths (like this idiocy: have a look, folks: Gestapo–NKVD conferences ([cf. his defensive comment that everything is perfectly fine!), he cannot remove it now - I have screenshots of this as well as from the "KZ Warschau" where supposedly 200,000 Poles were gased, cf. Haaretz etc. ([240])), hating on the neighbouring countries (pointing out the German 800 year old presence in modern day Western Poland is "German irredentialism", at the same time invested in Lviv's/Lwów's Polish connections). How long does this disgrace have to continue?Potugin (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • • The above rant seems worthy of a WP:NOTHERE & WP:NPA block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Really? Before you block me, could you at least point me out what was wrong there? Was I wrong about Sandstein's estimation? What about the hoaxes he's promoting [241]}, [242] and I pointed out? Make your case!Potugin (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have blocked User:Potugin indefintely per the above. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparent threat at Category talk:Autism pseudoscience

I wanted to bring someone's attention to 2001:16B8:571C:8000:4078:F48D:B7A6:22F8's post at Category talk:Autism pseudoscience. It's hard to be sure exactly what this is, as it isn't entirely coherent, but it appears to be some sort of threat directed at Wikipedia. The IP states that "you harbour stuff on your wikimedia servers that is not PWDs online security eligible content" (whatever that is), then after a bit of a rant makes the veiled threat that "this will lead to acts of third parties such as governmental law enforcement crime charges or them having your servers DDoSsed later on", before a bit more ranting where they appear to accuse WP of child abuse and piracy. It's probably just some LTA or an internet rando, but better safe than sorry. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the edit in question. I have reverted it and warned the user. It seemed to be childish vandalism, from a cursory glance at the rant. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I can only assume PWD in this context means "people with disabilities" but if that is the case than the first half of the threat is literally incomprehensible. The latter half of it verges on word salad and is likewise incomprehensible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

MysterioRey619

MysterioRey619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Falsely claiming advanced user rights.
• Blocked for vandalism on two other wikis.
• Zero edit summary usage.
• Repeatedly removing templates and references without explanation. (Just a tiny sample there)
• Well aware of their talk page; just removes warnings without comment.

This was declined at AIV after being reported by another user. Admittedly this might be a CIR issue (though the false user rights claim suggests it's not their first rodeo), but the disruption has gone on long enough either way. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)