Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	2	2
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	39	39
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 62 sockpuppet investigations
• 28 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 21 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 53 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 14 requested closures
• 141 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 23 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (27 out of 8606 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin S. Paramesh 2024-10-17 10:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jauerback Kabza 2024-10-17 03:07 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection after creating a redirect upon editor request Liz Three Ds of antisemitism 2024-10-17 02:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Attack on Nabatieh municipal council 2024-10-17 02:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Kurubas 2024-10-17 01:48 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case New Jersey Turnpike 2024-10-17 00:56 2024-11-17 00:56 edit Persistent sock puppetry Izno Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California 2024-10-16 07:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Dhangar 2024-10-16 03:01 indefinite edit,move OK, meant this Daniel Case User:Magnolia677 2024-10-15 23:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent block evasion Acroterion October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel 2024-10-15 23:22 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Elli: Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I Protection Helper Bot Marhatta (region) 2024-10-15 22:57 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Religious anti-Zionism 2024-10-15 22:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq One Jerusalem 2024-10-15 22:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq October 2024 Friday Prayer in Tehran 2024-10-15 22:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq October 2024 Aitou airstrike 2024-10-15 22:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade 2024-10-15 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Amari Cooper 2024-10-15 18:30 2024-10-18 18:30 edit Edit warring over unconfirmed sports transaction. Wait until a team or the player officially confirm the transaction. As always, a report by a media member is not enough to make these types of changes. Hey man im josh Davante Adams 2024-10-15 18:15 2024-10-18 18:13 edit I meant to set it as EC, not autoconfirmed. Fixed. Hey man im josh Battle of Ayta ash Shab (2024) 2024-10-14 18:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Valerii Kondratiev 2024-10-14 13:58 2024-10-21 13:58 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Tassedethe Israeli attack on Ramyah UNIFIL post 2024-10-14 10:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Callanecc 2024 Hadera stabbing attack 2024-10-14 08:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq 2024 Hezbollah drone strike on Binyamina 2024-10-14 08:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Al-Aqsa Hospital massacre 2024-10-14 08:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon 2024-10-14 08:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Sheikh Hasina 2024-10-14 02:19 2026-10-14 02:19 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: See the protection log for the history of problems EdJohnston Malayalam 2024-10-13 19:21 2024-11-03 19:20 edit,move ECP needed Daniel Case

Request to remove TBAN from User:Shinjoya

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

---

I am here to appeal my indefinite Topic Ban from caste-related articles which was imposed after discussion in this ANI thread. The thread was started by User: Ratnahastin complaining about User: Ravensfire on 4 June 2021, but it went WP:BOOMERANG on User:Ratnahastin after NitinMlk, Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, Chariotrider555 asked admins to topic ban User:Ratnahastin for his alleged policy violations and POV editing. On 17 June 2021, a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal was started by an admin asking users to vote. Before the initiation of this WP:BOOMERANG proposal, I had hardly participated in the discussion. But now, I decided to cast my vote.

User:Ratnahastin is an inexperienced user who had been involved with 3 users ie Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, Chariotrider555 in content disputes. The same 3 users had proposed a topic ban against him. Considering these points, I opposed the proposal, which I suppose, was my democratic right. As soon as I voted against the proposal, the same 3 users began to drag me into the same WP:BOOMERANG proposal which was originally meant for User:Ratnahastin. These 3 users had content disputes with me too, so they found it convenient to get me banned along with User:Ratnahastin. They made the same blame of POV editing against me. I repeatedly asked them to prove how my editing is disruptive and also asked them to produce evidence to support their allegations. But they never produced any edit diff to prove their point. In the mean time, I got into a content dispute with Fowler&fowler in Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan on 20 June 2021 here. He had some heated debate with me and 2 other users in which a consensus could not be achieved. As he could not get consensus over his proposals, he began to put false accusations of meat puppetry against me, User:Ratnahastin and User:White Horserider here. Then he made an improperly explained edit reverting my recent edits on Rajput page here, which I suppose was nothing but WP:HOUNDING. Then he went to the then ongoing WP:BOOMARANG proposal on ANI and voted in support of topic ban against me and User: Ratnahastin. I suppose that all the above mentioned activities from Fowler&fowler were done in retaliation to the content dispute he had with both of us on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan.

Now, the WP:BOOMERANG proposal had 12 votes, out of which 11 were in favour of topic ban on User:Ratnahastin with a majority of them asking for a temperory ban of 90 days. As the WP:BOOMERANG proposal was not against me but User:Ratnahastin, only 5 out of 12 people asked for topic ban on me. Out of these 5 people, 4 users (ie LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and Fowler&fowler had content disputes with me. On 21 June 2021, admin Rosguill closed the ANI giving verdict handing over indefinite topic ban on me and Ratnahastin here with the following remarks: "WP:BOOMERANG, Ratnahastin and Shinjoya are indefinitely topic-banned from editing caste-related topics. While 90-day, indefinite, and "permanent" topic-ban lengths were suggested and not really reconciled in discussion, my assessment is that the arguments for an indefinite ban are stronger. While other bans were suggested as well (an IBAN, and bans on participation at SPI), these suggestions did not gain much support and do not appear to be necessary at this time, although involved editors should be aware that further misuse or disruption at SPI will not be tolerated. Finally, note that while caste-related topics are a DS-topic as part of WP:ARBIND, this action is a normal community sanction and not a DS-sanction."

Now, I will not talk about topic ban on User:Ratnahastin but I would like to appeal topic ban against me on the following grounds :

• Not a single edit diff was presented by any user in the entire thread to prove my edits as disruptive or POV. It seems the concerned admin Rosguill took this decision in a hurry without bothering about the availability of evidences. I still challenge if someone can prove my single edit as POV.

• I am a fairly experienced user with almost 4 years of experience and making over 1200 edits. I was never blocked or topic banned before this. A topic ban on me is like a black mark on my career as an editor.

• The WP:BOOMERANG proposal was never against me but the other user, Ratnahastin. Then how can I be sanctioned by that? Before the WP:BOOMERANG proposal, I was hardly involved in the thread. I was deliberately dragged in the voting by users who had content disputes with me.

• Though, I am aware that WP: Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in practice, the verdict of such proposals is generally decided by the number of votes and only 5 out of 12 votes went against me. And if we subtract those users who had content disputes with me, only 1 out of 7 users voted against me. So, on what basis did the admin decide that a permanent topic ban on me would be appropriate? (I wish to clarify that Amar.kumar.goel had voted for a 90 day ban on User: Ratnahastin alone saying "as per above" citing the vote of Chariotrider555 here. But on the next day, Chariotrider555 added a yet another comment in between his older vote and Aman.kumar.goel's vote supporting ban on both me and Ratnahastin here. I am giving this clarification because I think that admin Rosguill might have mistaken the vote of Amar.kumar.goel as against me while having a final read before giving the verdict.)

• I think the opinion of Fowler&fowler was given undue weight as he had asked for an indefinite ban on me. In that Boomerang voting, he presented himself as an experienced editor showing his achievements on Wikipedia. This might have influenced the admin to give more weight to his opinion. But as I mentioned above, his behaviour with me doesn't seem to have come from an experienced user. He violated WP:civility while accusing me of meat puppetry, violated WP:HOUNDING in reverting me on Rajput page here and violated WP:NPOV while making remarks like this and this on Talk: Prithviraj Chauhan.

• Topic banning me from caste-related articles can be a big loss for our encyclopedia as caste-related articles were my main interest. Banning me would only give opportunity to some users to continue with their POV editing. Since a long time, I have been accusing users like Heba Aisha and LukeEmily of POV editing. Its hardly 2 hours that I have been banned and these two users have already begun their work of restoring caste articles to their prefferred versions citing a typical excuse that User: Shinjoya (myself) has been banned. In this edit to Rajput page, User:Heba Aisha has restored the version dated 2 December 2020. Due to this edit of hers, the hard work put in by various editors in last six months goes in vain. This was the reason for their desperation to get me banned. They consider caste-related articles as their own property. Such users will spoil the caste-related articles. In my absence, there would be hardly anyone to look after their POV edits.

So, on the grounds of above mentioned points, I humbly request admins to reconsider their decision of banning me. Shinjoya (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In support of lifting the ban from Shinjoya, I am proposing this as I saw the recent edits of users @LukeEmily and @HebaAisha on Rajput page, I am familiar with works of both these users and I found these users as violating WP:POV on Rajput by constantly adding one sided view with purpose of demeaning the community/caste. I tried to oppose them but as I don't have much free time for long discussion on wikipedia, @HebaAisha engaged me on various placed and I had to leave for some time leaving the page to their one sided view. I suppose @Shinjoya did good work in maintaining balance on the said wiki page and as these guys proposed a topic ban on him, and as soon as he got banned they undid all the edits which were earlier made by some users including @Shinjoya. For the sake of neutrality, on Rajput where such controversial one sided PoV could only be added after due discussion, do lift ban from @shinjoya. So that balanced view could be maintained on that page. Either that or topic ban @Heba Aisha and @Luke Emily for constant WP:PoV Violations, so that a user who wants to improve wikipedia, can do it with peace of mind. Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• My reasoning for this tban is primarily based on Shinjoya's participation in that discussion itself, which included an excessive amount of badgering including a frivolous, ill-fated counter-boomerang proposal to tban Heba Aisha. They have not adequately responded to concerns raised by Fowler&Fowler, choosing instead to term concerns raised by F&F as harassment and hounding, although they fall well short of that as far as I have seen. There was enough discussion of potentially tbanning Shinjoya that I felt comfortable implementing it as a community ban, although had that not been the case I would likely have implemented a similar ban as a DS action under WP:ARBIPA._signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If my proposal to ban Heba Aisha was an ill-fated counter boomerang, then so was her proposal for banning me. She demanded it first despite being aware that the boomerang was against User: Ratnahastin and I was just a voter there. You say that the concern of Fowler&fowler was not properly answered by me. How can I respond if someone starts accusing me of POV editing without quoting a single example (diff)? I termed his edit in Rajput as WP:HOUNDING because he provided a lousy edit summary and upon reversion, he neither edited the page again nor showed interest in discussing it at talk page; he had just made that edit to disturb me (which is the very definition of WP:HOUNDING). As I said earlier, the opinion of User:Fowler&fowler was given more weightage while at the same time, I too had accused User:Heba Aisha and User:LukeEmily of making POV edits quoting names of multiple articles, but my point was left unheard. And within 2 hours of my TBAN, User:Heba Aisha reverted the Rajput page to a six month old version which clearly indicates something wrong in her intent. Now she has done a similar edit in Bhonsle page. Please take a note of this. Shinjoya (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. POV editing that either promotes or denigrates any caste is deeply disruptive and I am in favor of imposing swift indefinite topic bans on any offenders. Shinjoya's conduct in that ANI discussion made it clear that they need to be removed from the caste topic area. Trying to appeal the topic ban so rapidly is a strong indication that they just don't get it. Stating caste-related articles were my main interest is a big red flag because we do not need editors who are obsessed with caste. Shinjoya should spend at least six months or preferably a year making productive contribution in topic areas other than caste. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a battleground for caste warriors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If stating that caste is my main interest raises eyebrows, then why does Wikipidea have these caste-related articles at all? If they exist, that means they are meant for editing. So, I don't think I said anything wrong by stating the caste is my main area of interest. Please check edit contributions of User:Heba Aisha and User:LukeEmily. They hardly edit any articles other than caste-related. They should also be banned using this logic. And as I said earlier, I challenge this accusation of doing POV editor. I always provide a proper and valid edit summary wherever necessary unlike some other users like Heba Aisha who reverts to six month old version saying "this is better version". Shinjoya (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

These caste articles should be edited primarily by people who are entirely neutral about castes, relying on the highest quality modern academic sources. The other editors you mention have not been topic banned. You are topic banned and so it is your editing which is under scrutiny. As for your edit summaries, I see many edits that you have made in recent months without an edit summary. If you want this topic ban lifted, then you should edit productively and uncontroversially in other areas for at least six months or longer, and then convince the community that the chance of you being disruptive in the caste topic area is zero. Right now, I am completely unconvinced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I'd ask that you look at what I just posted in response to the evidence presented by LukeEmily, whose claims of pov-pushing at the original ANI thread (unsupported by evidence) are one of the reasons why we're here. [1] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• You know what? Support unban but immediately open a thread on whether to topic ban Shinjoya. There wasn't any evidence presented against Shinjoya at the original thread. It was procedurally unfair to boomerang on someone who hasn't had any actual evidence presented against them and just made a bad statement at AN/I, given that it's pretty clear that the discussion to tban Shinjoya was mostly based on Shinjoya's editing in the area not on their AN/I comments. I'm not saying that boomeranging against someone who participates is wrong, but there should be actual evidence presented during the discussion about said person's behaviour or a consensus that their participation at the AN/I thread was "bad enough" to show they need a topic ban. The only evidence is that people who Shinjoya had interacted with made claims that he acted badly. None of those claims were supported by diffs. And Shinjoya's behaviour that I can see at the thread they linked doesn't meet the standard of "bad enough" I'd like to see for an indef. And in response to Rosguill, imposing as a community authorized decision doesn't make sense as the community didn't support to ban Shinjoya on the basis of what he said at the t-ban proposal but on the basis that they're a pov-pusher. I think it's important that we reopen this and examine this specific user's contributions in detail before giving them a t-ban from an area they've edited in since 2018 [2]. Even though AN/I isn't a legal system it's unfair to give someone a t-ban when they haven't been given the opportunity to see & refute the evidence against them (no diffs) and I think we can do better than that. Especially when the consensus to tban Shinjoya was pretty weak. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya needs to note that they're unlikely to get other editors banned from the area. They tried that and failed. Continuing to do so is an issue and they've already mentioned they were involved in a content dispute with certain people. This will be likely be weighted by any people closing this discussion. I supported an unban because not enough evidence of bad behaviour was shown at the previous AN/I thread, but I'll change that if evidence of bad behaviour is posted or created here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I am not trying to get any other users banned. If they continue to make false accusations on me, then I will be forced to show the other side of coin. As I said, these 3-4 users like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and Fowler&fowler should not be allowed to participate in this discussion as it would only make the things lengthy. Shinjoya (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya: Here's the problem. That isn't going to work here. This is an appeal for your t-ban. Trying to get someone else banned during your own appeal is just going to make people look at this thread, think "yep he really has a bone to pick with these editors", and ignore the thread. This includes bringing up evidence of their actions, this is going to obscure the point you're trying to make and cause people to ignore you. If you want to say that these people are making false accusations then drill down into their diffs (as you did; please indent next time though it's a pain to read) and explain calmly why the diffs aren't good evidence that you deserved a t-ban or alternatively note that no diffs have been provided. I'd also like you to note that I'm not supporting you because I believe you were "right" or that this is a black and white dispute. A lot of your behaviour is problematic as well (although not to the point of a t-ban). You need more descriptive edit summaries whenever possible (try citing policy) and sometimes you need to cut your losses when you're involved in content disputes. You tried to change the lede of Rajput to your preferred version several times, notably changing the definition from "cluster of castes" to reference it being a singular "caste". People disagreed with you and the weak consensus is that the current version of the lede is the appropriate version. It doesn't matter if you're right anymore, the community has decided that you're wrong. You need to move on because there's practically no chance that the article is going to call "Rajput" a singular caste in the near-future and continuing to try to change the lede after many people have agreed that you're wrong is disruptive. The only reason why I don't think that's good enough evidence for a t-ban is because I'm hoping that kind of behaviour is something isolated to just that particular dispute and it's a weak consensus not really written on the talk page. Move on, that kind of behaviour will get you banned. And stop removing content as a first option; it's often better to try to change the content into something new that fixes the issues you see. This avoids disputes and more importantly demonstrates to the community that you have a collaborative mindset, so if you get dragged back to AN or ANI you can show more clearly that you don't have a conduct issue. Your removals are usually justified under WP:BRD but you can do better than that. It doesn't matter if other people don't want to follow this standard; people will examine your behaviour at ANI or AN and if your behaviour isn't stellar in the topic area not many people will care about how other people have behaved. I don't believe this is right and my comments at AN reflect that but that's the way things work so you should adopt the mindset of "being better" so to speak.

In addition to the previous, you should really consider using the WP:RFC mechanism in the future when you are involved in a dispute with other editors that you can't resolve by discussion. When you start an RfC, a robot sends out messages to random groups of editors alerting them of the RfC and inviting them to participate, as well as posting the RfC to a central noticeboard. This'll get you opinions from around Wikipedia, not from people who are heavily involved in editing caste articles. You should be aware that you need to resolve the dispute into a single yes or no question first (or at least a question with 4 options or less), and that when you start the RfC the wording has to be completely neutral with respect to the dispute (you have to put your opinion as a comment on the RfC). If you're unsure ask someone else e.g. me. If it turns out you screwed up the RfC you likely won't get sanctioned because you asked for help. You shouldn't start too many RfCs either, only do it for something that's actually important. Also note that once an RfC happens and ends with consensus on an issue, that's it. The issue is resolved. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 07:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chess, As you mentioned that "cluster of caste" edit twice, I would like to clarify that on getting familiar with MOS:FIRST, I proposed the change on talk page first on 26 May, then only I changed the lead on 31 May. I got no opposition views till then and even by today, no one has expressed opposition to it in that talk page thread. So, I think this can be considered a consensus. I don't know why LukeEmily always cite my similar edits of 2017 and 2018 when he has no point to express in the relavant thread. Shinjoya (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:

Here is partial evidence to show deletion of negative sourced content, misrepresenting sources etc.

The pattern I have noticed in Shinjoya's edits is that once his removals are reverted, he waits and tries again. Secondly, he removes well sourced content under the pretext of WP:UNDUE or makes a comment on the talk page and writes "removing as per discussion on talk page" even though others disagree. He has a tendency to call some western sources "hoax". He even questions the veracity of respected sources like Dr.Gordon who has been supported and quoted by numerous other sources. The other way he has removed sourced material is to put a after a source and then wiping out the long standing content after a few days giving the excuse of "quote not available". The following are examples:

1. [3]: Blanking out a 1992 University of California source and a 2014 Oxford University source that discusses alcoholism in the Rajput community. He could have moved it to another parallel section but he chose to blank out the hard work of other editors. He has tried to remove this couple of years back and did it again in 2021.

2. [4] Removal of a sentence mentioning Shudra from the start of the section as well as other edits(cluster of castes - please see 3) that were explained to him by admin.

3.Persistantly try removing "Rajput cluster of castes" removal despite being reverted and explained the issue by admin. Hoping to push his POV for several years without involving original admin.

Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste", administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted.

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [5] [6]

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [7] reverted by admin here [8]

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times. [9]

I believe he will continue trying until someone does not object - is it WP:STONEWALL?

On the Maratha page, he has been trying to divorce them from their well sourced Kunbi origin.

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. [10]

5.Another removal of another well sourced section. [11] Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

6. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times. [12] [13]]

7. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

A large number of sources mention Kunbi - see Maratha_(caste)#Origin that has a number of sources mentioning Kunbi, Shepherd etc.. But he removed those words from the lede.

a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added "quotation needed tag" [14] and then removes the sources content a few days later.[15]. Note that the quotations are available.

b. Heba rightly reverts all removals [16] explaining on the talk page [17] she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing". c. Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic. He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page. [18] and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it(their origin) will always be a puzzle etc.".

8. He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page. Would the Indian Government separate soldiers by caste in the 21st century? Are those soldiers really of the Maratha caste to be added on a caste page?

9. Attempts to date back the origin of the Maratha caste by misrepresenting sources:

Gordon[] and others like Eraly[], etc have clarified that the word Maratha before 1600 simply meant resident of Maharashtra.

Also see [19] But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 " It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense."

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. [20]. Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all! Honestly, I find Shinjoya's attitude, counter attacks and edits much more worrisome than Ratnahastin.LukeEmily (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, You are trying to label my general edits as POV. I will now respond to all your questions one by one:

[21]: Blanking out a 1992 University of California source and a 2014 Oxford University source that discusses alcoholism in the Rajput community. He could have moved it to another parallel section but he chose to blank out the hard work of other editors. He has tried to remove this couple of years back and did it again in 2021.

False claim. I never removed any content pertaining to Rajput alcoholism. I removed the Diet section citing its irrelevance. It was based on Raj era writing and had no relevance today. On being reverted, the matter was taken to talk page and there, you yourself agreed to the removal of Diet section and proposed the content to be shifted to "British section" here. So, the matter got sort out after our discussion and now you are alleging it to be a POV edit.

[22] Removal of a sentence mentioning Shudra from the start of the section as well as other edits(cluster of castes - please see 3) that were explained to him by admin.

Here, I made a revert to Heba Aisha's edit in which she reverted three edits from two different editors claiming that there is a consensus on "it" here. I found this edit summary as inappropriate for obvious reasons and hence reverted it. You claim it as a POV but Heba Aisha should have avoided a flawed edit summary.

3.Persistantly try removing "Rajput cluster of castes" removal despite being reverted and explained the issue by admin. Hoping to push his POV for several years without involving original admin.

Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste", administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted.

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [23] [24]

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [25] reverted by admin here [26]

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times. [27]

How does changing a complex definition like cluster of castes to a simple one be considered as POV? Why do you think its POV? I didn't edit war in 2017, 2018. I made edits on finding that there were no sufficient citations to support the definition. When provided citations by Utcursch, I got convinced. I didn't do any edit warring. If I was edit warring, why didn't admin Utcursch warn me? In 2021, I got aware of the MOS:FIRST. So, I proposed the first lead line on talk page here and updated the first lead line. My proposal to first lead line has got no opposition whatsoever.

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. [28]

I found that some non-notable issue was discussed in the section which was a dispute between two individuals. Hence, I removed it as per WP:UNDUE. If you were not convinced, you should have discussed the matter which you didn't. This implies that you too agreed with my edit, but now terming it as POV edit.

5.Another removal of another well sourced section. [29] Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

I removed the section as per talk page. An IP editor raised concern about the section here. Considering his concern as genuine, I removed the section. You were inactive on wikipedia in those days. As soon as you returned, you restored the section. Then, the matter was discussed by us in the same thread. I haven't removed the section from the day you restored it. Then how can there be a POV angle? Much of the quotations to the sources were provided by you later on. Initially, there were a very few. Thats why I initially suspected that the section can be a hoax as I wasn't able to find too many sources to prove casteist colour to the event, which I discussed with you on talk page. You are bringing very minute content disputes here, which is nothing but nitpicking.

6. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times. [30] [31]]

Already explained removal of Susan Bayly source here. He couldn't provide any significant material on "origin of Bhonsle" subject. Thats why I removed it. And you seemed to have no objection to my explanation. And now, you are referring it as POV edit.

7. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

A large number of sources mention Kunbi - see Maratha_(caste)#Origin that has a number of sources mentioning Kunbi, Shepherd etc.. But he removed those words from the lede.

a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added "quotation needed tag" [32] and then removes the sources content a few days later.[33]. Note that the quotations are available.

Heba rightly reverts all removals [34] explaining on the talk page [35] she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing".

I edited Maratha article for the first time on 10 May 2021. Now, see yourself the version of 9 May 2021. The Stewart Gordon's source which support the first lead line in this version was not even cited as source for the line. Gordon's source was cited at some other place of article. Now, you can't expect me to read the entire article to find the apt source. The first lead line was wrongly cited. So, I did nothing wrong in removing it.

c. Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic.He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page. [36] and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it(their origin) will always be a puzzle etc.".

We don't give undue weightage to a single source when other sources don't directly support it. Opinion of a lone writer cannot be written as a general statement without attribution and that too, in lead section. We discussed the matter here. You said on 31 May 2021 that you will come back with more sources which support Gordon's statement. But you are yet to provide any till date.

8. He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page. Would the Indian Government separate soldiers by caste in the 21st century? Are those soldiers really of the Maratha caste to be added on a caste page?

Maratha Light Infantry is named after Maratha caste and it recruits majorly from Marathas. Hence, I added the image in the relevant section. You raised no objection at that time but now referring it as POV.

9. Attempts to date back the origin of the Maratha caste by misrepresenting sources:

Gordon[] and others like Eraly[], etc have clarified that the word Maratha before 1600 simply meant resident of Maharashtra.

Also see [37] But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense.

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. [38]. Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all! Honestly, I find Shinjoya's attitude, counter attacks and edits much more worrisome than Ratnahastin.

I found the content related to Marathe as relevant to the article, hence added it. I didn't add Novetzke alone, but also added two Indian writers who claimed a Maratha origin of Yadava dynasty. As you have a point, you can simply remove the source. As far as Noverzke's self dismissal of usage of the term for caste designation is concerned, you can see that full preview was not available in Gbook citation. I couldn't even access the clarification line which you have presented now.

You are just trying to exaggerate minor content disputes some of which, you didn't even object previously.

I too found some serious POV issues in your editing in Khatri. You fabricated the source twice. Firstly, you did this edit to add Marathi language in infobox. On finding the source, I found that it does not say anything like that. Then you made this edit to prove that Khatris live in Maharashtra. On cross-cheking, I found that it rather says that Khatris live in Delhi. You did this fabrication twice to restore content pertaining to Koshti caste in Khatri. This proves that you have a strong POV of portraying forward castes as Shudra backward castes to degrade them.Shinjoya (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, Are you serious?Minor content disputes ? You have blanked out entire negative sections that were sourced and misrepresented the caste. Also, Khatri are an advanced and literate caste unlike the Rajputs. My Khatri edit was correct. The source talks about their ritual status not about their advancement. I don't know what you mean by "you have a strong POV of portraying forward castes as Shudra backward people". I have studied Sanskritization which discusses origins of many castes. Khatris are not backward, in fact, Iravati Karve considered them as an advanced caste in her study. Shudra and backward are different. I never said they are backward. And I am only interested in fixing puffery found on caste pages. The non-Brahmin castes from the Bhadralok were also considered Shudra at times as they did not follow Vedic practices but they are quite advanced, same is true with the Bunts(they worshipped non-Vedic dieties) - so are the editors such as Sitush and others who added some sources that state Shudra on these advanced (non-peasant) castes also interested in showing all forward castes backward? And what fabrication? Khatris have been studied in Maharashtra by anthropologists. It is a fact that only a few castes were allowed to study Vedas due to the strict ritual system in Maharashtra. And the source says In Maharashtra , the Khatri have different subgroups , such as Brahmo Khatri , Gujarathi Khatri , Kapur Khatri , Sahashtrarjun Khatri , Surthi . So where is the fabrication? The quote about Khatris is cited in Vijaya Gupchup's book - she is a PhD and a historian. Is she also interested in showing forward castes Shudra? As far as Rajputs were concerned, they were backward and illiterate even in the Raj era (as per the academic sources, this is not my personal opinion), but the Khatris in Maharashtra were advanced but still treated a ritually low in the 19th century. This is a historical fact. Personally, I consider Khatri an advanced caste but Rajput as a backward community. But please understand that I am not putting my personal opinions and am simply citing sources. If you have opposing sources, you are free to quote them. Have I ever removed any sourced content (unlike you)? You seem to be engaging in personal attacks and second guessing intentions of editors. Most of my sources are carefully chosen and I always choose the best academic sources I can find as they are the most neutral. If you have opposing views, you need to produce sources instead of criticizing intentions. I am sorry to say that the academics have not been very flattering to the peasant castes. This might be because of their treatment of women, illiteracy, female infanticide, riots, and so on. These topics are of interest. Do you know that in the University of Toronto historians have studied Rajput Banditry in the British era and there are papers on it - but not a whisper on Wikipedia.LukeEmily (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @LukeEmily: I'm starting to think there's more to this than there first appears. Phrases like "Khatri are an advanced and literate caste unlike the Rajputs" are concerning. Are you trying to say that all Rajputs are currently unadvanced and illiterate? That's a rather broad statement that encompasses many groups of people. Shinjoya needs to ditch the "clusters of castes" dispute; it's clear consensus is that the Rajputs are a cluster of castes and constantly trying to overturn that consensus is going to be seen as disruptive. But other points are legitimate and don't seem to be clearly POV-pushing. The fifth diff you mentioned at [39] appears to be based on a request from an IP editor. He replied to that, said he agreed, waited a while for anyone else to comment, and then removed the section. Then you reverted and a discussion was had on the talk page. Shinjoya appeared to have a valid argument; they examined several reliable sources and only one source mentioned the Maratha was responsible for these riots. [40] In cases as hotly contested as caste-based riots asking for more than one reliable source is likely a good idea. And if this detail is so important that the Maratha was responsible, why don't more sources discuss it?
• For your fourth diff [41], I think it's debatable whether or not including that particular incident is WP:UNDUE . There have likely been thousands of inter-caste incidents in the Indian subcontinent's history. The sources that covered the incident were all news sources from the same few days in 2017 when the incident occured, except for the EPW source which is claimed to be from 2015 which is logically impossible given the event happened in 2017. I think there's a legitimate NOTNEWS argument to be made here.
• The sixth diff you've provided [42] about the claim that Bhonsles originated from the Kanbi and Marathas is also interesting. Shinjoya removed the sentence because "the source fails to give any conclusion about the original caste of clan". Reading the excerpt of the source provided, the source says that "the Bhonsles are thought to have originated among the large, amorphous populations of non-Muslim Deccani tiller-plainsmen who had come to be known by the names Kanbi and Maratha" (emphasis mine). The source then goes on to explain that they weren't "formally castelike in the modern sense". The sources doesn't seem to make a firm conclusion here that the Bhonsles originated from these specific castes, rather that the Bhonsles originated from the group of people that later turned into those castes. While Shinjoya should have rephrased, he raises an interesting point that was not addressed by the people that reverted him. It's also interesting that the mass reversion edit summaries state that Shinjoya should discuss their edits on the talk page prior to making them. [43] Shinjoya actually brought up the specific Bhonsle issue on the talk page after the reversion [44] but you didn't bother to address that, instead saying "I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month."
• For your 7th issue, the quotation needed tag was validly placed. There was no quote from the source in question included in the reference. [45] You claim that quotations are available, so why not include one to address the issue? You also say Heba provided the quote that Shinjoya said was missing. [46] Actually looking at the diffs, Shinjoya was requesting a quote from the Jaffrelot source (the only one in the lede sentence at the time). The quote Heba provided is from a different source written by Stewart Gordon that wasn't inline at in the lede sentence at the time Shinjoya requested the quote. [47] Now, cutting out the lede is a stupid way to resolve this. But there is a valid point here; the Gordon source should have been referenced in the lede sentence. It's weird to call this POV-pushing and rather misleading to say that the quote was included.
• Also on the seventh issue, you appear to be misconstruing the point Shinjoya was making. Shinjoya wasn't saying that Gordon was unreliable nor did Shinjoya argue against the content of the book. Shinjoya was making the argument that a) the Gordon book is the only citation for the lede sentence's claims and the article gave it UNDUE weight and b) the Gordon source says that the Maratha is a "category of caste".[48] Note the quotation explicitly calls the Maratha a "category of caste". The source doesn't claim that the different groups of people have been amalgamated into a single caste known as the "Maratha". This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not POV-pushing. I would say that you might actually be the person doing original research here, given that you continued to claim that "Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time." when that doesn't actually appear to be supported by the source. I'll also note that Heba actually accused Shinjoya of vandalism during this discussion because Shinjoya didn't use the template "need quotation to verify", despite Shinjoya clearly using that template and waiting before making their change. [49]
• On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [50], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [51] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.
• On the ninth issue I don't even understand what the issue is. Shinjoya is saying that the first time the word "Marathe" as a term of self-identification was used was in the thirteenth century. [52] This could be interpreted as implying that "Maratha" as a caste existed in the thirteenth century. Sure, whatever, that's a real stretch. It certainly isn't pov-pushing it's a possibly ambiguous edit that you could've easily clarified by adding something in the first part of the section that "Maratha" as a caste didn't emerge until whatever year. The other diff [53] I can't actually understand what your issue is.
• Your claims are weak and were actually falsified at one point. Shinjoya needs to stop trying to claim that the Rajput are a singular caste and their general editing leaves something to be desire. But a lot of the other editors here aren't angels either and none of the diffs you've presented actually show Shinjoya behaving disruptively. I think taking you at your word in the original ANI discussion was an error on the part of Rosguill given that you've just shown here that you're willing to fabricate events that never occurred. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chess, I will answer all points one by one. I am really surprised that you did not find him disruptive even though he has blanked out sections. Some of your analysis is incorrect - that is because you have not seen the history of the edits. I also request you to look at the edits once more to get a full picture rather than cherry picked talk page summaries that he pointed out. You have probably not seen the sequence of edits and I request you to directly look at the edit sequence as I feel his reply is misleading. Second, his accusations about Khatri are wrong. As far as advanced is concerned, I never said that all Rajputs are illiterate. I meant that in the post Independence classification by Karve and based on my reading there still existed a lot of Rajput groups with low literacy whereas Khatris were generally advanced. I could not care less if it was the opposite. I was simply stating what I had gathered from my reading. I guess I could have avoided saying that as it was unnecessary, and I apologize. The point is that him calling my Khatri edit "fabricated", although it was well sourced really got to me. And I have not fabricated anything. Can you at least be fair and allow me to respond point by point before giving your verdict and calling me a "liar"? This is really outrageous.LukeEmily (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily Discussing whether or not Khatri are superior to Rajputs in terms of "advancement" or literacy is out of scope here. The specific way you phrased it makes it sound like you were stereotyping Rajputs. I'm glad you said that that wasn't your intention, but you did generalize the Rajputs as a whole as not being literate and spoke negatively about them in your comment. That wasn't necessary to address the point Shinjoya was making and I'm glad you recognized that it wasn't. I think there was a lack of communication in the dispute up above. Looking at the diffs, it looks like in the first instance the language source was to a different volume and page of the work that you've referenced here and might not support the language issue (couldn't check it out). Looking into the second diff, the page number you provided appears to be the Google Books pagenumber. I was able to easily check it out, see [54] for anyone else, but at the same time I noticed "Khatris in Delhi" appears on Google Books page number 1724. [55] Looking further, it looks like right before those diffs you posted you said "Khatri, as far as I know is an educated/advanced caste unlike the Rajputs." [56] in a talk page discussion as a reply to Shinjoya using an example of some communities possibly putting the name "Rajput" after their name as a reason why other communities might put the word "Khatri" after their name. This could be easily interpreted as an insult as it implies that communities in India wouldn't want to be associated with the term "Rajput" as they're not "educated/advanced". I think there's a chance this might've pissed Shinjoya off, leading them to remove Marathi from the languages part of the infobox (maybe justified) thinking that you added it, along with the short sentence that you actually just added given that they're both cited to the same collection of books but differ in volume and page number. Then during the second removal he might've flipped to the wrong page, thought "this guy is obviously acting in bad faith" and did the revert. Probably why he's saying you fabricated that now. This wasn't an appropriate action on Shinjoya's part. He was wrong and should have gotten warned for that and I'd appreciate it if Shinjoya would acknowledge that they were wrong in that dispute and retract the claim of fabricating quotes (i.e. apologize). But at the same time would you be willing to acknowledge that the comment you made about Rajputs not being educated/advanced wasn't appropriate either? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chess, I already apologized for the "Khatri advanced and Rajput are not" comment in my previous edit. I know it is irrelevant here and I will remove it shortly. Chess, I believe you did the analysis in good faith but I strongly think it is incorrect and I will prove it with evidence. I feel you did not look at the complete picture of sequence or perhaps you need more details or perhaps because you do not have a background of the subject matter. As mentioned before, I will respond and and show you the obvious inaccuracies in your analysis but even before I do that I want to first address this outrageous comment from you.

Comment by chess: On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [106], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [107] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.- [comment by Chess] Response by LE: Sigh. So WRONG. Chess,no, *YOU* are calling people names with incorrect evidence. The diff is [57] and not the one you assumed. I specifically said "Indian Soldiers* This is a 2018 parade of the Republic day of India showing Indian soldiers. It has nothing to do with the photo of the soldier that you are discussing. Please can you not jump to conclusions and not using words like bs on ANI and calling people names like liars based on false evidence?CC:Rosguill? This alone convinces me that Chess's analysis and conclusion is so wrong. Chess, you did not ask for clarification before calling me names and now I have just proven that you falsely called me a liar on ANI. I am sure you are aware that unlike Rajput empire where most of the warriors/rulers were Rajput, the Maratha empire had several castes participating on the battlefield and in administration . The Peshwas were of the Brahmin caste. Soon I will post a point by point response to your other good-faith but IMO incorrect conclusions. Will the Indian government name an army section based on a single caste or an empire? Is it possible none of those soldiers are Maratha? Yes, it is possible. Maybe they are all Brahmins. Maybe they are all Muslims or all Christians or (more likely) a mix of all people of all religions who want to serve their country. Why are they relevant to a caste? Best Wishes,LukeEmily (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to a different comment you left on another talk page a little while ago that could be interpreted as expressing anti-Rajput, not this discussion. I believe that diff was a key reason why that dispute blew up and that you should try to refrain from expressing your views on Rajput literacy or advancement in the future given the ease at which it can be misinterpreted and the diversity of that group. w/r/t Maratha soldiers I am very surprised that's the diff you were referring to. I didn't look far enough into the page history, clearly, nor did I consider edits that you did not appear to be involved in a dispute about. I apologize for that and have struck my eighth point. I still don't understand how the soldier photo was POV pushing or anything justifying a t-ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 10:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:, Before I give a response to the others, please can you also redact ... were actually falsified at one point....I think taking you at your word in the original ANI discussion was an error on the part of Rosguill given that you've just shown here that you're willing to fabricate events that never occurred. as it was based on 8th unless you think there is another fabrication. I do not mind if you feel the claim is weak or even if you feel he is not disruptive. That is a subjective opinion. But I strongly object to the word "fabrication" or "falsified" as I have not falsified nor fabricated anything as explained earlier. I am also not anti-Rajput or anti any caste or anti any religious group. I am not interested in Indian politics either in my personal life. Rosguill clarified that he enforced the ban based on Shinjoya's behavior(I think) not based on my allegations. Chess, I feel you might have a change of heart once I explain more point by point and give some context and background.LukeEmily (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: You said :But I strongly object to the word "fabrication" or "falsified" as I have not falsified nor fabricated anything as explained earlier.

You fabricated or falsified things while presenting diffs which you describe as "evidence" against me.

• You presented this and claimed that I removed content on Rajput alcoholism while I didn't.

• You presented this and claimed that I removed term "Shudra" while it was originally removed by Ratnahastin citing repitition of content. I just reverted a mass revert from Heba Aisha because her mass revert had undid my edits too.

• You presented this and claimed that I edit warred with an admin while I didn't.

• You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation.

All your allegations against me are blatant lies. They are based on falsehood and made in bad faith. Shinjoya (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya:, 'Your responses are blatant lies and I will prove it with evidence. Let me respond one by one to the above. (BTW, I am still waiting for your apology to your Khatri lies on ANI. Even Chess asked you to admit it.).

Let me take them one by one.

Alcohol: Shinjoya says "You presented this and claimed that I removed content on Rajput alcoholism while I didn't"

LE RESPONSE:You *DID* remove a comment mentioning alcoholism by Harlan - not only the content but also the source with the quote - not once but twice!

Here in 2018: [58] Here your summary was: Undid revision 866500039 by MarkH1995 (talk) the said section isn't about any domestic abuse. The cited refs are based on commentaries made centuries ago and hence obsolete in context of diet. How can they be used to state that most Rajputs of today eat non-veg, smoke beetle leaves and consume alcohol?

The sources you removed and the quote was this "Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition"

After this edit, you removal was reverted by an editor in 2018.

Again in 2021, you removed that University of California Press here:

[59]

Again you were reverted. The quote and source you removed was Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition.""

Your removal was re-added again by Heba here [60]

Did you remove the quote and the source by Lindsey Harlon on alcoholism or not? After your edit, it was gone from wikipedia until it was re-added by others.

Shudra removalShinjoya says:"You presented this and claimed that I removed term "Shudra" while it was originally removed by Ratnahastin citing repitition of content. I just reverted a mass revert from Heba Aisha because her mass revert had undid my edits too."

LE: WP:OWN , so you do admit here that you removed it. Thank you. It is irrelevant who did it originally and you just backed him and did a mass edit. BTW, you have often quoted WP:OWN so I find your comment hypocritical.

Edits about cluster of castes :Shinjoya says: you claimed that I edit warred with an admin while I didn't

RESPONSE by LE: Your obsession across the years to remove "cluster of castes" despite being reverted and explained by admin is evidence enough. Even Chess pointed out to you. The diff/talk is on Rajput page. I dont want to repeat it.

Quote from Gordon: Shinjoya says:You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation.

LE RESPONSE: Has this not been explained many times already? You removed Gordon's text here :[61] . The quote is nothing to do with Jaffrelot but is Gordon's[62]. Moreover, the lede section and the Kunbi, Shepherd etc was well backed by the origin and Varna section. There does not need to be any citation in the lede although it was there as clear as day.

general comment': Shinjoya, I think you are getting caught in your own lies. The bottom line, as others have also noticed is that your behavior is disruptive because you *do* remove sourced content that you find negative.LukeEmily (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: I would say your claims are highly misleading in most of those cases (especially your eighth point). Regardless I struck that "fabrication" out as I can't say you actually lied. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 04:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Responding to LukeEmily's above comment directed at me: Your series of lies continue. Let me respond to your lies once more:

LE RESPONSE:You *DID* remove a comment mentioning alcoholism by Harlan - not only the content but also the source with the quote - not once but twice! Here in 2018: [63] Here your summary was: "Undid revision 866500039 by MarkH1995 (talk) the said section isn't about any domestic abuse. The cited refs are based on commentaries made centuries ago and hence obsolete in context of diet. How can they be used to state that most Rajputs of today eat non-veg, smoke beetle leaves and consume alcohol?

Again wrong. In your original post, you presented my 2021 edit. On being proven that you are lying, now you have come up with my 2018 edit. My edit was directed towards the Diet section. And if it contained content pertaining to alcoholism, then it was wrong on the part of person who added it in Diet section at first. Btw, why is Rajput alcoholism so dear to you? You pushing to keep it is itself a POV. How many other Indian caste articles have such sections?

Again in 2021, you removed that University of California Press here: [64] Again you were reverted. The quote and source you removed was Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition."" Your removal was re-added again by Heba here [65] Did you remove the quote and the source by Lindsey Harlon on alcoholism or not? After your edit, it was gone from wikipedia until it was re-added by others.

This 2021 edit of mine was also directed towards Diet section only. It was reverted , then discussed in which you also somewhat agreed to my concern. Its a general practice to remove the attached citations when content is removed. Its not my duty to find an appropriate line where the citation can be fitted. Stop calling removal of citations as disruptive. Not all people in this world are jobless. Some things can better be left for other users who have more spare time.

Shudra removalShinjoya says:"You presented this and claimed that I removed term "Shudra" while it was originally removed by Ratnahastin citing repitition of content. I just reverted a mass revert from Heba Aisha because her mass revert had undid my edits too." LE: WP:OWN , so you do admit here that you removed it. Thank you. It is irrelevant who did it originally and you just backed him and did a mass edit. BTW, you have often quoted WP:OWN so I find your comment hypocritical.

Already explained in my previous reply that Heba Aisha's mass revert was dubious to core. Her edit summary was flawed. Basic English says that when she was referring to multiple edits, she should have used the term "them" but she said that "we have a consensus on it". Had she used "them" instead of "it", I wouldn't have reverted her at all.

Edits about cluster of castes :Shinjoya says: you claimed that I edit warred with an admin while I didn't RESPONSE by LE: Your obsession across the years to remove "cluster of castes" despite being reverted and explained by admin is evidence enough. Even Chess pointed out to you. The diff/talk is on Rajput page. I dont want to repeat it.

Please stop this obsession with this cluster of caste issue. At present, my explanation is still lying on Talk: Rajput. If you really have any objection, why don't you explain your concern.

Quote from Gordon: Shinjoya says:You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation. LE RESPONSE: Has this not been explained many times already? You removed Gordon's text here :[66] . The quote is nothing to do with Jaffrelot but is Gordon's[67]. Moreover, the lede section and the Kunbi, Shepherd etc was well backed by the origin and Varna section. There does not need to be any citation in the lede although it was there as clear as day.

Another flawed defence to that dubious Gordon's definition. Only his book supported that claim but you were too adamant on keeping it in the very first lead line. As Chess has rightly noted, its nothing but WP:UNDUE.

general comment: Shinjoya, I think you are getting caught in your own lies. The bottom line, as others have also noticed is that your behavior is disruptive because you *do* remove sourced content that you find negative.

Already proven who is the liar here. Shinjoya (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya:, please can you not insert the response between replies?

Did you remove The Lindsay Harlon source and quote and her text about alcoholism in two edits?(yes/no question) My answer is yes. Is your answer no? We can discuss other issues you mentioned - like my obsession with alcohol, whether its diet or not later. Please can you respond to this single question with a yes/no answer? If your answer is yes, please retract your defamatory comment about me. If your answer is no, prove me wrong, and I will accept that I am a liar and impose a 3 month self ban. Sounds fair? I am busy and do not want to spend more time here if you continue to be in denial. I am mostly done here. Best,LukeEmily (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:, I think you mean my diffs and details were not correctly presented? But the main claims by themselves are not misleading. Please see the point about alcohol as an example (just before your last comment). In point 8 I did not provide the diff. As LaundryPizza003 notes about Shinjoya's edits : ...but the evidence presented by LukeEmily shows a pattern of disruptive removal of sourced content and dismissing sources as "hoaxes" (although some diffs and threads weren't linked).. He sums it up perfectly. This is exactly my concern :'"pattern of disruptive removal of sourced content and dismissing sources as "hoaxes"'. Yes, I accept that the diffs and threads were not linked properly and that resulted in your misunderstanding of point 8. Anyways, I have yet to reply to your other points. Please wait for a few hours. Are the points made by NitinMLK misleading too? BTW, are you aware of the general Vandalism and attacks that editors such as Heba and others are facing due to her edits. She has been persistently attacked by Rajput caste people as well as Kayastha caste people(some person named Srivatasav or something like that) because she put the word Shudra on their respective pages. You can check her talk page history and her user page history. Also, are you aware of a facebook groups created for Rajputs to discuss these edits on wikipedia and their comments about how they taught Heba a lesson?Googletranslate will translate them from hindi to english?LukeEmily (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Off wiki coordination to whitewash Rajput caste related articles: As LE pointed out, i m bringing this issue here. There has been numerous attempt by Rajput caste people to glorify the community on wikipedia by forming facebook and twitter handles and groups in past. One such example is this [68], where they are explicitly pointing out the name of mine along with these editors. On my talk page, you will find complaint from various caste people like Yadav, Kayastha and others as i reverted their edits, when they tried to remove negative things about their community. This is similar to the harassment faced by Sitush, who has been editing in this area for decades. When Ratnahastin joined wikipedia, he opened a sockpuppet investigation against me and if someone go through that, they will be amazed to see that , he had a lot of knowledge about my contribution on various wiki projects, even he was trying to bring out my location to the public domain. Similarly, people like Chariotrider555 and LukeEmily were targeted by opening either SPI or any other complaint. Shinjoya later joined Ratnahastin and started removing negative things on malicious grounds. Later he came into conflict with Fowler&Fowler, who is a very experienced editor over his non neutral edits on Rajput. I would like to say, once the ban is lifted you will witness similar disruptive edits on Rajput pages, which are stable and were stable before these editors joined wikipedia. Shinjoya donot have problem with various other images which i added to wiki, his only interest is Rajput related pages and it is interesting to notice that people who are commenting in his support were also in conflict with many editors due to Rajput related pages only. (I am pointing towards Sajaypal007 and Ranadhira. I have edited various caste related pages and it is very rare occurrence that me, Chariotrider555, Fowler&Fowler Sitush and even LE came into contact. My engagement with LE is only due to the Rajput pages, otherwise he is interested in Maharashtra related articles and i edit Bihar related articles. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:

Chess:The fifth diff you mentioned at [95] appears to be based on a request from an IP editor. He replied to that, said he agreed, waited a while for anyone else to comment, and then removed the section. Then you reverted and a discussion was had on the talk page. Shinjoya appeared to have a valid argument; they examined several reliable sources and only one source mentioned the Maratha was responsible for these riots. [96] In cases as hotly contested as caste-based riots asking for more than one reliable source is likely a good idea. And if this detail is so important that the Maratha was responsible, why don't more sources discuss it?

RESPONSE (LE): It is not a valid agreement because there were *multiple existing* sources that were present that mentioned the caste by name. Second, there is no rule that multiple sources are needed for a controversial topic. He called those sources a hoax because he could not find quotes although he admitted that one source where the previous editors had given quotes was valid. Using this logic, I can delete 90% edits on wikipedia. To prevent WP:NPOV, we can always attribute a single opinion to a source - we don't need to delete a section that has 4 sources listed by calling them a hoax. For example, he could have simply moved the section to another area and said according to "Marovitz" Even if it had (hypothetically) only one source, as long as a source is WP:RS and Claude Marovitz (http://humanityjournal.org/author/claude-markovits/ or http://ceias.ehess.fr/index.php?3640) certain is a WP:RS, I do not see a problem. I give you the example of Baidya, where a single (but reliable) is used to cite the text Vaidyas as "one of the highest of the Shudra castes", who possessed "one of the Vedas", the Ayurveda. Is everyone starts demanding two or more WP:RS citations for every controversial topic, will it work? What if the Bengali Baidyas say that this is only one source and hence Shudra is undue? In addition, none of the sources contradicted Marovitz i.e. none of them said they were NOT maratha. Many (if not most) books on Shivaji will not mention the word Shudra for political or practical reasons. Perhaps their focus is on some issues unrelated to caste - like his political acumen- as an example. That does not mean Shudra cannot be added. Having said that, please allow me to reiterate that multiple existing sources at the time of his deletion did mention Maratha. I added an extra source because it mentioned that Brahmins were also targets of attacks in the same riots(not just Marwaris).

Chess:For your fourth diff [97], I think it's debatable whether or not including that particular incident is WP:UNDUE . There have likely been thousands of inter-caste incidents in the Indian subcontinent's history. The sources that covered the incident were all news sources from the same few days in 2017 when the incident occured, except for the EPW source which is claimed to be from 2015 which is logically impossible given the event happened in 2017. I think there's a legitimate NOTNEWS argument to be made here.

RESPONSE (LE): I am not too familiar with such politics and such news but it did look sourced and it is also cited in Economic and Political weekly. I think that 2015 is a typo. But I do not know much about this except that it did look sourced from multiple sources. There is a procedure to argue removal. I cannot put some comment on the talk page one day and remove a ton of sourced content the next day if no one replies in 24 hrs. Yes, it can be argued it is news and could be removed by using an RFC.

Chess:The sixth diff you've provided [98] about the claim that Bhonsles originated from the Kanbi and Marathas is also interesting. Shinjoya removed the sentence because "the source fails to give any conclusion about the original caste of clan". Reading the excerpt of the source provided, the source says that "the Bhonsles are thought to have originated among the large, amorphous populations of non-Muslim Deccani tiller-plainsmen who had come to be known by the names Kanbi and Maratha" (emphasis mine). The source then goes on to explain that they weren't "formally castelike in the modern sense". The sources doesn't seem to make a firm conclusion here that the Bhonsles originated from these specific castes, rather that the Bhonsles originated from the group of people that later turned into those castes. While Shinjoya should have rephrased, he raises an interesting point that was not addressed by the people that reverted him. It's also interesting that the mass reversion edit summaries state that Shinjoya should discuss their edits on the talk page prior to making them. [99] Shinjoya actually brought up the specific Bhonsle issue on the talk page after the reversion [100] but you didn't bother to address that, instead saying "I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month."

RESPONSE( LE): I have no issue with rephrasing something as long as it does not misrepresent source. Interestingly, all such issues come up only for contents that are not flattering. I think the deletion of such a high quality source like Susan Bayly is unwarranted as admin Utcursh has also pointed out on another page.

Chess:For your 7th issue, the quotation needed tag was validly placed. There was no quote from the source in question included in the reference. [101] You claim that quotations are available, so why not include one to address the issue? You also say Heba provided the quote that Shinjoya said was missing. [102] Actually looking at the diffs, Shinjoya was requesting a quote from the Jaffrelot source (the only one in the lede sentence at the time). The quote Heba provided is from a different source written by Stewart Gordon that wasn't inline at in the lede sentence at the time Shinjoya requested the quote. [103] Now, cutting out the lede is a stupid way to resolve this. But there is a valid point here; the Gordon source should have been referenced in the lede sentence. It's weird to call this POV-pushing and rather misleading to say that the quote was included.

RESPONSE: I think you are misunderstanding the quote and context. First, the quotation was *already* on the main page in the lede itself when he deleted the sentence. Heba just copied it from there to the talk page unless I am mistaken. But the quote existed on the ppage and still exists. In fact, it existed even after he deleted the text. I am willing to call this an honest mistake on his part but it is not isolated. The pattern is obvious. The Jaffrelot source is irrelevant there. Not sure why it was there in the first place. But the quote that was removed was present in Gordon's source, irrespective of whether Jaffrelot had the quote or not.

Chess:Also on the seventh issue, you appear to be misconstruing the point Shinjoya was making. Shinjoya wasn't saying that Gordon was unreliable nor did Shinjoya argue against the content of the book. Shinjoya was making the argument that a) the Gordon book is the only citation for the lede sentence's claims and the article gave it UNDUE weight and b) the Gordon source says that the Maratha is a "category of caste".[104] Note the quotation explicitly calls the Maratha a "category of caste". The source doesn't claim that the different groups of people have been amalgamated into a single caste known as the "Maratha". This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not POV-pushing. I would say that you might actually be the person doing original research here, given that you continued to claim that "Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time." when that doesn't actually appear to be supported by the source. I'll also note that Heba actually accused Shinjoya of vandalism during this discussion because Shinjoya didn't use the template "need quotation to verify", despite Shinjoya clearly using that template and waiting before making their change. [105]

RESPONSE(LE): I agree that Vandalism is not the right word to use. But I feel she used it based on the other pattern of edits she observed by Shinjoya. Actually the text, it is supported not only by Gordon but also multiple sources. Please see the quotes from sources in 1)Lede section 2)origin section of Maratha and the 3)Varna section and you will see the quotes by multiple scholars and academics as well as Govt of India, Maratha organizations, the Supreme court etc. The Lede section was only reflecting those words. Hypothetically, even if the Gordon source was unavailable, the lede would still be correct based on the other sources(maybe one or two names of castes could be deleted). Also, when Gordon says "category of caste", he is referring to the second category in which the way Maratha is used (caste sense). The first category is simply people of Maharashtra. Here he says that he is discussing the caste and its formation. Maratha is also used by older historians to denote all Maharashtrians. What Gordon is saying is that these castes Kunbi, dhangar etc. had families who participated in battle and after change in dress and customs and employing genealogists amalgamated into the Maratha caste. He explains this over two pages. This is quite well known by academics (even if we did not have Gordon). There are many other sources that say the same and it is not at all fringe a fringe opinion.

Chess:On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [106], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [107] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.

RESPONSE: You already apologized for this comment and retracted it as your assumption about the diff was incorrect so I will not provide a response here.

Chess:On the ninth issue I don't even understand what the issue is. Shinjoya is saying that the first time the word "Marathe" as a term of self-identification was used was in the thirteenth century. [108] This could be interpreted as implying that "Maratha" as a caste existed in the thirteenth century. Sure, whatever, that's a real stretch. It certainly isn't pov-pushing it's a possibly ambiguous edit that you could've easily clarified by adding something in the first part of the section that "Maratha" as a caste didn't emerge until whatever year. The other diff [109] I can't actually understand what your issue is.

RESPONSE: He is misrepresenting the source by giving partial quote since the source goes on to explicitly say that Marathe is not used in the "caste" sense here. The issue is the same with Sen, Sen also clarifies he is not using the word Maratha in a caste sense. After Shinjoya's edit, any reader will get the impression that the rulers at that time were from the Maratha caste, even though the source is making it clear that the inscription has nothing to do with caste. This is a clear misrepresentation of sources to promote a caste.

RESPONSE: In general, I do believe that there is a pattern of removing negative content. I have no objection if he adds positive content to balance anything he feels is negative but it needs to be WP:RS. WP:PUFFERY should not be achieved by wiping out negative sections that have good academic citations. If his intentions were in good faith, why is it that so much negative content was removed? Why was not a large amount of positive content removed? About pictures, would it be right to show a picture of British soldiers in 2021 to represent catholics in the UK? I have no objection with adding large amount of positive content on any page as long as it is sourced by a WP:RS. In fact, I had added a section on Hospitality of Rajputs ( a very positive trait) until Paul Carpenter removed it later. See [69]. Since "friendliness" is too subjective and no one else objected, I did not add it back after he removed it. To add to what Heba was discussing, I can also point you to this edit by a Rajput editor: [70]

Recreation of article on Rajputs: Concerned people, add your content and mobilise support to de- vandalise articles such as Rajput, Rajputisation, Kshatriyas and Yadav. -User:Aishtomar.

It is interesting that he did not ping anyone. That would happen if there was some communication through the backdoor and he knew they were reading his page. This is clear proof of some collaboration. You will also notice that so called new editors are coming up to edit Rajput pages but they seem to be well versed with most rules of wiki. How to file complains, SPI etc. It makes me wonder if they are really new. Heba and I often disagree. I have no communication with her or any other editor outside wikipedia. And I do not have a private email on wiki, so all my communication is public. And I don't even know her real name. Plus we disagree on some topics. For example, we had some disagreements on the Bhumihar page etc. and I have also disagreed with her and sided with Sanjaypal and Rajput editors about removing the fishermen image from the Rajput pages. Please see my latest edits on the Rajput talk page. I think Heba's prediction is correct. We are going to see a large number of "new" editors on Rajput related pages. You are free to keep your opinion of the evidence being weak. But as editors who frequently interact with these editors, the pattern is very clear and the edits shown by NitinMLK convince me further. Best, LukeEmily (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe you should consider seeking compromise in the future. A lot of these issues could have probably be addressed better before they got to the point of an ANI thread. In your first point, you could've probably have just written in "according to Marovitz" or included multiple citations that specifically mentioned that caste as responsible for the riots. And also, WP:BRD exists. I do it all the time. I do some semi-controversial change, someone reverts it (or nobody does), then a discussion is had. It's only a problem if people constantly revert each other without having discussions or the original WP:BOLD edit doesn't have any justification. Or the edit is about a topic already discussed or very, very controversial. I don't think being bold and removing a section while calling it undue is problematic editing. We don't need an RfC for every issue. A lot of other issues could have been addressed via compromise. The ninth issue comes to mind. Why not just add in a sentence clarifying that the word "Maratha" was not being used in a caste sense? e.g. "the first time the word "Maratha" was used as a self-identification (albeit not in a caste sense) was in..." Shinjoya shouldn't be removing things wholesale but that applies to everyone. Likewise with the seventh issue. Just move the citation upwards so it supports the sentence instead of spending your time arguing about "it's already in the lede!" A citation can be used more than one time in a single article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 00:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose lifting the ban. Shinjoya has been very disruptive as he has been instrumental in removing sourced content that he found negative. Most editors do not have issues when people add sourced content from WP:RS. However, Shinjoya has been involved in removing sourced content from Maratha and Rajput. Please check the history of his edits on these pages or let me know if I should compile a list of his POV edits. As for his/Sanjaypal007's counter-attack, I have never removed anything that is positive and sourced, nor has Heba Aisha(to the best of my knowledge). However, Shinjoya as well as Sanjaypal have tried to remove('blank out') negative sourced material despite it being sourced from high quality academic sources. Please see their edits on the Rajput page and Shinjoya's edits on the Maratha page as well.LukeEmily (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Not again. If users like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 are allowed to vote here, then this discussion is meaningless. They have significant content disputes with me and as I pointed earlier, they would want me banned at any cost. @Admins, please remove the vote of User:LukeEmily from this thread. And in case you decide against removing his vote, then please allow me to present some evidence against User: LukeEmily and User:Heba Aisha so that I can prove their POV editing. Shinjoya (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to introspect as to why so many editors in addition to the ones you mentioned have content disputes with you. The reason is because you are trying to sanitize the Rajput caste articles (as well as Maratha caste articles) by finding some flimsy excuse to remove high quality academic content that portrays the caste negatively.LukeEmily (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have told this a 100 times, that I don't remove any content without providing a valid edit summary. Whenever you people objected, I explained my edits thoroughly on talk page. Read WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because you people are 3 and I am single, it doesn't essentially mean that you are right and I am wrong. Shinjoya (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It also does not mean that you are right and they are wrong. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose lifting the ban. "They found it convenient to get me banned along with User:Ratnahastin". Oh really? You were not T-banned by Heba Aisha, Luke Emily, etc, but by the strength of their arguments. As for time-limited T-bans, I'm almost always against them, and am glad Rosguill placed indefinite bans. The reason for that is that users learn nothing from going away and waiting out a limited ban and then returning to their usual tendentious editing; whereas they may indeed learn something from having to edit constructively in other areas and then making a proper appeal, having demonstrated that they're capable of editing neutrally. The appeal above is not proper or convincing, but a mere attempt to throw shade at others. I suggest you try again in six months, Shinjoya. And please don't forget to edit other areas (and/or other Wikimedia projects) in the meantime. You'll hardly be unbanned without that. Bishonen | tålk 06:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC).

But as Chess has pointed out, not a single evidence has been produced against me till now. Wasn't I banned just because some users demanded so? Shinjoya (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose, me and other editors didn't even filed any complaint at WP:ANI, though we were facing the aggressive behavior of the Ratnahastin and Shinjoya at various caste pages. It was that aggressive behavior that brought them into conflict with Ravensfire, Chariotrider555 and finally Fowler&fowler. The permanent topic ban is a right decision as from the temptation of Shinjoya to edit some particular pages, it is found that he is ready to cause disruption and POV edits once again and can't just contribute in other areas as the admin suggested. NitinMlk, can produce the similar evidences against Shinjoya as currently i am on mobile. (Further, i would request LukeEmily to bring evidence regarding Shinjoya's disruptive edits as a reply to Chess.) Heba Aisha (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my appeal, Heba Aisha has content dispute with me on multiple articles. She appears here again with the same lame accusations. No edit diff has been provided against me whatsoever by any user. @Admins, I request you to not count her vote. Shinjoya (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Arguably, there wasn't a consensus to impose the ban in the first place against this user. The section was about another user, over half those voting named only that editor in their vote, and no evidence was presented against this editor. But to overturn the ban you'd need to get an affirmative consensus saying the initial close was incorrect, and I'm not sure you'll get that. Still, it should've happened as a DS action, and Chess' argument above is most persuasive. I'm not sure if the editor is productive in the topic area, but surely it's for the proponents to evidence that (or convince an admin of such). This just seems like railroading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader , please see my reply to Chess . Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unban I suggest sticking with the topic ban. I took a look at the editor's contributions and they are focused solely on caste, except for many edits that add wikilinks (which are a clear sign of attempting to get to extended confirmed). Shinjoya, you should follow Bishonen's suggestion above, edit meaningfully for six months in other areas to demonstrate that you're not a one agenda editor, and then request an unban. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• In support of lifting the ban from Shinjoya, he is a fairly new user and should be left with a warning and be allowed to improve his style. His work has been mostly to remove the unnecessary negative remarks written on certain Indian castes by a group of people who are probably in contact with each other on a platform other than wiki. Please don't let them bully a user like this. Ranadhira (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Shinjoya should not have been tbanned without evidence, especially in an ANI not concerning them, but the evidence presented by LukeEmily shows a pattern of disruptive removal of sourced content and dismissing sources as "hoaxes" (although some diffs and threads weren't linked). If anything, the hostility toward Shinjoya (esp. by LukeEmily) might be a problem in its own right. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Support lifting of the topic ban from the innocent editor, as the original poster of that ani report i will clarify that proposal was about me and only me other editors have unnecessarily dragged Shinjoya into it without a bit of evidence (is commenting oppose against the flow a sin?) there was not single bit of evidence or diff presented about Shinjoya, other than bunch of bad faith WP:ASPERSIONS by some editors with battlefield mentality, which is evident from the aspersions heba and luke have made above, and the edit summaries of luke :here where they termed Shinjoya rebuttal of their points as "Conspiracy theories"
• Here Special:Diff/1030125151 they said requesting ban for Shinjoya although they didn't requested anything.
• here they replied to Chess but with edit summary request to keep ban on Shinjoya for disruptive sourced content removal they didn't requested anything so this is again a misleading and blantant hostile edit summary.
• here in this small edit they said Support permanent ban on Shinjoya which again a misleading summary.

• These edit summaries are not only misleading but also extremely hostile, and also shows obsession of LukeEmily against Shinjoya to get him banned any how with mostly falsified out of context and misrepresented diffs as evaluated by Chess against the editors they dont agree on about content, its clear that they think wikipedia is a WP: BATTLEGROUND, admins who are telling Shinjoya to wait 6month before Appealing should first go through the entire ANI thread and note that admin judgements are not final why should someone serve the punishment for some disruptive comments in proposal which was never about them?  i request the banning admin to humbly lift the ban from Shinjoya, as the proposal was never about them and there was no consensus for his ban nor there was any diffs or evidence for it like I humbly accepted my Topic ban on the ANI. RatnaHastin^talk 10:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I was pinged in one of the above comments, and I haven't read anything here other than that comment. Also, leaving behind a few recent discussions with Shinjoya at Talk:Rajput (see [71], [72], & [73]) and at Talk:Saina Nehwal, I am unfamiliar with their editing history. Having said that, while checking Ratnahastin's edits during the relevant ANI discussion, I noticed some poor edits of Shinjoya at a page, as both of them were editing that in tandem (see [74]). I also noticed their odd edits on a couple of my watchlisted articles a few days ago. So I will mention those edits as well. But leaving behind these few articles, I am unfamiliar with their edits in general. If they will explain the following edits properly, then I probably won't look at their general editing pattern.

So here are a few of your edits at List of Rajputs that I noticed while checking user Ratnahastin's edits:

a) [75]: Why did you cite a UGC (which is some NGO's site) for the caste claim of a 19th-century personality?

b) [76]: This is a mirror of an unsourced version of Wikipedia and it clearly attributes the content to Wikipedia: [77]. Its publisher states that they copy from Wikipedia: "And we go even further: with the Wikipedia-texts at free disposal we create books on interesting topics."[78]

c) You already know that caste requires self-identification in BLPs. But that seems to be missing in your following edits: [79], [80], & [81].

d) Here you again cited an unreliable UGC – its author (Lekshmi Priya S.) "specializes in cracking terribly sad jokes".[82]

e) Here you cited another unreliable UGC.

f) Here you again cited a UGC.

g) Here the cited source doesn't mention that the subject was a Rajput.

Here are a couple of edits that appeared on my watchlist recently:

h) Some days back, I noticed your this edit at one of my watchlisted articles. You removed an academic source (of Oxford University Press) which is compiled by a team of "historical linguists, medieval historians, lexicographers,"[83] among others and edited by the likes of Patrick Hanks & Richard Coates. It seems to be cited at 1000-plus articles on this project and is one of the most updated/reliable sources available for this purpose. In fact, I reverted your same edit in 2019. So, was it appropriate to remove that source without discussing at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN?

i) This is your another edit that appeared on my watchlist some days ago. Here you replaced a scholarly source published by Penn State University Press and authored by the political scientist Martha Crenshaw (who has extensively researched on terrorism) with non-scholarly content from Indian media. Why did you do that? - NitinMlk (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: You are trying to do what you did with Ratnahastin in that previous ANI. You come with some nitpicking reports and exaggerate them to leave an impression in front of people that the user is involved in some massive disruptive behaviour. I would still like to clarify to your observations:

a) [84]: Why did you cite a UGC (which is some NGO's site) for the caste claim of a 19th-century personality?

In this edit, I just copy pasted the content from "Historical figures" section of the same article to "freedom fighters" section. I am not the original person who added this source. The content was present in the article for years. So, I didn't find any necesssity to cross-check the source.

(previous comment by Shinjoya)

No, Shinjoya, he is simply pointing out the issues with your edits. Can you please stop the ad hominem attacks and focus on the content? Where is the exaggeration? You had been warned in 2019 about BLP violations here by Fylindfotberserk. I am changing my vote from oppose to strongly oppose.LukeEmily (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

:b) [85]: This is a mirror of an unsourced version of Wikipedia and it clearly attributes the content to Wikipedia: [86]. Its publisher states that they copy from Wikipedia: "And we go even further: with the Wikipedia-texts at free disposal we create books on interesting topics."[87]

I wasn't aware that the publisher has written this on its website. If you had found this, you should have removed the content and conveyed it to me. But rather, you have come here and presented it in the form of a complaint.

c) You already know that caste requires self-identification in BLPs. But that seems to be missing in your following edits: [88], [89], & [90].

As far as I know, the policy of asking self-identification source to state caste applies to Indian castes and doesn't extend to Pakistani castes. Pakistani people consider Rajput as a Pakistani caste rather than Indian. If that wasn't the case, why didn't anyone remove the name of Hina Rabbani Khar from Jat people, which is there for almost a decade. You also edited Jat people so many times but never removed her name.

d) Here you again cited an unreliable UGC – its author (Lekshmi Priya S.) "specializes in cracking terribly sad jokes".[91]

I wasn't aware of any reliability issues of this source. I still don't get what this "UGC" mean? I don't always have this much spare time that I do a thorough research about sources and their writers. Better idea on your part was to convey the user so that he avoids using it in future.

e) Here you cited another unreliable UGC.

When did India TV, a known Indian news channel become unreliable? If you think its unreliable, it would be a better idea to raise this matter to the relavant noticeboard, get it blacklisted and then complain about its authenticity.

f) Here you again cited a UGC.

I am not aware of reliability issue of this site, better idea was to convey your concern to user.

:g) Here the cited source doesn't mention that the subject was a Rajput.

The source reads that Chandrashekhar Singh was introduced to pacify the Rajput lobby of Bihar. Even a little knowledge of Indian politics suggest that the source implies that Chandrashekhar Singh was a Rajput, thats why he was introduced to please the group. But I can agree with you that the source doesn't say it directly. So, we can find a better source instead.

:h) Some days back, I noticed your this edit at one of my watchlisted articles. You removed an academic source (of Oxford University Press) which is compiled by a team of "historical linguists, medieval historians, lexicographers,"[92] among others and edited by the likes of Patrick Hanks & Richard Coates. It seems to be cited at 1000-plus articles on this project and is one of the most updated/reliable sources available for this purpose. In fact, I reverted your same edit in 2019. So, was it appropriate to remove that source without discussing at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN?

Though it comes from Oxford University Press, the source is a dictionary of American surnames. How can it be used for a predominantly Indian surname? Atleast, in context of Minhas, I found it unreliable. It states that Minhas clan name is found among both Jat and Rajput people. I researched a lot but couldn't find any other sources which say that Minhas is a Jat clan too while there were many sources which identifies it as a Rajput clan. As far as 2019 edit is concerned, I don't even remember that I did a similar edit back then. The article's history is full of IP vandalism. Its a very tiresome thing to check who removed or added it in past years.

:i) This is your another edit that appeared on my watchlist some days ago. Here you replaced a scholarly source published by Penn State University Press and authored by the political scientist Martha Crenshaw (who has extensively researched on terrorism) with non-scholarly content from Indian media.

Quotations were not available for the Gbook source you are referring to. I suspected that a user named Sapedder was trying to misquote the source. The book was titled "Terrorism in context". So, I replaced that with other sources which discussed the terrorism activities of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and also had no issue like non-availability of quotations. I already explained this in my edit summary. Shinjoya (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Other than casting aspersions on me and giving excuses, you haven't explained your edits. And if that large-scale disruption by Ratnahastin in the main space seems like "nitpicking reports" to you, then you need to revisit WP policies. You have misrepresented my edits at that ANI, along with casting aspersions on me. But I didn't mention them here as I assumed good faith. But you are again doing the same thing here. Now coming to your responses,

• Regarding point a, you stated that you "just copy pasted" the WP:UGC from another article. But it is your responsibility to check the authenticity of the content you are adding to an article.
• Regarding b, you are said that "I wasn't aware that the publisher has written this on its website". Again, it's your responsibility to check the reliability of sources. And I didn't mention it on your talk page because your behaviour is being discussed here.
• Regarding c, you are saying that "Pakistani people consider Rajput as a Pakistani caste rather than Indian." We are not bothered about what Indians or Pakistanis think. We have a consensus on this project that Caste needs self-identification in BLPs: there is no mention of nationality-related restrictions. BTW, two of the three BLP violations pointed out by me are of Indian nationals.
• Regarding d, you mentioned that you "don't always have this much spare time that I do a thorough research about sources". If that's the case, then you should not add content in the main space because Wikipedia is not compulsary. BTW, I have pipe-linked WP:UGC in the point a) itself.
• Regarding e, I guess you didn't properly check the diff provided by me, as it wasn't about the India TV. You added this WP:UGC in that edit. The author of that UGC is a common person who is preparing for the CDS exam – see here.
• Regarding f, if you are citing random internet sites/blogs for caste-related matters, you need to be very well aware of their reliability. BTW, the easiest way to know about editorial oversight of these random sites/blogs is to check their "about us" link, which is normally at the bottom of these web pages. In the present case, their About Us page shows they are merely sports enthusiasts, rather than professional journalists or sports experts. So that site is not reliable for even sports-related details, let alone something as contentious as caste.
• Regarding g, to find out what "the source implies" is known as WP:SYN/WP:OR on this project. And we are supposed to write in our words what the source is stating "directly". But your response here is better than what you stated at Talk:Saina Nehwal.
• Regarding h, both the Dictionary of American Family Names & The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland mention the same details about the Minhas surname. And both of them are compiled by the teams of subject experts. Obviously, they contain only those Indian surnames which are found in the respective countries. And they are extensively cited at the Indian/Pakistani surname pages, just like they are cited for the surnames of various other nationalities. It is irrelevant what your google search found, as the concern here is the reliability of these sources. So, before blanking it again, you should raise your concern at WP:RSN.
• Regarding i, blanking a scholarly source just because you don't have access to it is as absurd as your edit summary: "poor source (no quote available)". If the quotation is not available then you should ask for it on the articles talk page or at WP:REREQ. You can also tag the citation with Template:Request quotation.

All in all, you have provided just lame excuses for such problematic edits, rather than accepting your mistakes.

PS: You were more or less only editing caste-related articles when you started editing this project and you were editing List of Rajputs in the last week of May 2019: [93]. After that list got extended protected on 9 June 2019, you made hundreds of copyedits to a few non-caste articles between 10 June 2019 and 22 June 2019, in which you mainly added piped links, which in turn made you extended confirmed user: [94]. Shortly after that you took a wiki break and you are mostly editing caste-related articles since you resumed editing. What I want to say is that caste-related articles (esp. Rajput-related articles) are more or less your sole focus here. But they also happen to be one of the most contentious areas of this project. So it would be better to get experience by editing other areas for some months. Otherwise, there is a good chance of you getting topic-banned under discretionary sanctions at this point in time. This is just my personal advice and I won't be !voting here. In fact, unless I get misrepresented in this thread or someone asks for my response, I probably won't comment in this thread either. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose any lifting of a ban since this is a topic area that needs a very tight lid on disruption, and this thread nearly making my face go Raiders of the Lost Ark is evidence of a very serious problem. Anything to keep out useless noise in these articles is most welcome. WP:BUTT applies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I am not an administrator, so I am not sure I'm even allowed to post here, let alone vote (and I won't boldface). I have just counted 18,482 words in the back and forth above. They constitute twice the length of the longest featured articles on Wikipedia. They point to the obsession caste has become in India-related topics. Shinjoya seems to be a Single Purpose Account; he edits nothing but Caste articles. His defense above is proof positive of that. I agree with Bishonen, RegentsPark, NitinMlk, and The Blade of the Northern Lights that user:Rosguill's decision at ANI is the correct one, and there is no reason to overturn it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Requesting RfC closure review at Talk:Woman

A loose necktie closed this RfC about the lead image of Woman on May 26. I left ALN a message the same day, but they seemed to go on wikibreak immediately after closing the discussion. That's fine, and why I waited to post here, but as they have since edited but still haven't responded, I figured it's time to open it here.

The RfC's basic premise is that [there should be a lead image and] we should choose from a set of options for lead image. The primary argument against having a lead image is that it's contrary to the spirit of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY (that a single image exacerbates, rather than assuages, the issues which led to that guideline). The closing statement did not address those arguments at all, and in fact included No image might have been an outcome with greater consensus if not for MOS:LEADIMAGE. ALN notes that guideline says not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic, but simply dismisses that aspect because Representing a woman, however, is easy.

I'm not sure a review will lead to a different outcome, but the closing statement should at least venture to accurately represent the major arguments and the guidelines on which they are based. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the actual premise of the RfC was that there already was a lead image at Woman, but should we have no image, or would another image be better? There was no consensus on the question of whether to have an image, so the status quo to have an image prevailed. Then the second question of which image to choose was decided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a very complicated RFC, and as an uninvolved editor I would support reclosure by an uninvolved admin as efforts to contact the closure have been unsuccessful and the close is disputed. Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. And leave it closed and resolved. I wasn't involved in this discussion at all, and I'm not sure there's any particular correct answer. Everyone has their own preferences. But the close was well-reasoned, examined the conversation through the lens of policy (specifically in deciding whether there should be an image at all), and puts a good stop to the issue. The image chosen is a good one, it had support in the discussion, and represents the concept without unduly stereotyping women in any particular direction. Finally, although it would be good for the closer to be around to defend the closure (which was almost a month ago now), let's not reopen this can of worms just because they're doing other things. It was a good close.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough to argue that you'd rather not see a can of worms opened and that you're ok with the outcome, but can you elaborate on your judgment that the quality of the closure was good (in the context of what I wrote above)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the mobile site automatically select an image? Secretlondon (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Wowie, the analysis of the votes is really something else. What an interesting set of graphs, charts, etc. Option C was the winning option among actually wanting to have a photo. If we look at just numbers, a plurality wanted no photo. But that belies that a majority wanted a photo, and just couldn't agree on which one. I agree with the reasoning that Representing a woman, however, is easy. It would be silly not to have a lead photo when we have thousands upon thousands of photos of women (binders full, as Mitt Romney would say). Sure, any one photo will not entirely represent the totality of a thing. But no photo can. If we removed lead photos because they couldn't represent every aspect of a thing, no article would have lead photos. Furthermore, if ETHNICGALLERY exists because of issues, but a single picture of a person exacerbates the same issues, then we are in an absurd catch-22 where nothing vaguely human related could have a photo. This very much reminds me of the photo for Human. There was a lot of hemming and hawing, but eventually one was settled on. Its not a perfect photo. But it represents the subject. And there is a unique charm in knowing that it is imperfect, just as we are. All in all, ALN accurately assessed the outcome, and I think their reasoning was good. I am quite opposed to the idea that we should force a close to be re-written when the outcome will remain the same. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• absurd catch-22 where nothing vaguely human related - No, just large groups of people that are hard to represent with one or a small number of images. In other words, MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. What I'm wondering is how this close reconciles with the spirit of that guideline -- I don't think this close or review thereof is a place to relitigate the question of whether we should attempt to use one or a few images to represent large groups of people, which was the discussion (sans "one") which led to the guideline. It was a discussion of this very article, in fact, that led to the RfC that broadened the scope of that guideline from ethnic groups to other large groups of people. "Representing women is easy" just ignores MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY and the discussions which led to it. "Representing Senegalese people is easy" by exactly the same logic. You may or may not agree with that, but in an RfC which is directly about a specific guideline, a good closing statement shouldn't just pretend that guideline doesn't exist. The relevant question isn't whether we still like MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, but whether the representational issues of a single image avoids the representational issues with a group of images. It seems strange to me that a single image does anything but exacerbate those issues. The closest thing to a reasonable argument otherwise I've seen is that >1 image might connote a total representation, whereas a single image doesn't. I don't agree with that interpretation, but at least it attempts to fit within our existing guidelines rather than ignore them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, Well, personally, I think PEOPLEGALLERY is kind of silly too, but it has had consensus for some years. That we use collages for wars, cities, historical events, but not people seems limiting and creates more problems than it soves. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I sat out this round and express no opinion on the close but just some history: it was the lack of a lead image on that article that prompted the RFC that led to the prior lead image being selected [95] (which this RFC just changed). So going back to no image would be a huge step backwards IMO. The reason for having a lead image, or one reason anyway, is that various "preview" functions will take the first image and treat it as the lead image. In the case of this article, it was an image of the female reproductive system. Levivich 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with these sorts of RfCs is that there's so many options available that it makes judging consensus rather difficult, and that it's ultimately a vote of community preference, not really an application of policy. I think the close was well reasoned. My preference would be to overturn because of the lack of application, but I think that's because my preference probably would have been no image at all if not an anatomical diagram, something along the lines of what's on the Pioneer Plaque, even if that has its own issues. One way to resolve this though would be to respect the results of this RfC and have a follow-up RfC with two options: B and C, where B is specifically defined as a "no image" and not a "none of these" (it's not entirely clear what every !voter thought of B). SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I explained in detail why this argument was silly at the time; the RFC's results plainly favor an image by an overwhelming margin, and the image it favors is C. There is no reasonable way to read the results that would give B a numerical majority; and the arguments for B were uniformly weak - the vague and handwavy appeals to the "spirit" of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY are not remotely supported by the text of the relevant guideline or by current practice, so the close was entirely correct to ignore them. If you honestly think it's possible to obtain a consensus to switch to having no image (which would be a clear and fairly extreme change from a long-lasting status quo, and would therefore obviously require an unambiguous consensus), feel free to start another RFC, but I think it is obvious that such an RFC would have no chance of success whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to overturn. The rationale leaves something to be desired, but the ultimate outcome and general reasoning is correct. A significant minority of the community does seem to believe that "woman" is a difficult concept to depict in a single image so the closer's statement that Representing a woman, however, is easy dismisses an important aspect of the discussion and community sentiment. Similarly, I think the closer's interpretation of MOS:LEADIMAGE is incomplete. That guideline says explicitly that Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. According to wider consensus, no image is a completely valid outcome of this discussion, and a viable one given the minority view that there is no easy representation of the topic and the closer's own analysis that any choice is, editors have agreed, going to be contentious. Now, with all that said, I agree with the closer that there is a consensus to use an image of some kind, and given that consensus one of the images discussed should prevail over no image. The reasoning for C is good enough, and supported by various analyses by participants. Meanwhile none of my critiques are worth overturning the close---they're more notes for next time---so chalk me up as an endorse. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• I am the editor that attempted to close this discussion. I have resisted becoming involved in the discussion to reopen it because I felt little good could come of it, and that I had said my peace. I had approached the topic as someone completely uninvolved, and did my best as en editor to both judge a reasonable outcome and to justify it based on what I had read and knew. The topic was a hot potato, and I did my best to handle it gingerly! And it very much needed some kind of closure-- I wanted the participants to see this above all else. All of the images proposed, as well as the idea of no image, were good. All of them had merit. The arguments and existing policy seemed to favor one of these outcomes. What I failed to do was to inspire sense of finality in my closure. Not that I "knew" I was right, only that I was certain I was at least not "wrong" in concluding C. In that sense, it seems I failed. We can spend many, many more hours turning it about and wondering if what was done was right, but that, I think, is the wrong question. Was what was done at least not wrong? That is maybe the best that can be done with an issue such as this. Not wrong. It's a lovely picture. It is just the kind of picture one would expect to see here! Smile and be glad that a not-wrong outcome was achieved. I think ALL of the participants could at least agree on THAT, yes?  :-) A loose necktie (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with possible violation

Article (with WP:CRP restriction): People’s Mujahedin of Iran

Editors involved:

@Mhhossein: pinged

@Vice regent: pinged

@Stefka Bulgaria: pinged

Idealigic: me

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

This “CRP violation report” could really do with some admin eyes.

On the one side, Mhhossein and VR are reporting me because they are saying I made a CRP violation (Stefka Bulgaria is also being accused of making a CRP violation).

On the other side, I am saying that it was VR who broke the article’s CRP restrictions because he reinstated a previously-challenged edit without asking if he had consensus to reinstate it (challenged edit, reinstated parts of challenged edit).

Their report against me seems like part of ongoing (bad-faith?) attempts to rig the consensus building process in the article’s talk page (for example this failed attempt by Mhhossein to restrict RfCs there).

I tried not to bring this drama to AN, but seeing that VR and Mhhossein are forum shopping about this (without pinging me or Stefka)[96][97], maybe it is time to sort it out.

Thanks for taking the time. Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I do feel that Idealigic violated CRP, but the sequence of edits is messy and Idealigic argues that unless an edit restores the exact wording as before it can't count as a revert. I disagree and so have sought clarification at WP:CRP's talk page. To me the real issue here is Idealigic's stonewalling, where they claim that Iraqi involvement in Iran-Iraq War operations "is disputed" despite it being sourced to multiple scholarly sources.VR _talk 15:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• To admins: Here's 'a visual guide to the violation of CRP by Idealigic'. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• It may be time for a full arbitration case about the MEK topic area and principal disputants. Even though it is covered by the Post-1978 Iranian politics GS, it doesn't look that there's much interest (if at all) in providing enforcement. Myself, I've asked disputants to stop pinging me about this, but to no avail. Now I'm just ignoring pings that in any way pertain to the subject matter. El_C 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC) —— Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) seems about as done with the never-ending MEK disputes as I am, btw (diff). El_C 18:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

First Vice regent said they were “merely restoring the longstanding version”[98], then they said they restored it based on “WP:Silent consensus”[99], and then they said stonewalling was the problem[100].

The evidence clearly indicates that VR did not revert to the longstanding text, and also that there were discussions in the talk page (with sources) about the use of “Iran vs IRI” and “Saddam vs Iraq” (terminology used in VR’s challenged edits [101] [102] ).

So it wasn’t me or Stefka Bulgaria who broke the article’s CRP restrictions, it was VR, and Mhhossein’s bad faith report trying to twist this around seems battleground and tendentious (misconduct that Mhhossein has been warned about in the past [103] [104] [105][106]). Idealigic (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic's comment that VR did not revert to the longstanding text demonstrated that Idealigic only considers an edit to be a revert if it restores the exact text. But what if an edit restores a meaning without restoring the text? WP:EW's definition To revert is to undo the action of another editor seems broad enough to consider that to be a revert too.

But if I'm wrong, I'll readily apologize for my violation, which is why I sought clarification.VR _talk 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I fully agree with El_C that we need to take this to arbitration. IMO, certain users have been trying to WP:WHITEWASH negative-appearing facts about the MEK out of the article despite such facts being present in multiple scholarly sources. They are resorting to tactics like stonewalling, sealioning, gaming and possibly even meatpuppetry. On multiple occasions admins have had to intervene into RfCs that proposed blatant violations of WP:V.VR _talk 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: Thanks for the apology but that still does not explain @Mhhossein:'s fake report against me and Stefka.
• @Admins: An IP made another WP:CRP violation on the article (IP’s edit reverted IP reinstated the edit). I requested an uninvolved admin to fix the IP’s violation (since the IP failed to revert), but Mhhossein wrote in my request that the IP was “correctly adding citations”. All regards for policies seem to be going out the window in that article. Idealigic (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Can one of the admins take a look at this clear violation of CRP by Idealigic? I have fully explained his infringement. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Nicholas_Wade#Wikilink_for_lab_leak_hypothesis

I'd like for someone uninvolved in the matter to have a look at this discussion and see if it can be closed as if it were an RfC. I have not studied the discussion much, though I have earlier blocked one editor for edit warring on the subject matter and may do so again. When I say "uninvolved" I don't mean that you cannot have had COVID or the vaccine, though I prefer you wearing a face mask if you delve in deeply. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing to see if this gets some attention, as I recently requested Drmies close this very discussion. See my request for reference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There may be factors that I'm missing but I don't think the discussion could reasonably be closed with a result requiring one of the two particular proposed outcomes. If someone changes the link in the current article (Nicholas Wade) again, I'm afraid an RfC might be required and I would be prepared to mentor subsequent discussion and implementation. Re the issue, I understand the two sides but in reality it might not matter much at all and perhaps there would not be much harm in letting the other side have a win. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq None of that makes any sense to me. There's a crystal clear consensus, there's at least one admin who agrees it needs to be closed (see edits like this and this), and the presence of the link unarguably improves the project, as the linked article gives a lot more information on the very subject of Wade's article. There's literally no benefit to leaving that discussion open, and no downside to closing it. Are you saying it can't be closed because it's not a formal RfC? I know that's not true. I close non-RfC discussions with a consensus spelled out in the close all the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reporting HiLo48 for serious incivility and personal attacks on editors on Dark Emu (book) page

HiLo48 has engaged in serious incivility, name-calling and baseless personal insults on the Dark Emu (book) page, which looks like part of a broader pattern of serious incivility. For non-Australian editors I want to make it clear that Dark Emu is a prominent work of Indigenous history that has been the subject of a lot of discussion and controversy, and that the subject matter should be handled with the utmost sensitivity. In early 2021 anthropologist Dr Ian Keen published a journal article titled Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture.[107] In June 2021, Melbourne University Press published a full-length monograph responding to Pascoe's work by Professor Peter Sutton and Dr Kerryn Walshe[108] called Farmers or Hunter-gatherers?: The Dark Emu Debate.[109] Both these sources have been highly critical of Pascoe's book and Sutton and Walshe's book in particular has generated a new round of media discussion. Accordingly, I added two succinct sentences to the header addressing the controversy and the academic responses.[110] In the interests of consensus-building and seeking a wide range of input I started a simultaneous discussion on the talk page.[111] Subsequently, additional material was added to the body of the article by Cavalryman.[112]

At 04:39 on 23 June 2021 HiLo then reverted the changes made by both myself and Cavalryman with the explanation: Reverted changes for which there is no consensus. Agreement simple DOES NOT exist on the Talk page.

HiLo then made the following comments on the Dark Emu talk page that I consider unacceptable at 04:42, 23 June 2021:

::::::And I have reverted those bad faith changes. There is obviously no consensus for them. And implying that those who disagree with you are bad editors is not acceptable here. Please read WP:AGF. It's sad that those so desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people are also unaware of Wikipedia's relevant rules, and also choose to denigrate other editors. You MUST await others commenting on your proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2021

They then doubled down on their claim the edits were made in bad faith.

At least four other editors weighed in on the new material in the talk page, and none besides HiLo48 objected to the material that had been added. I made a simple and justified request for HiLo48 to strike through their comments and apologise on the talk page, which I gave multiple times.[113][114][115] HiLo would not issue an apology or strikethrough despite continuing to post in the same thread.[116][117][118] The material added by myself and Cavalryman was subsequently re-added by Skyring.[119]

I issued a warning to HiLo48 on their talk page about incivility, which was quickly reverted with the explanation: Removed nonsense.

I made another, firmer, but still polite demand for an apology and strike through, which was quickly reverted with the explanation‎: Reverted threats. Not a great way to contribute to Wikipedia.

HiLo48 has been on Wiki for more than seven years and really can't use ignorance of policy as an excuse. They have been a very frequent commenter on the Dark Emu page and need to treat other editors with appropriate respect. They've been called to ANI many times for perceived incivility.[120][121][122][123] Indeed, Hilo has been called to WP:ANI for alleged incivility on the page for the author of Dark Emu itself.[124] These are serious and personal insults that they levelled, which they've refused to substantiate, apologise for or back down from and I believe sanctions are warranted as a result. Noteduck (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to play this game. It is never a fair one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• This should have been posted at WP:ANI, but regardless of that, there is a post against the OP here by another user at WP:ANI#User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• User_talk:El_C#Dark_Emu_and_Bruce_Pascoe: you called it, Doug. El_C 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well this is one of the reasons I usually avoid topic areas like this, I get accused of racism [125] for neutrally quoting an Aboriginal human rights activist (with perfectly acceptable sourcing) [126]. My first edit with this article was on 13 June when I posted a notice on the TP [127] about the publication of Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, three days later I realised nothing had been added to the article so I incorporated it myself [128], my only other contribution to the article was a full week after that [129]. This is my first substantive interaction with HiLo, and the first time I have been accused of racism on Wikipedia, a brief glance at the editor’s history makes me suspect that is no coincidence. I am unsure what to suggest, perhaps HiLo48 could impose a voluntary TBAN upon themselves from the article for a month or so. Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
• Regardless of the ANI stuff regarding the reporter, reading through the talk page and article edit summaries, it seems clear to me that HiLo48 is not engaging productively. I wouldn't go so far as to call them serious incivility or personal attacks, but the behavior is not benign either. It looks like pretty typical POV-pushing through stonewalling discussion. I don't really have an opinion on how to remedy it though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Reading through the talk page, I see some aggressive behavior on the part of HiLo48 (this, for example, is uncalled for) but, like Wugapodes, don't think it rises to a serious level of incivility. Bearing in mind that HiLo48 is not edit warring (quite the contrary, one edit between January 22nd and today) I don't see any cause for action here. Any of the editors on the other side of HiLo48's opinions can seek dispute resolution, and that's, perhaps, the right course of action going forward. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• RegentsPark — Wug·a·po·des​ I wouldn't launch such a complaint flippantly. I think accusing Cavalryman and myself of being "desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people" [sic] on the Dark Emu page for adding small chunks of material based on academic opinion is pretty hostile and personal. We've both welcomed engagement and discussion, and approached the topic with appropriate sensitivity. It's by far the most offensive insult I've ever received while editing, and given HiLo's total lack of remorse, or even engagement with this complaint, and extensive history of similar accusations in the WP:AN archives I think something should be done. Perhaps a topic ban? I've been on Wiki long enough to not be discouraged from editing by personal attacks, but I'm concerned for newbie editors who might have to deal with this kind of hostility Noteduck (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree something should be done, don't get me wrong, I just don't have good ideas on what it should be. While that statement is certainly out of line, a topic ban for what so far seems like an isolated incident is too heavy handed. While I'm sure the incivility was upsetting for you, my goal is to de-escalate conflict and prevent future problems. Throwing the book at someone for a few harsh words is more likely to further inflame the situation in my experience. I'd rather wait for more input from uninvolved editors before making a decision since, like RP, we might be able to resolve the issues without having to ban anyone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've been watching the Dark Emu (book) article as an admin with an eye to stopping the BLP violations which were taking there - I haven't paid close attention to other editing or talk page discussions I'm afraid. The background here is significant though: the book has been targeted by POV commentators since it was published as part of Australian culture wars, and there has been a need to keep unreliable sources and material which is worded in way that it violates WP:BLP out of the article as a result. This has led to some editing disputes. The situation has changed in the last couple of weeks though, with the publishing of a scholarly critique of the book that has been well received by experts as well as the book's author. It might be best if the editors involved in the previous disputes focused on the new work and laid down the hatchets regarding older commentary. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've interacted with HiLo48 on and off for about 11 years. I'm here more as a translator. I usually disagree with them but I like their style which must be understood. Instead of the usual of false civility while weaponizing policies and guidelines in personal or content disputes, they never do the latter and instead just bluntly tell you what they think (with an unusually blunt speaking/writing style) and then move on.North8000 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a blunt style and derogatory phrases based on ... political beliefs ... directed against another editor or a group of editors which is a pretty bright line violation of WP:No personal attacks. We should distinguish the two and advise HiLo48 to not cross the line in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No argument there. As I mentioned, I came as a translator and did not weigh in on (or even do a full analysis on) the particulars.North8000 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to comment on the underlying dispute, but if HiLo referring to "bad faith changes" is a personal attack, what about two users (including OP) accusing him of POV railroading [130] [131] and another saying he is using "scorched-earth tactics" [132] in the same discussion? -- Calidum 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this. The "scorched-earth tactics" line - which has been noted in the press, I see, with some bemusement - was mine. I don't know that it's a personal attack so much as a colourful illustration of HiLo's all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, yield-not-an-inch behaviour. The simple fact is that he wanted all of the critical material removed and not the slightest acknowlegdement left behind. This doesn't go well with our NPOV policy which gives space to all views commensurate with sourcing, relevance, and notability --Pete (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• sorry, I think I might have been a bit cranky and officious before. I shouldn't "demand" any sanction and I'll leave it up to editors with more experience than me to point the best way forward. However, I do think HiLo48 needs to appreciate that this kind of behavior isn't acceptable. As indicated in my complaint above, I gave them multiple chances to sort this out amicably and they refused to cooperate, and aren't cooperating here. Looking again at the WP:AN archives, a search for "HiLo48" gets 381 hits, though some may be false positives. HiLo should know all about WP:CIVIL as they've been accused of incivility many times (albeit often without sanctions being imposed) and just from the first page of search results:[133][134][135][136] HiLo received a 6-month WP:ITN ban years back for incivility.[137]Noteduck (talk) Ergo, this is not an isolated incident but part of a frustrating pattern 01:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hilo - in his defence - is an excellent wikignome type editor, beavering away at minor points and things that need to be tidied up. This evidently gives him joy and helps the project. This, however, seems to be the result of a dedicated attachment to setting things in his preferred and frequently idiosyncratic order and his makeup is such that he cannot bear or acknowledge any criticism or error. A common enough attitude here and even seen in recent world leaders. Inevitably he comes into conflict with others who have different opinions and in lieu of admitting that he stuffed up he seeks to shift blame and error onto the other guy and naturally this causes outrage and dismay in that quarter and the whole thing tends to escalate into disruption and drama. I don't know how to change his behaviour short of brain surgery and on the occasions where other editors have nailed him into a corner and made it crystal clear that he screwed up he goes into a melt-down which is distressing to all, especially HiLo. This is not a situation where hasty or hamfisted actions will benefit the project. --Pete (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"To error, is Trump"? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, but not admitting it under any circumstances is Trumper. To point the finger at others and then to call them names is Trumpest. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is one problematic editor here and it's not Hilo. This edit by Skyring Special:Diff/1031069186 includes potentially actionable personal attacks against Hilo. As background to this whole controversy, this edit by Skyring Special:Diff/853556904 displays his archaic and colonialist attitude towards Aboriginal people. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Two troublesome IP ranges

User:Ermenrich asked me to look at User:156.213.5.248 and User:197.47.238.187 as they have been adding unsourced material. They both geolocate to the Cairo area and are probably the same person. Looking further, I'm unhappy with most but not all of the edits of both 0/17 ranges, many which have been reverted. I'm not sure of the best way to stop vandalism from these ranges. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That's 156.213.0.0/17 and 197.47.128.0/17. More and more IPs are amusing themselves by changing numbers/facts and blocks seem desirable although the current IP should be asked to explain their edits at article talk first. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: thanks, but the IP address seems to change every two days or so, so although the last two 156 addresses were warned I doubt that will stop the vandalism. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Strange email received, might be worth someone's followup

I received an email today that makes little sense to me, but may merit some sort of followup from someone with a clue. I suspect it was spammed far and wide, since I certainly have nothing to do with the matter in question.

DO YOUR JOB OHERWISE YOU ARE WIKICONTRADICTING YOURSELF AGAIN!!! i lupco steriev (also copyrighted name for my chess castle 2000 invention) did not create these accounts; people are talking about this on (Redacted) etc, just read comments; wmf caused me irreversible damages SINCE FOREVER, this will never be tolerated,EVER; confirm this is deleted, im being defamed, i would like to bring defamers/perpetrators to justice... confirm when these blatant privacy violations is gone: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=steriev&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns3=1&ns5=1&ns7=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns13=1&ns15=1&ns101=1&ns109=1&ns119=1&ns711=1&ns829=1&ns2301=1&ns2303=1 THERE ARE MANY MORE TO REPORT ACROSS WIKIMEDIA, CAN U ASSIST THERE TOO? OVERSIGHTERS DONT CARE, THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS! THIS IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTING ME AND MY FAMILY BECAUSE DEFAMERS CAN NOT STAY ON WIKIS! THIS WAS DONE DELIBERATELY! ALSO, YOU ARE TO CREATE OVERSIGHT NOTICEBOARD ACROSS WMF, I WILL BE IN CHARGE OF IT, WHAT YOU ARE DOING CAN NOT GO ON AS YOU ARE ASKING FOR MORE THAN LEGAL ACTION INCLUDING FROM MYSELF!!!

-- This email was sent by user "Tellingwikimoronsoff" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jmabel". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about the recipient's email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose their identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. To manage email preferences for user ‪Tellingwikimoronsoff‬ please visit <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mute/Tellingwikimoronsoff>.

This came with a reply address that I will send to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org, but will not post here. - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Was gonna go yank their email rights, but it looks like Primefac beat me to it. Emailer has been blocked as an LTA. Hog Farm _Talk 16:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's this guy. He's been harassing me daily for years. And others. And sends incoherent emails to just about everyone with email enabled. Antandrus (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, since 2005? Crazy long time to have a vendetta. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I recommend to disallow e-mails from other users in your global preferences, then creating a local exemption for enwiki, without checking "Allow emails from brand-new users". The English Wikipedia's autoconfirmation is often a sufficient barrier. I'd prefer a setting to receive e-mails from extended-confirmed users only, but I guess that won't be a thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a setting to receive e-mails from EC users only, I hope you propose a setting to that effect at village pump, that would be a good idea. ( Mainly because it is far easier to get autoconfirmed than extended confirmed.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, all. I'm mainly active on Commons, so I hadn't heard of this one. - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Trimmed a few of the websites as they're not really appropriate. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I have also received some emails from this LTA, I have reported the sites to the concerned authorities. JavaHurricane 12:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, I'd support such a proposal, but due to a (fortunate current) lack of problematic e-mails that would have been prevented by such a setting, I lack evidence to propose it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yank TP access please

From 2A01:4C8:0:0:0:0:0:0/40, they are making very rude unblock requests on multiple IP talk pages.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, there has not been any edits on that range since late April. I don't think removing talk page access is necessary in that case. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@LuK3: there were at least three edits today with unblocks with profanities. They must've been deleted or suppressed, I didn't save the full 128 bit addresses. Can you see the deleted contribs for the range?--Chuka Chief_talk 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Please link them, as I have done a cursory check and see nothing. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't see them now. It was a different IP each time and they were misspelling their profanity probably to get through the edit filters. Maybe I made a mistake on the range, but it no longer appears on the new page feed. Sorry for the trouble, I can't reproduce this now.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to ask the dumb question, but could you check your browser history to find the IP addresses? Primefac (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: that's a bonk in the forehead moment. Here: User talk:2A01:4C8:A8:F3F5:59FD:CE68:E346:93C5, User talk:2A01:4C8:A9:6AA2:691C:F418:B33A:678A, User talk:2A01:4C8:AA:FCF3:DD9B:B4C:B1B7:E6F1. @331dot: G3 deleted them.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The smallest range encompassing 2a01:4C8:006A:CE95:DC90:7C66:A4C2:2838 and 2A01:4C8:00AA:FCF3:DD9B:B4C:B1B7:E6F1 is indeed /40. I'm a bit cautious with modifying NinjaRobotPirate's blocks though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The odds of anyone seeing offensive unblock requests is pretty slim unless you're actively looking for disruption, which usually makes me a bit reluctant to disable talk page access for lengthy, wide range blocks. But this person does seem a bit bored and determined, so it's now disabled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that or if you're someone actually handling those blocks Nosebagbear (talk)

Incorrect closure of an RfC by a previously involved editor

The RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests was opened at 00:03, 26 June 2021 and closed at 16:39, 27 June 2021‎, less than 48 hours later, by a (non-admin) editor who closed a related RfC at 17:19, 24 June 2021, and is in this sense an involved editor. Most of the arguments for Option 4 consisted of proof by assertion: "deprecation means absolute deprecation, therefore evidence against non-absolute deprecation may not be considered", with no evidence presented. A snowball rapid close by an editor who closed the generic deprecation RfC does not accurately summarise the arguments nor allow for an evidence-based discussion. I recommend re-opening the RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests to allow sufficient time for evidence-based discussion and closure by a non-involved editor based on the content of arguments rather than votes. Boud (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Boud:, The policy on WP:INVOLVED reads: Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Although I am not an administrator the same standard applies to me as an non-admin closer. Can you please identify where I took part in any of these discussions in a in a role that wasn't compliant with this policy? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Summarising and closing an RfC is not "purely administrative" - it requires subjective judgment, and it involves you in a critical part of the decision-making process. Common sense says that someone with a major role in the decision-making is someone who is "involved". Why is it that the US Supreme Court judge positions are highly contested in the US, even though the judges are supposed to do nothing apart from interpret the US constitution? It's because interpretation of rules and debates is rarely a purely administrative task. Boud (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In simple words: No, you can't. Gotcha. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to get technical about it, the Supreme Court gets to choose whether it will rule on a case, and generally does not accept to rule on cases that are uncontroversial (from a legal standpoint), which explains why they tend to get involved in controversial questions. JBchrch talk 23:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Boud: To clarify: you're contending that Eggishorn is too INVOLVED to close an RfC, because they previously closed another RfC in the same area? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although it's not only "the same area", it's asking if we can override the "false dichotomy" (not my words) in this particular case, where the first RfC is the generic case. Boud (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that's the core issue, I think there's nothing we can do for you. My opinion is that closing an RfC doesn't prevent anyone from closing future RfCs, no matter how related, unless the closer is otherwise involved. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm quite conservative when it comes to WP:INVOLVED; I wouldn't have closed the second one having closed the first. I think Eggishorn would have done better to leave this for somebody else, and I don't see that SNOW needed to be invoked, but mostly meh. It's hard to see how it could have been closed in any other way, no matter who closed it, so splitting hairs over what's at worst a marginal call seems pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Closing one RfC in an area and then a second one in the same area does not make the closer involved. Unless OP can show some content based involvement of the closer, there really is nothing to do here. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Boud is currently using every trick in the book to make it harder for editors to implement a very clear consensus to deprecate Press TV. Full support to Eggishorn on this one. JBchrch talk 22:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: A personal attack on my intentions is not a counterargument. I suggest that you withdraw your violation of WP:AGF. Eggishorn wrote "Gotcha." above, which seems to suggest him/her seeing this discussion as some sort of a game. That does not help. Evidence-based rational discussion is not voting, and it should not involve personal attacks either. Boud (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like "NOTVOTE" is widely misunderstood. Consensus is not about factual correctness, logical soundness or good arguments. It's about general agreement. Here there was almost unanimous agreement to affirm the deprecation. It doesn't really matter if the argument you'd made was sound or not - it failed to convince. The close is correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Boud:, nobody is required to engage you in the terms you find acceptable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, but personal attacks (not by you, see above) and a lightning speed cutoff of a discussion are not required either. We can agree to disagree respectfully and give the community time to consider an issue. The "false dichotomy" is an open issue (the discussion there is by people who are not me), so allowing for differences between generic and specific deprecation is not something that has to be rushed, especially when it's done in good faith. On the other hand, I do admit that "Gotcha" sounds like assuming bad faith. As you noticed when closing the second RfC, I was not the only person arguing for an exception. How about we give some time to let other opinions be posted at this meta-level, given that the specific level in this case was currently closed very fast? Boud (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to attack you or to assume bad faith, and I apologize if it sounded like I did. However, if you are truly acting in good faith, you should probably be aware that if an editor launches a second RfC to challenge the outcome of a first RfC, and then goes to an admin board to challenge the closure of that second RfC, and then titles that action Incorrect closure...by an involved editor (i.e. asserting an opinion as a fact) and then claims that people are assuming bad faith/personally attacking them, it can be reasonably perceived that such an editor is in fact preventing consensus from being implemented. You should also be aware of WP:NOTBURO (which is a policy) as well as WP:STICK (an essay). JBchrch talk 10:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I thought it was obvious that "Incorrect" in the section title described my opinion (subjective judgment). This is not the situation or place to re-open the false dichotomy discussion (and the section immediately following), but I see that there were several people discussing there, so to follow up the analogy, I expect that that "horse" is not dead, just sleeping, and sooner or late will wake up (disclaimer: this is only a loose prediction, not a promise; and it's unlikely to be me who re-opens the issue; there appear to be plenty of other people interested). Boud (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED only applies to admin actions and closing RFCs is not an admin action (or even a quasi-admin action, not even for contentious RFCs), and WP:NAC is an essay that does not have community consensus. Someone can edit a page and still close RFCs on that page. In some cases, someone can vote on an RfC and still close it (see WP:RFCEND). Expecting "uninvolved" (in the ordinary word sense of the word, not the WP:INVOLVED sense) closers is a bad thing, and a recipe for long term problems with the RfC model (too many RFCs, not enough closers). But let's be clear about not confusing closing RFCs with admin actions. Levivich 16:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Partly the issue is that we have no policy relating to discussion closes. The entire system is built up of conventions and a large degree of discretion (on the part of closers and those who start the RfC). I think one such convention is the uninvolved principle. While I don't think closing a prior related RfC constitutes involvement per se (as closing a discussion isn't meant to express an opinion on the merits of the proposal), generally I think it's probably a good idea not to close both the original deprecation discussion and also a follow-up RfC to (effectively) affirm or reverse the original deprecation. (With many exceptions to the rule, of course. eg the DM1/DM2 RfCs) I think closes need to maintain an appearance that they were done competently and by someone who didn't have a stake in the outcome. For many discussions several possible (completely different) acceptable closes are possible if legitimately justified, which only increases the need for impartial & competent closing. But this one was snowing, and the forecast wasn't going to change, so there's not really a good argument to reverse it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  For the record, I personally will absolutely !vote to overturn contested RfCs at AN on the basis that the closer was INVOLVED, and I will apply the same standard to those as to admin actions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to "are closures admin actions?" meta-discussion, I'll use this time to plug WP:Non-sysop closures. The INVOLVED policy applies best to situations where there is a difference in technical power. Admins should not use sysop tools in disputes because their actions cannot be easily undone or challenged. It's the same reason why template editors are advised to not use BRD, since most editors cannot take part in the "revert" prong. While we cite INVOLVED in discussions like these, we're adding a meaning to it that just isn't there in that policy. We are using it as a stand-in for perceived impartiality which is worlds away from using tools to get an upper hand in disputes. This is what I get at in Non-sysop closures: we're not discussing tool use, we're discussing optics. It is bad to confuse the two.
  So does having previously closed a discussion make someone INVOLED? No, not unless the closure was an editorial decision on the part of the closer. Can an editor who participated in a discussion close that discussion? Yes, and that can be a good thing. Take for instance the move discussion at Talk:Ku Klux Klan Act. I opposed the move strongly, but I still closed it because the outcome was obvious. No one dragged me to AN over it. So why don't we encourage people to do that more often? Because it is more often than not a bad idea that will just cause more problems because perceived impartiality is an important part of making controversial closes stick. What we fail to mention is that a lot of things affect that. Being a participant is one, but having previously closed a discussion can also impact your perceived impartiality. That's the case here. Eggishorn was not INVOLVED because of their previous close, but their previous close meant that participants could view them as prejudiced which is why we are saying it was a bad idea in hindsight.
  So finally to the point that started this all: should we reoppen the RfC? Per the essay that Egishorn used to justify their close (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause#The snowball test): yes, we should reopen. That's not even based on the discussion. 48 hours is a really short discussion and asking for more time is completely legitimate. If consensus really is clear, then we can just reclose it in a couple days with little fuss. If more opinions come in contradicting the early !votes then the encyclopedia is better for it and we can get a more accurate reading of consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction: I did not use an essay to justify the close. I used WP:NOTBURO, which is policy, not a mere essay. I referenced SNOW as explanation. So far, no other contributor to this discussion besides the editor who started it has agreed that the outcome would have been any different if allowed to stay open longer. NOTBURO clearly states that bureaucratic procedures are not to be followed for their own sake but only for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. The comments that had already accumulated in the previous discussion and which were rapidly accumulating in the subsequent discussion fully justify the conclusion that leaving the discussion open would not improve the encyclopedia. Any speculation that leaving it open longer would have created a more accurate close is merely that: speculation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in splitting hairs over "justify" vs "explain". While you link to NOTBURO, the text you linked is modified from the lead of SNOW; NOTBURO says nothing about running things through full RfCs. Meanwhile the first sentence of the close was Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Justification or explanation, the essay you link and paraphrase in your close says exactly what I said above: If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause....It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. The OP's request for more time is obviously reasonable: the discussion was open for only 40 hours during the work week. That's not long and not prime time. You've not given any reason why reopening it would be harmful. If you're right that nothing will change than we simply get a stronger consensus which is good. Your close even points out that there were open questions that were unresolved and which probably went unresolved because you cut discussion off too early The discussion further suggests that attempts to carve out exceptions for other topics would have a similar outcome but since that wasn't the question asked, there were not enough opinions stated to evaluate a consensus on prohibiting all carve-outs to this source's deprecation. In that sense leaving the RfC open longer would save time because we wouldn't have to deal with people posting RfCs to try and carve out exceptions (and then being snow closed and then being dragged to AN). Your speculation argument cuts both ways; you not only speculated on what the outcome would be if run any longer, you also speculated on what other questions we might come to a consensus on if it were run longer or further RfCs were run. By contrast, I'm suggesting we not speculate at all and just let the RfC run for more than 40 hours so that we can get wider opinions and stronger consensus without wasting our time at AN. Even if you want to ignore the essay you linked and paraphrased, NOTBURO and IAR and SNOW are all exceptions not entitlements. I'm aware that I may be in the minority, but I think rushing to close a discussion that wasn't even open for two full days and then fighting tooth and nail to keep it closed when the OP asks for more consideration isn't the ideal way to figure out consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I object to your characterization of my remarks and actions. I am not "fighting tooth and nail to keep it closed" by any reasonable characterization. I formally request that you strike that. My entire contribution to this thread prior to your involvement amounted to 67 words. My entire engagement at that point was limited to only asking how I violated WP:INVOLVED, which I was accused of doing. Is that "fighting tooth and nail?" If it is, I would hate to see how you characterize a thread such a the Shinjoya one above. Nearly all of my text here has, it should be noted, been in response to you. I really find it quite amazing that you denigrate me and the communication that would never have happened if you had not posted.

In addition, I have always been open to reconsidering my closes and I have a long record of NAC closing difficult discussions and I have never once refused to engage with anyone who came to my talk page to ask about one. I did not start this discussion nor have I refused a request to re-consider. In point of fact, Boud never asked me to reconsider. The OP here is pushing for their use of a source that has been refused and running through multiple forums to try to get their source accepted to push their POV. Is that a thing we are supposed to not consider harmful? Please review the edit warring here, the advocacy for PressTV here, the prior RfC, and most especially the arguments of the participants of the discussion I closed "overly precipitately". Please tell me after all that discussion whether you think Boud's position was given an adequate opportunity for response or if there was a snowball's chance in hell that there was anyone other the OP that thought this process was worth any time at all. If you want to open it again after all that you are fully capable and authorized. You need not consult me.

If you really think I am bad or biased in closing discussions, you know of course that you are free to propose whatever remedy you think fit here. I invite you to review my log of closes to find whatever support you think appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, premature encapsulation happens way too often. Levivich 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2021

A user credited this page back in May- is this something that should be deleted or should it be kept/cleaned up here? No clue if there's any importance to it here, but it appears to be taken from here. Magitroopa (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Blurry Wikipedia logo for Skin:Timeless

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

---

The Wikipedia logo shown on the left-hand-side panel with Skin:Timeless is a PNG image, but all other Wikimedia projects with Skin:Timeless use an SVG image for their logo. As the PNG logo is bitmap, the Wikipedia logo becomes blurry on higher-resolution displays, yet the SVG logo of Wikipedia is available. I also noticed that this issue happens across all Wikipedias so there should be a global solution for it. 🐱💬 09:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Meow: It would probably be better to ask at the Technical Village pump since this is more of a technical question than an administrative one. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I've reposted there. It was just difficult to find the correct location to ask for it. 🐱💬 11:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Question

Hello administrators,

Question for you, hopefully, clarification will be beneficial for you to remember as well. Please give it some thought.

So - If editors are under a two-way interaction ban WP:IBAN between each other... are they permitted to comment at Requests for comment (RfC) initiated by one party?

According to the policies drafted already (see here WP:IBAN), they are not allowed to:

• reply to each other in discussions;

So they are NOT allowed to reply to each other in discussions, but what about Requests for comment (RfC) initiated by one party? Is participation in such RfC regarded as a reply to each other in discussions or is such considered a reply to RfC? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• My understanding is that if users A and B are interaction banned, and A starts an RfC, then B can comment on the substantive question posed by the RfC, provided they do not in any way reflect on A, or A's view, or A's framing of the RfC question. Interaction banned editors are permitted to participate in the same discussion providing they do not interact. Of course if A starts an RfC and B is the first to reply five minutes later, I would be inclined to tell B to pull their head in—not sure how to phrase that in policy-speak. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thou shalt pull thy head in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I wrote something witty but I'll just echo Johnuniq — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• GizzyCatBella should have said she already posted to the RfC about eight hours after it was posted. First edit ever to the article by GizzyCatBella. --Hum Dum Hum (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)<---  — Hum Dum Hum (talk • Hum Dum Hum|contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Brand new Hum Dum Hum account forgot to mention this - [138] and that they are not yet allowed[139] to participate in the topic area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) The topic area is flooded with such accounts. More admin. eyes would be helpful in the topic area by the way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to take any sides, but even non-extended-confirmed users are able to participate in Talk page discussion and RfCs, as long as not explicitly prohibited (like in Wikipedia:A/I/PIA). Just an FYI. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

CPCEnjoyer, thank you for letting me know; your expertise is admired. For someone who started editing less than three months ago, that's remarkable.- GizzyCatBella🍁 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I am here for you if you need help. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is allowed in at least some circumstances. See WP:DESYSOP2021 where Sir Joseph, who is banned from interacting with TonyBallioni was able to comment in the RFC.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am here to report..

I am here to report that some of your Administrators are grossly violating Wikipedias own guidelines by discriminating against people according to their (even only alleged) religious believes. Deletions by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ixocactus are one such blatant example - that user even publicly states that he/she will act against anything believed be him/her to be connected to the Christian faith. Thus, he/she has deleted pages of notable persons he/she believes are connected to the Christian faith, without any substantiable arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingomar (talk • contribs)

First, you are required to notify the subject of your report on that user's talk page (see the big notice in red at the top of this page). I have now done so for you. Second, please provide links to the deletions you are complaining about. We cannot consider your complaint without evidence. - Donald Albury 15:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ingomar: AFAICT, User:Ixocactus is not and has never been an administrator on the English Wikipedia [140]. So while perhaps they've WP:SPEEDY tagged pages, WP:PRODed pages, nominated them for deletion, or turned them into redirects but they cannot have personally deleted any pages. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'd go further than Donald Albury. You've made an accusation that another editor has said they will "act against anything believed be him/her to be connected to the Christian faith". This is a very serious accusation and you need to provide evidence or it becomes a serious personal attack and a WP:boomerang block of you for such a serious personal attack is fully justified. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

non-admin comment: This is likely to be an "imported" dispute from another wiki. Ingomar created Draft:Luiz Sayão in March of this year and after 42 days Ixocactus [141] placed a PROD tag partially stating: "The bio was deleted in pt-wiki because he didn't meet notability." This is the only page on which the two editors have interacted. The OP claims multiple deletions which is not borne out by this record. Ixocactus is an administrator on pt-wiki. This should be probably be closed since en-wiki has no authority over actions by administrators on other-languyage wikis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you fellow wikipedians. The OP attacks are a very good example of our christian persecution complex. In fact, he/she is the bio creator in en-wiki (drafted) and de-wiki after the consensual deletion discussion in pt-wiki. I have alerted both communities about the no GNG, tagging bios to deletion. I will not put here the off-wiki churn by “persecuted christians” accusing us of “christophoby”, “cancelling”, “censoring” and so on. The pt-wiki community have discussed these off-wiki attacks from far-right/christian media and ignored them. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Query about 24-hour BRD cycle

Hi all, I have a query about the sanctions in place at articles such as Joe Biden. The edit notice on that article says "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit", but I'm a somewhat unclear how this is supposed to work in practice. Let's say we have the following:

• Day 1, 09:00 - Editor 1 makes a bold edit.
• Day 1, 19:00 - Editor 2 reverts.
• Day 2, 12:00 - Editor 1 makes the bold edit again.
• Day 2, 15:00 - Editor 2 reverts again.

Now it looks like perhaps Editor 1 has broken the sanction, because although their second bold edit was more than 24 hours later, they didn't discuss on the talk page. However, Editor 2 also looks in breach, because an edit they made was reverted, and they made the same edit again less than 24 hours after the first one. Albeit that it was a revert. So my question is, are repeated reverts of bold edits covered by this sanction or not?

A further question arises regarding whether the "discussion on the talk page" must result in a firm consensus, or if (as the letter of the sanction suggests) it's sufficient just to hold such a discussion. So, in the above scenario, if Editor 1 discussed their change and discussion was still ongoing, could they then make the second edit if it was more than 24 hours after the first? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The notice says: you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours. It seems that you have to discuss and wait at least 24 hours, meaning that you can't just start a discussion and immediately reinstate your edit. Its intention seems to be for the discussion to be open for at least 24 hours in order for participation to be more significant and to avoid an edit war. There still is some ambiguity there, so it probably should be amended. When it comes to the revert, I don't think it should be considered a breach of the sanctions, because they're the ones trying to enforce them. —El Millo (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just talking with L235 about the second question. My opinion on that was that the 24 hours starts from the first talk page post; the timer is meant to be a minimum wait before assuming any kind of silent consensus not a duplication of a 0RR. So you can't wait 20 hours, post on talk, wait 4 more hours, then make the same edit. To your first question, I believe repeated reverts of bold edits are violations. The point of enforced BRD is to prevent this kind of edit war from happening in the first place. Editor 2 should either report Editor 1 at WP:AE or wait for someone else to revert it, but we shouldn't encourage slow-motion edit wars. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Wugapodes here on the second point. As with most forms of edit warring, don't try to "enforce" limits by edit warring yourself. If it's the first time or the editor may be simply unaware, ask the editor to self revert and if necessary report them. As always, WP:BANEX is exception especially for a clear cut BLP-violation although you shouldn't forget to report. 24 hours from the time of opening the discussion also makes sense to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Hi, odd situation here. I really dislike using my admin account on any computer except my own, and thanks to major keyboard issues on my own computer I haven't used it much in a good while: thus the use of this alternate-computer account.

I just noticed that someone left me this message at my admin account's talk several weeks ago. Could someone fulfill the request? {{editprotected}} is for articles, thus the request here instead of at a subpage of my user talk page.

Hi Nyttend, I'm working on clearing unsubstituted transclusions of certain templates to prepare them for auto substitution. Could you substitute the transclusion of Template:ANI-notice at User talk:Nyttend/Archive 38 please? --Bsherr (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Nyttend backup (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done see Special:Diff/1031149556 — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Request: create Category:Terrorists as redirect to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges

Category:Terrorists has been deleted a while ago as controversial/too simplistic and protected against recreation, but wouldn't it be better to redirect it to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges ? This should be uncontroversial and would more interface friendly, as in - typing terrorist to category name would yield the desired, more "neutral", category name. Redirects don't have to be neutral or encompassing, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a content matter. Content matters are not decided here as administrators have no special authority over content matters. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly - the category is currently protected so an administrator would have to action any request. Although I think WP:DRV would be a better place to seek consensus to overturn the prior deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both sentiments. But I took it as a given that there would need to be a consensus to undo this and that this is not the place to form such a consensus. It seems the relevant debate was originally here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that CfD is a consensus against a redirect, it doesn't look like anybody mentioned the possibility of a redirect during that discussion and even if they did it's 12 years old. Hut 8.5 11:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling this as a content matter, what HighInBC is addressing, would be to overturn the CFD and create (or undelete) it as a new category. The reason for protection, I suspect, is that it was likely to be recreated by people uninvolved in the original discussion. Creating as a redirect isn't one bit a policy problem, but if you create it, please protect it so it doesn't get converted into a separate category. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me then. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've created the redirect and protected it. Hut 8.5 07:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is that desirable? That category has been deleted since 2009 and the April 2009 CfD didn't endorse a redirect. The fact that Category:Terrorists now exists means, as stated in the OP, that people can drop [[Category:Terrorists]] on any BLP and it won't stand out as an obvious red-link problem. According to the notice at Category:Terrorists, that category page is supposed to be regularly maintained to replace any occurrences of Category:Terrorists that have been mistakenly added to articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted it again. If this is disputed it should go to WP:DRV or a similar venue. Hut 8.5 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:SteveBenassi: time for a serious ARBPIA sanctiontime for a NOTHERE block

SteveBenassi (talk · contribs) has been a disruptive areas in a couple of ways, particularly in regard to the Arab-Israeli matter. They were alerted to discretionary sanctions by NonReproBlue on 9 May 2021, with Shrike offering additional information. A desire for some kind of trutherism led them to edit warring on Eran Elhaik, and a block by Ohnoitsjamie. In response they had to go and doxx one of our editors and harass and belittle them (oversight eyes only) after they offered them well-intended advice. Next up was some edit warring and claims of suppression related, I think, to Talk:Genetic studies on Jews and Talk:Italian Jews, and then Fences and windows blocked them for violating ARBPIA rules, on 25 May.

I could go on, there's more truthing and whatnot on their own talk page and elsewhere, but the straw that broke the camel's back, for me, was this, to which Cullen328 kindly alerted me. It's got everything, starting with the idea that Wikipedia is pretty much run by Zionists. I removed all that, per NOTWEBHOST, but NOTFORUM and, indeed, the discretionary sanctions would have worked too. I started writing this up thinking I'd make this a proposal for a topic ban, but as I'm going through their edits (and their edit summaries) to sort of build the case, it becomes clear to me that WP:NOTHERE suffices, and that is what I am going to do right now. And with NOTHERE I also mean treating Wikipedia as a battleground, personal attacks and doxxing, edit warring, truthering, abusing article and editor talk pages as a forum, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Good block; the user's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality seems to be rather intractable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this block. I probably would have done the same, but I wanted a second pair of eyes on the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block. Thanks for the ping. Steve is fixated on editing negatively about Israel and Jews and my advice to him when I blocked him has gone unheeded. This talk post illustrates the problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&oldid=1031247450. Steve posted on the talk page of Jewish Bolshevism, an article about antisemitic propaganda, to suggest adding off-topic content about the number of Jewish members of the Politburo - based not on reliable sources, but links to Wikipedia pages. He included Lenin on the list, likely due to original research as he may have had Jewish ancestry. He did then link to some sources, but they don't discuss the content he was suggesting to add. The article History of the Jews in Russia would be the appropriate place for discussion of such content, if relevant reliable sources were to be presented. User:The Four Deuces rightly collapsed the discussion. Fences&Windows 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows, thank you for the block a month ago--pity it proved ineffective. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block In addition to the posts at Jewish Bolshevism, I noticed the editor's request to add to the article on the Surfside building collapse that the lead developer was Jewish.[142] They seem to be pushing a viewpoint that Jews are evil. TFD (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block clearly has a very unwelcome agenda. GiantSnowman 17:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block Their posts to the Surfside talkpage, to which I responded with some degree of incredulity, were just plain creepy. Looking into their history, that seems to have been the least objectionable thing they've done. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like revoking talk page access should have happened after they posted this line in their unblock request that seems to have been missed/ignored: "p.s. nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure" 2001:4898:80E8:9:5621:A367:6013:40C1 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish you would have given the diff, but I found it--however, it's not entirely clear who "they" is, and there's a ton of bullshit in that edit. I'm not sure if anyone actually read all of it. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My assumption, sadly, is that the "them" is probably the topic of the rest of the bullshit: Jews. Maybe assuming bad faith but I don't see any other way to read it. 2001:4898:80E8:9:5621:A367:6013:40C1 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe it was a reference to a Ripley quote on my user page: "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Fences&Windows 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block - edit history + user talk demonstrates user is here to push point of view, not collaboratively build an encyclopdia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block. Clearly not contributing to building an encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 22:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• They've already been indefinitely blocked; are we voting to turn this into a community ban? Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think we ought to. I doubt there is any chance in hell of this user ever contributing to Wikipedia in a useful fashion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinite CBAN Though I doubt any admin would see there way clear to unblocking on their own, you never know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Query re: checkuser Has a checkuser looked to see if this is not some LTA or other banned editor? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with mess/historymerge

I'm not sure what happened at the article Michael Moon (entrepreneur), but when viewing the history, it seems to have originally been created as a disambiguation page for the surname Mirikitani. For some reason, I ride a Bentley (talk · contribs) (who has been inactive since 2016, so I see no point in notifying them of this discussion), did this [143], hijacking the page and reusing it to write about this businessperson. I can't quite make heads or tails of his edit history [144]. Can someone help get this undone? I'm not sure how to proceed, but the histories need to be unmerged and articles put right, somehow. ♟♙ (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@EnPassant:, I ride usurped the Mitikitani page to avoid scrutiny, undoubtedly for UPE reasons. I'll try to restore what I can. I may need admin help to finish the clean up but I'll tag that normally. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirikitani restored to a disambig page and Michael Moon (entrepreneur) tagged CSD G11. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Well done, thanks for helping me sort that! ♟♙ (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem but credit where it's due, Opabinia regalis did the actual deletion of the remainder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WPWP image competition

The meta:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021 contest for 2021 has started again. It involves users adding images to articles, with cash prizes. This is just an informational note, since last year when this contest happened there was confusion and concerns about disruption to articles. As a refresher, some of the concerns last year were a) wrong images being added to articles; b) mass-addition of unnecessary images; c) formatting issues. Special:AbuseFilter/1073 exists for tracking these. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection review: User talk:Jimbo Wales

Moved from WP:RFUP

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: The admin who protected the page has not responded at their talkpage, and because they've only made one edit in the past month, I doubt a response is forthcoming. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Given how popular Mr Wales's talk page is with vandals, cranks, LTA's, and mean people, I think unprotecting it would be a poor idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(The whole "appeal sanctions to Jimbo as the ultimate authority above ArbCom" concept seems to be archaic, and I guess a large part of the protection reason is caused by their perceived authority. Anyway: Moved to AN, as this will likely interest a large number of editors whose collective opinion can overturn or confirm the protection in a way no single administrator can.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And let's not forget the, "persistent disruption from WMF-banned editor". that occurred earlier. And that role as ultimate arbiter has been subsumed by the Trust and Safety people at WMF. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Archaic as it is, Jimmy's role as the 'final court of appeal' is still on the books and was invoked as recently as 2019. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy's role as a final court of appeal is just as fictional as the UK monarch's power to withhold the royal assent. If Jimmy was to go against Arbcom, or the monarch was to go against Parliament, in any situation other than complete civil breakdown then we would really have a rebellion on our hands. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be officially struck from the books. The idea of one person having supreme authority doesn't seem to sit well with Wikipedia's consensus decision-making principle and level playing fields, and if there were ever a dispute contentious enough that consensus, ArbCom and the WMF were all failing the project, I doubt one person's supervote would be an acceptable resolution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I just find it so interesting an IP that's never edited is making this request as their first edit. So, who's laundry is out? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259/64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, still an interesting edit history. But I'll say no more. As for this proposal, nope leave it as is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, I don't shy away from controversy, but I have nothing to hide. Needless to say, I don't agree with any of this, and I don't appreciate being excluded from ongoing discussions at Jimbo's talk page, but you'll do as you will. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

To not be excluded: get an account, use it in peace for a few days, and there you go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I can't find the quote, I thought you previously championed the rights of IP editors and affirmed there was no requirement to make an account to participate here. I must have been mistaken. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's one, but it's pretty old:

"I think that anonymous (non-logged-in) editing is, on the whole, worthwhile..."

I think we're witnessing a paradigm shift. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On the whole, worthwhile. But not worthwhile at the most high-profile user talk page on the entire project, which is an obvious vandal magnet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that the vast majority of IP edits are good, even if the majority of bad edits also come from IPs. (If there's some damning new statistics that say otherwise, I'd like to see them.) And there's still trolls at Jimbo's talk page, even right now. This protection has not put a stop to the disruption; reduced it, perhaps, but at a cost we can't easily measure, because those affected haven't been able to comment. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether the majority of edits by IPs across all pages are good is not really relevant when we're discussing this particular page and the real risks of doxxing by LTAs that unprotection would bring. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But IP editors should be able to voice their concerns at the most high profile user talk page on the planet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, IP address don't have concerns, people do. If the person has a legitimate concerns, it is easy to create an account and express the complaint. People who choose to edit without an account are free to do so, and have an ever-so-tiny-hurdle to jump if they want to post to his talk page. Contrast that hurdle tot he hurdle necessary to post directly to the founder of Twitter or Facebook. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with you in this particular instance, and would withdraw my request (which was never meant for this venue) if I wasn't sure I would be reverted on the spot.

I just want to point out that saying 'unregistered editors are welcome to contribute if they just register an account' is equivalent to saying 'unregistered editors aren't welcome'. It seems like nobody here is prepared to admit that, to themselves or anyone else, and this is a big change from the consensus of years past. If this is what a consensus of admins, and Jimbo himself, believe, then the effects are going to reach far beyond Jimbo's talk page. Even the WMF Privacy Policy says there's no need to register an account; I think that might change soon. I honestly don't know if that would be a good or bad change, but I do know that the consequences would be massive and far-reaching. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Even though it is a popular working/issues page, it is still a users talk page. I'd side with the "keep it protected" editors in this advisory discussion, but I'd think Wales would have the only say if he wants it protected or not and since he hasn't removed the protection, there we go. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Jimbo did not explicitly request this protection, and he may not even be aware the page is still protected (until he sees this section), since the protection was applied months ago.

Also, I notice the last time the same admin protected Jimbo's talk page, we got: "oh crap, meant to se that to 72 hours, not indef". 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd oppose unprotecting JIMBOTALK as well. No offence to the OP, but that semiprotection is saving the admin team a lot of work and time that'd be wasted in revdel otherwise. I'm dealing with some of the LTAs whose vandalism has caused this protection, and I see little cause to give them this chance to leave links to suppressible libel on such a visible page. JavaHurricane 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the consensus of the community. I don't mind if it is unprotected - protecting me from various bad things isn't really something I'm worried about. I also don't mind if it is protected - even while I do think my page should be a place where people can bring up issues in a safe place that's a little bit "unofficial" is a good thing, and I like to be informed even about fringe objections, etc. Having an open ear to problems that we may be overlooking is basically a good thing. But it is no great burden to get auto-confirmed, which is all that it takes to overcome semi-protection, and if someone wants to engage in a meaningful and heartfelt way, with evidence and valid logical arguments, it doesn't have to be done behind an ip address or un-autoconfirmed account.

An additional factor which is extremely meaningful to me: wasting good people's time policing a page from useless trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 on this. Jimbo likes as many people as possible to contribute to discussions on his talk page, but a handful of very persistent LTA trolls (you know who you are) have made this difficult. It might be worth trying unprotection, but if this happened the protection would have to return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's always kind of annoying when there's a discussion like this were people weigh in with what they think will happen or what they would like to happen when we actually have a record of what has happened. Admittedly, as the financial ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns but it lets us avoid baseless speculation. That record shows that semi-protection is working. On April 1, 2019 Amakuru removed edit protection. Between then and the end of that year six different administrators had to use revdel 12 times on 21 revisions until it was semi-protected again on January 8, 2020 for a day. The disruption restarted 4 days after protection ended and there were another six revdel's on one day resulting in re-protection for a day. As soon as that protection expired, we see eight revdel's by three admins on 26 revisions until, well everyone gets the picture by now, I think. Every single time semi-protection expired material so disruptive it requires revision deletion has been immediately posted to that page. Since HJ Mitchell semi-protected it with an expiration of indefinite, no further revdel's have been needed for 47 days. It is clear from this record that semi-protection is both necessary and effective and that it should remain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with But it is no great burden to get auto-confirmed, which is all that it takes to overcome semi-protection, and if someone wants to engage in a meaningful and heartfelt way, with evidence and valid logical arguments, it doesn't have to be done behind an ip address or un-autoconfirmed account, which applies equally to all pages. Levivich 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's Jimbo's prerogative to have his talk page however he likes it to be, much as I disagree with his choice, but that's a slap-in-the-face to every good faith IP editor, of which there are far more than there are registered editors.

I hope it isn't lost on anyone here that anybody who actually follows that advice will face even more strife and accusations of wrongdoing, as a just-autoconfirmed account contributing to a high-level discussion. I'd be suspicious of them myself. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editors have been disadvantaged far more meaningfully, and for a far longer time, than not being able to edit Jimbo talk. Such as the inability to create articles without using AFC, inability to edit over 50,000 pages, inability to move any page, being caught up in edit filter false positives, hitting captchas, etc. We can sit here and debate how IPs are human too, but the practical reality is if you don't want to create an account (for ideological reasons or otherwise) you are going to be disadvantaged. As for accusations of wrongdoing, you'll get used to it ;) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that's no excuse to pile on ever more restrictions.

It's funny you should mention ideology; mine's changed in the past couple days. If I hadn't faced so much nonsense on the way to this point, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but it seems like both Jimbo and the greater admin community are now antagonistic verging on openly hostile towards IP editors as a group. It is not now nor will it be limited to Jimbo's talk page; I'm sure they carry that attitude wherever they go. Like I said, it's a paradigm shift, and it's disappointing. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's just say that it is preferable to not allow IPs to edit JIMBOTALK than to allow LTAs to doxx users on such a widely watched and used page. We've already lost enough editors to these abusers, and we don't want to lose more. JavaHurricane 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As another person in this thread said, Jimbo's talk page is an obvious vandal magnet. Because of this, I support unprotection: the more drama, the better.^{[just kidding]} Kleinpecan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the "last avenue of appeal" problem could be sorted by a note in the editnotice there, to the effect of, I dunno, If you are here to appeal an arbitration action but cannot edit this page, you may contact any ArbCom clerk and ask them to copy your request here, or you may create an account and wait for it to gain autoconfirmed status. That would satisfy the procedural issue for the rare case that an IP / non-(auto)confirmed user wants to appeal. As to the protection, if Jimbo doesn't mind, I say keep it protected—but keeping in mind that if Jimbo wishes to, as a regular admin action, unprotect the page at any time (permanently, or perhaps temporarily to allow such an appeal to take place without lots of copying and pasting), that's within his authority. I don't think the community really has the right to tell anyone they have to have their talkpage protected. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect I know there isn't going to be consensus to unprotect the talk page, but I would like to make my opinion known here. In my opinion, Jimbo's talkpage is more than a talk page, it is a forum for community discussion, and it should be open to IP editors like other such forums of discussion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as indef for the moment. As a matter of admin protection practices, if we protect it once, twice, thrice, and so forth - and the same disruption keeps happening, we indef the protection. Indef is not necessarily forever, but after a few times of repeated blocking by different admins, a pattern develops that indicates the underlying issue is not going away in the near future. Since November 2020, User talk: Jimbo Wales has been protected multiple times by multiple admins. The blocking summaries go from "vandalism" to "sock puppetry" to "persistent disruption from WMF-banned editor" to "Persistent sock puppetry: magnet for trolls and block evaders". And we have this IP with no other edit history, seems to be obsessed with getting the talk page unprotected. Perhaps it would be more productive for the WP:SPI people to do a little duck test. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in Jimbo's talk page because I've been lurking there for years, with edits going back to 2019 (check the link User:ToBeFree posted above), but this is the first time it's been semi-protected for so long. I followed the proper procedure to request unprotection, but I guess we just can't have nice things.

If you think you have enough evidence for an SPI, just do it. These threats are petty and the accusations personal attacks, but don't worry, I'm just an IP. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No threats. Just an explanation of how things normally work. I don't handle SPI, as that is a specialized group. Nobody is persecuting you for being an IP. If you are just a lone IP unrelated to the rest, no harm will be done by doing an SPI investigation of the rest of the IPs. There's nothing to keep you from reading Jimbo's talk page. But right now, I would advise you to do the easy solution and set up a user account for yourself. You may continue as an IP if you like, but the issue of the reasons for the last few months of the blocked talk page have to be dealt with. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You have insinuated that I am some master sockpuppeteer. That is, at a minimum, a personal attack (and you're like the third admin this week to do that). You've suggested there will be consequences, starting with an investigation, for my supposed misdeeds. That is a threat; saying 'that's how things normally work' is like saying 'it's not a threat, it's a promise'. You've been here much longer than me, I'm sure you know how to open an SPI, even if the investigation will be handled by someone else. I'd do it myself, but that would be too WP:POINT-y. I know "no harm" will be done to me, that's why I literally asking for it. C'mon, call my bluff. Please. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't need either unnecessary drama or persecution complexes in this conversation. There is a documented record of extremely serious disruption on that page and if you want to contribute there is a very, very easy way open to you that has been pointed out multiple times. If you can't be bothered to invest this infinitesimal effort, why would you think that anyone would want to pay attention to your lack of effort? In the time you've taken whining about protection here, you could already be halfway to being autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First, let me say that I was actually swayed by your post above to give up on this unprotection thing, though I still think we're doing a disservice to a large fraction of the community and that a better solution is needed. I'm only responding to User:Maile66's suggestion of an SPI, to say that I agree with it. At this point, I need one to clear my name. I hope you can understand why I wouldn't be inclined to create an account while I'm being accused of operating multiple accounts, even if Jimbo tells me to. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I say keep it semi-protected unless User:Jimbo Wales asks for otherwise. There is actual ongoing disruption to protect against and if Jimbo wanted it otherwise he would say so. This is the same treatment we would give any other user talk page being used as such. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think we should ask Jimbo Wales directly; it is ultimately a user talk page, so it should be up to him to decide on this. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo has already stated above, "I am happy to accept the consensus of the community. I don't mind if it is unprotected - protecting me from various bad things isn't really something I'm worried about. I also don't mind if it is protected ... " He also answered the above posting IP further up the page, "To not be excluded: get an account, use it in peace for a few days, and there you go." — Maile (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I appreciate this being brought here, I think future cases like this should be decided at WP:RFUP. The problem that led to protection was socking and LTAs, and the benefit of indef protection in those cases is that it doesn't give the LTAs an expiration time to plop on their calendar. Similarly, unprotecting it based on a large public discussion just serves to advertise the unprotection to LTAs who might be (probably are?) watching AN. So as a matter of strategy, I think we should leave this to WP:UNPROTPOL's usual responding admin discretion going forward. That said, I don't see a good reason to unprotect. It's serving its purpose and hasn't been applied particularly long given the level of disruption. Let it ride and see who feels like unprotecting it first (then saddle them with the work of supervising the page). — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there was no reason for this to be brought here, doing so only served to stir up drama. The request was made in the correct venue following the established procedure. Jimbo's talk page has been protected and unprotected many times in the past, and it never required a consensus of admins to do so. One admin acting unilaterally protected the page - but it takes how many to unprotect it? Up 'till now, it's always been just one, as it should be. Now the user that moved the request is trying to come up with some post-hoc justification based on all this discussion, but this is a drama board, where you can have a lengthy and involved discussion like this about even the most trivial of things. If a single admin had been allowed to follow procedure, we could have avoided all of this. Nearly everyone else involved in this discussion would not have noticed if the page was unprotected (they're not regulars at JimboTalk), and the ones that did notice probably wouldn't care. Unfortunately, we can't go back to before this mistake was made and act like all this didn't happen. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Was brought here from RFUP as being to large an issue. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, should not be indef. Just protect whenever necessary, and block abusers liberally. Jimbo doesn't seem to mind so we can also keep the useful honeypot function. No evidence that RFPP/RFUP/admins can't handle the load. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Long term abuse from IP range

A lot of edits from the IP range 2600:6C46:4100:7FF:0:0:0:0/64 seem to be hoaxes and unsourced, which can be seen by their contributions (Special:Contributions/2600:6C46:4100:7FF:0:0:0:0/64. They also created many different hoax articles if you look at the talk pages of several IP users in the range, where they are notified of their pages being marked for deletion. I would recommend a range block from this IP address due to long-term abuse. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, after doing a search of the talk pages, they have been warned numerous times. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to the search results of this IP range's talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=User+talk%3A+2600%3A6C46%3A4100%3A7FF&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1&searchToken=1mp1hazrk9cul4ewuwpzyirb8. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. If it starts up again, we can do it longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Melbourne Vixens

I am concerned about the recent edits of @Jesslmas: at Melbourne Vixens. They keep removing from the 2021 squad section even though they are all listed here [145]. I have left them a message at Talk:Melbourne Vixens asking for an explanation. Djln Djln (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to report that this issue seems to have been now resolved amicably. Djln Djln (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Stale unblock request

Would a kind admin please decline or grant the unblock request at User_talk:Display_name_99#Second_unblock_request? It's been languishing a while. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

6 Week RFC type discussion at WP:Notability

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

---

This was a 6 week discussion which was not formally identified as an RFC but was structured and discussed like one. I proposed a close and waited several weeks and then tried an edit based on it and was reverted based on there not being a close, which is fine. Would it be possible to get an admin close at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@North8000, given how messy the discussion is, a lot more than a perfunctory close is needed. WP:Closure requests is the proper forum to request one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post it over there and consider this request here to be closed. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Bret Weinstein article contains misleading information

The summary of the [Weinstein article] contains misleading and potentially defamatory information. It reads as follows:

Bret Samuel Weinstein /ˈwaɪnstaɪn/ (born 21 February 1969) is an American evolutionary biologist and podcaster who came to national attention during the 2017 Evergreen State College protests. He is among the people referred to collectively as the "intellectual dark web".[3][4] Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.

The last sentence of this summary is deeply problematic. It cites sources at Vice, Reuters, and PolitiFact to support its assertion. Bret and Heather have repeatedly argued for a lab leak hypothesis to be considered as a potential source of the COVID-19 coronavirus alongside a possible zoonotic origin. In recent months, several major publications have published articles exploring the lab leak theory: New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, and Washington Post According to Nature magazine, "a lab leak has not been ruled out". Discussing a possibility of a lab leak origin for the COVID-19 virus is not misinformation - this is a part of the scientific process where scientists explore various hypotheses and attempt to prove or disprove them. To assert that Bret and Heather are spreading "misinformation" is disingenuous and defamatory.

The editors of this article have locked it to prevent further editing. Please follow up with them and ask them to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei338 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For content dispute, I think the correct venue is the Talk Page of the article and not on this noticeboard. I think the article is locked for a short while until people cools down and not engaging in more edit wars. SunDawn (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with reliable sources in virology; Nature is distinctly not a magazine, and publications like the Washington Post and Vanity Fair are not reliable sources for virology. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note there are other discussions of this page underway at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bret Weinstein NPOV breach in lead paragraph footer. and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bret Weinstein. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion

Materialscientist has a history of questionable editing and removed an article or proposed the deletion of said article. The World Taekwondo Demonstation Team could win the talent competition America's Got Talent and thus would invalidate any of the actions taken by admins on here. Moreisgood1 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 You must notify Materialscientist of this discussion. So you seem to be saying that this team is not yet notable, but will be. If they aren't yet, then they don't merit an article yet, which would make the deletion correct. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Realize that's the protocol yet what I am saying is there is general ineptitude on this site and maybe much of it will now be brought to light. This year the site has tried to employ some accountability however if a certain percentage of admins are behaving in an incorrect fashion nothing will change very quickly. Yes I am saying some of the articles this admin edits or kept aren't notable and yet they work to take down important material ironically by someone with material in their username and also an admin. Moreisgood1 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 If we are so inept then why do you come here? We are not professionals, we are volunteers doing what we can when we can. If you feel an article merits deletion, you may propose it along with your reasoning for that opinion. That other inappropriate articles exist does not meant that yours can too, see other stuff exists. Again, if this performance team has not yet won AGT, they are not yet notable and it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about them. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your point is not valid. You are using a word like if incorrectly. The act (team) in question is an international talent. It's clear that Wikipedia has much more of an English and American presence then in Korea, for example. If you need proof that people aren't doing their jobs correctly I can't even make this appeal because girth summit is not using talk pages in a right fashion and has threatened me too with being blocked. Wow, the arrogance of this site is mind-blowing. Moreisgood1 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1, you are attacking another editor's actions, using words like corruption and ineptitude, and you created a page in article space that was nothing but a complaint about Wikipedia and had nothing to do with the subject it was named for: that's not OK. You are welcome to politely ask someone why they have deleted a page, or to ask for help in creating an acceptable article, but if you continue along your current trajectory you will be blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 (ec) It doesn't matter if they are from one country or multiple countries or if they are from the planet Vulcan. They must meet the notability criteria, and merely being international does not do that. If they win AGT, then they would be(possibly even if they are just in the top three). 331dot (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to put this so bluntly. But this is a case of not getting what you want and thus assuming others are wrong. I see only the correct application of our policies here. If you are not happy with the outcome then that is unfortunate, the way Wikipedia is ran does not bring happiness to everyone. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot, what are you talking about. If I establish their notability on here now would you agree with me on anything? Girth, not attacking you or anyone. I read on your page that you feel you are especially busy and I guess you may not have much time for the site. You probably like most people try to be involved in only certain areas of editing and such. If I am showing a general lack of competence by a substantial percentage of admins and also other editors why would you try to quiet me or anyone? The fact that you don't use your talk page correctly supports what I am saying. You deleted something and moved it to my talk page, who does that? Almost no one, it's a misuse. Going back to the things I said on here yes, I can prove the actions taken in regard to the article have been not correct. I do question this site. It's wrong often. Not at all being run how it was intended, maybe that is why so many people have left and are not involved on anything here. Moreisgood1 (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 Yes, if you establish that they are notable, that's different. But you haven't yet and I'm not certain you can. If you think you can I would suggest that you use Articles for Creation to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what way you think the site is not being run well other than "it isn't doing what I want". 331dot (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I moved your comment from my talk page to yours because I had already started a thread about that article on your talk - it makes no sense to have a single conversation taking place at two locations. If you don't like it there, you're free to remove the whole thread. Now, you've started this thread to complain about the actions of a particular admin, and you have been told by multiple admins that there was nothing wrong with those actions. You've been advised by two of us to create a draft and run if through AfC. I suggest that you drop this, and go do that. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1, I find it astonishing that someone can demonstrate they don't have a clue about how this place works while simultaneously lecturing us that we are doing it all wrong. I am literally shaking my head at the hubris. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mig1, it looks like GS opened a section and posted advice to your talk. You went to GS's talk and opened a new section to respond to that advice. GS moved that new section to your talk into the advice section so the convo would happen all in one place. Any experienced editor would try to keep a conversation in one place. It's absolutely not GS misusing their user talk. —valereee (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Request

I am requesting here for temporary semi-protection of Pushkar Singh Dhami because a lot of unsourced information are being added now without WP:VERIFY by various IP editors. The page visibility is high now because he has been elected as the 11th Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. I have also put this request at WP:RfPP, but currently there is a backlog of 20+. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Already protected. The autoconfirmed user has been warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, can you also help regarding Khorkuto. I have also requested it long ago at WP:RFPP. The page is being constantly edited by various IP editors where they are adding all the TV cast in MOS:LEAD that is not required as they are discussed in later section. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

It is my request that someone restore Left-wing fascism. This page was deleted by @Sandstein: as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing fascism (4th nomination). The problem here is that while Wikipedia policy states that a AfD should stay open for 7 days it appears that the result has been keep three times prior and that continuing to AfD it until the desired result is in bad faith. There should have been more than the typical 7 days given it was the 4th nomination.

Also, I know while not typically policy maybe the closing admin looked at all four nominations rather than the one. Just something I request be considered. Thank you for your time. Michael-Moates (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael-Moates, the place to discuss these concerns would first be my talk page (where you have also not posted the required notification for this thread), and then WP:DRV if need be. Sandstein 19:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to this being the wrong venue, and in addition to there being no case to overturn, accusing User:MjolnirPants of "bad faith" for renominating the article after a decade, when they did not even participate in the previous AfD, is casting aspersions. Either explain why you think that MjolnirPants has done something wrong, or don't claim so without evidence. You also failed to notify them (which you should have done, given the implicit accusation of misconduct). I'll go do that for you. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You assumed wrong. I never said the nominator was in bad faith, I am saying it is in bad faith for this process to happen multiple times without new evidence as to why it should be AfD'ed. I never once called out a specific user. I am saying that if twelve times an article nominated is voted to be kept and on the 13th the vote is delete that seems like a bad faith decision based on a temporary consensus that would long be overturning precedent. Respectfully, do not accuse me of personal attacks without evidence as I never personally attacked anyone. Because of your misunderstanding you assumed I have to tag him. That is false because I was not accusing him of anything. Also, to further my point, I didn't even know who the nominator was because he didn't sign his post properly from what I can see. @Sandstein: - As for venue I apologize, my goal was to have someone uninvolved look at this and give feedback.

I do think it is important to note that 3 times it was kept and on this run it was 1 keep, 1 tentative delete (because couldn't see sources he said "it may be that there is scope for a valid article on this subject, possibly based on the Google Scholar hits,"), 2 weak delete, and 1 delete. If you want I can move this post to another venue.

My hope is that we can talk about substance rather than assume I am bad mouthing someone. The assumption was made that I was directly attacking someone when I was criticizing the process. Michael-Moates (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, Wikipedia, put "left-wing fascism" into Google Scholar [146] and !vote "keep, meets GNG, AFD is not cleanup." Levivich 21:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Help!

I don't have time to re-write this from scratch - someone has to draftify Rodney Mims Cook Jr. and delete the redirect, or otherwise just take it on. We're not LinkedIn. ɱ (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Following a now closed amendment request, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion that:

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified