Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.245.195.203 (talk) at 12:30, 18 June 2021 (→Turkish War of Independence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Praxidicae

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

    @Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.
    Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.
    Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit (blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit (blether) 17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit (blether) 10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.
    I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.
    I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.
    Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit (blether) 11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Störm: So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; Icodense99 mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by scope creep and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Störm: What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentionally deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread was archived, but I think there are multiple issues still to be addressed. @Störm, Praxidicae, Dane, Celestina007, Blablubbs, and Girth Summit: (I think that's the main participants - apologies if I've missed anyone). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
    @Lugnuts: Thanks for unarchiving. I agree that there are outstanding issues here. --Blablubbs|talk 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just happened across this thread and find it rather disconcerting. If anything, I think perhaps a month-long volunteer t-ban from BLPs by Störm will provide adequate time for some introspection as well as time to re-read the relative WP:PAGs; consider it a type of refresher course. The actions by Prax were certainly justified. I am very disappointed to see the types of issues she brought to our attention about Störm's editing; a productive user with over 80k edits. From my perspective as a VRT member, we occasionally confirm published birth dates of notable people, but it involves highly confidential information that is characteristic of our work at OTRS - it's primarily about WP:V. VRT agents are completely neutral, so the chance of a COI is slim to none. Editors can certainly suggest that a BLP contact WMF if a DOB is that important, but you must be able to provide a published date, or conflicting date(s), even if archived (see Way Back machine). While it is certainly acceptable for an editor to corroborate a birth date with published material, it is not acceptable to create dates based on unpublished information; thus OR. In this particular case, I'm not convinced that a formal block or t-ban would create anything but bitterness, and we don't want that, especially considering that the behavior does not involve vandalism, incivility or 3RR style disruption that needs expedient intervention. However, I am of the mind that the community does need some form of convincing reassurance, which explains my opening proposal for a volunteer t-ban. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're still awaiting a reply from Storm, not just for a volunteer t-ban, but the plethora of un-answered questions about (possible) COI and the lack of disclosing the EXACT source for the biography/biographies they have created. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

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

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

    This is the only edit that 223.223.140.176 has ever made, and reporting it here is the only edit that 113.21.66.71 has ever made. Don't know what's going on there, but it's weird. And the message on Prax's talk page is absolutely loathsome. jp×g 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both IPs are Kolkata-based. The message they left doesn't represent what I stand for. Shame they do such cowardly acts. Störm (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unresolved issues

    I believe the following issues are still unresolved:

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

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

    serious WP:HOUNDING by Ravensfire

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

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

    • My edit on Rathore page [7] Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute  [8] [9]
    • When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

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

    Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastintalk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.
    • Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [10]
    • List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [11]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
    • The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [12], [13], [14] - and plenty more.
    He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.
    • SPI against Heba Aisha [15], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
    • SPI against Chariotrider555 [16] declined by CU due to lack of evidence
    His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[17],
    • WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [18] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.
    This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [19].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of Ratnahastin that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't got a chance yet to look at their general pattern of sourcing and content addition. Please keep this thread open for at least a couple of days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.
    Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India. This needs some review and attention from administrators. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Here they cited 4 unreliable Raj-era sources authored by an engineer, an army officer, etc., along with adding a massive unsourced or unreliably sourced list of rulers. They also misrepresented a modern source which mentions a legend in a footnote & questions its authenticity on multiple fronts. Practically, the whole massive edit is either unreliably sourced or misrepresentation of the sources.
    • Here they again dumped the massive mess (discussed by me in the previous point) to a different article.
    • Here they added a massive unsourced list of rulers from the 9th century onwards.
    • Here they cited the 19th-century physician Thomas Alexander Wise for Historical Vedic religion-related detail of Ancient India.
    • Here they cited the 19th-century physician Edward Balfour for Rajput-related claim of a 12th-century ruler.
    • And as I have already mentioned, Jadaun_Rajput is solely created by them and is full of issues: unreliable 19th-century sources (e.g., ref no. 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, etc.); primary or unacceptable sources (e.g., ref no. 7, 9, 10 12, etc.); ref no. 4 is a self-published source of a non-scholar, etc. Not to mention that the ref. no. 18 is misrepresented again.
    • I finally, when I found a seemingly OK-sourced edit ([20]), I cross-checked the content to check its accuracy, as I have access to that source. To my surprise, the text which isn't directly quoted by them is copy-pasted from the source after making cosmetic changes, i.e. the edit is a copyvio. Here's the comparison of their text with that of the source:
    text comparison

    a) Quote from the source[21]: Bhoja I first consolidated his position locally (including against the feudatories holding Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar), before turning his attention against the old ... enemies — the formidable Palas of Gauda.
    Their text: Mihira Bhoja first consolidated his territories locally by crushing the rebellious feudatories of Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar, before turning his attention against the old enemies :Palas and Rastrakutas.

    b) Quote from the source: Bhoja I then turned towards Central India, the Deccan and Gujarat. Stepping into a struggle for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... The raid was repulsed by Dhruva II. ... Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa ...
    Their text: Mihirbhoja then turned towards Malwa, Deccan and Gujarat. In Gujarat he Stepped into a war of succession for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... the raid was repulsed by Dhruva II.Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa.

    c) Quote from the source: The enmity between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas smouldered on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the king of the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas ... jointly attacked Pratihara territories sometime before AD 888. A major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas followed at Ujjayini. The Gurjara-Pratiharas were conclusively defeated. ... however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas, ... towards the end of his reign Bhoja I exterminated the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas.
    Their text: The rivalry between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas continued on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the Rastrakuta king of the Gujarat jointly attacked Pratihara empire in AD 888, with a major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas at Ujjayini. The Pratiharas were defeated. however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas,towards the end of reign of Bhoja,he had successfully exterminated the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty.

    d) Quote from the source: ... this may refer to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan ...
    Their text: This may be reference to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan.

    e) Quote from the source: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja I expanded his boundaries eastwards ... into ... Pala-held lands ...
    Their text: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja expanded his boundaries eastward into Pala-held territories.

    f) Quote from the source: ... that many of the kings of India obeyed the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, whose mighty army had 150,000 horses and 800 elephants.
    Their text: ...that most of the kings of India acknowledged the supremacy of the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, ... whose mighty army had 150,000 strong cavalry and 800 war elephants.

    Then I checked their other edit ([22]) at that article. And it is also a copyvio:

    text comparison
    }

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

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

    text comparison
    }

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

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

    @NitinMlk: As you can see, I haven't edited in 4 days because I am allowing scrutiny of my edits. I acknowledge the issues you have raised including lack of compliance with WP:RAJ,WP:RS and copyright violation. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is also a copyright violation. And likewise many other editors didn't noticed that i had paraphrased my additions thats why i have not received any such heads up or warnings on my talkpage yet.
    Since I have joined only 2 months ago, I am still learning to use wikipedia and its enormous guidelines but I promise to do better on the pages, unless I am abiding by the guidelines that have been pointed above.RatnaHastintalk 03:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • here you added a WP:UGC, but even that doesn't mention Rajput anywhere
    • here you added an entry with fake refs, as none of the cited sources - [23], [24], [25] - mention that the subject was a Rajput.
    • here you added another fake ref – it doesn't mention Rajput anywhere
    • here again there is no mention of his caste in the cited source – "1 Rajput" is the name of the battalion
    • here also the cited page has no mention of Rajput
    • here also the cited source doesn't mention that he is a Rajput and it is also a BLP violation. Note that mention of caste in BLPs requires self-identification – see here for details
    • here also you added a fake ref and created BLP violation
    • here you misrepresented the source which mentions the subject as Ravana Rajput, which is a separate caste
    • here you added multiple claims based on a tourist guide and a UGC, but neither of them are reliable for that detail. In fact, the tourist guide states that the canon is the largest in Asia, rather than the world. And your "small lake" claim is not even supported by these unacceptable sources.
    • here you added an unreliable UGC, but it neither supports the "Rathore" surname added by you nor the claim that he is the only soldier to get that award.
    • here you added an unsourced claim
    • here you added an unsourced "Rajaputra" claim
    • here you created an unsourced article

    And here are some new copyvios:

    text comparison

    a) Quote from the source: Nagabhata I (r. AD ?739-760?), ... was originally perhaps a feudatory of the Chapas of Bhillamala. ... He gained prominence after the downfall of the Chapa kingdom in the course of resisting the invading forces led by the Arabs who controlled Sindh.
    Their text: Nagabhata I (739-760),was originally perhaps a feudatory of the Chavdas of Bhillamala He gained prominence after the downfall of the Chavda kingdom in the course of resisting the invading forces led by the Arabs who controlled Sindh.

    b) Quote from the source, (page no. 12 of this PDF): Nagabhata I extended his control east and south from Mandor, conquering Malwa as far as Gwalior and the port of Bharuch in Gujarat. He established his capital at Avanti in Malwa, and checked the expansion of the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sind.
    Their text: Nagabhata Pratihara I (730–756) later extended his control east and south from Mandor, conquering Malwa as far as Gwalior and the port of Bharuch in Gujarat. He established his capital at Avanti in Malwa, and checked the expansion of the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sind.

    c) Quote from the source ([27]): In the battle of Rajasthan (738 CE) Nagabhatta led a confederacy of Rajput clans to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through west Asia and Iran.
    Their text: In this battle (738 CE) Nagabhata led a confederacy of Pratiharas to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through West Asia and Iran.

    d) Quote from the source ([28]): Nagabhatta I was followed by two weak successors
    Their text: Nagabhata I was followed by two weak successors

    • Edit: [29], which they also copied to other articles: [30] & [31]
    text comparison

    a) Quote from the source: According to ... Radhanpur Plate Inscription and the Prithviraj Vijaya ..., Vatsaraja even led an expedition against the distant eastern kingdom of Gauda (Bengal), then ruled by the Palas under King Dharamapala. ... As such Gauda ... came into conflict from time to time with the Imperial Pratiharas
    Their text: According to Radhanpur Plate Inscription and Prithviraj Vijaya, Vatsaraja led an expedition against the distant eastern kingdom of Bengal, ruled by the Palas under Dharamapala. as such palas came into conflict from time to time with the Imperial Pratiharas.

    b) Quote from the source: Dharamapala ... was deprived of his two white royal umbrellas, and forced to flee, hotly pursued by the Pratihara forces ... The Prithviraj Vijaya describes Durlabhraj I as having ...The Baroda Inscription of AD 812 also refers to Nagabhata’s victory over the Gauda king Dharamapala.
    Their text: Dharamapala, was deprived of his two white Royal Umbrellas, and fled, pursued by the Pratihara forces ... The Prithviraj Vijaya describes Durlabhraj I as having ... The Baroda Inscription ( AD 812) also refers to Nagabhata's victory over the Gauda king Dharamapala.

    c) Quote from the source: Through vigorous campaigning, Vatsaraja had extended his dominions to include a large part of northern India, ... from the Thar Desert in the west up to the frontiers of Gauda in the east
    Their text: Through vigorous campaigning, Vatsraj had extended his dominions to include a large part of northern India, from the Thar Desert in the west up to the frontiers of bengal in the east

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

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

    As pointed by NitinMlk, Ratnahastin is not only doing Copyvio edits and Pov edits on caste articles, but also targetting the editors in the area on being reverted. This report is part of that agressive behaviour towards fellow editors. In past , as i already explained that LukeEmily, Chariotrider555 and me, all were dragged into such cases. We have a provision of discretionary sanctions in the caste area. I do feel that to avoid further massive disruptive edits to Rajput related articles, there is a need to ban him in this topic area. Tagging Diannaa for quick response. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NitinMlk , Heba Aisha and the other editors that Ratnahastin should be topic banned under WP:NOTHERE. There is another such editor Shinjoya but I will not discuss him in this section.LukeEmily (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. Deb (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that Ratnahastin should be topic banned from caste-related articles. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes on the said pages.  WP:CBAN states that the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a 'consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."

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

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

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

    Ratnahastin, you stated that: "Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes". Did you notice that an admin (Deb) has also agreed regarding the sanctions against you? Can you tell me how is he directly involved in content disputes with you? Also, when did I ever reply to your any comment outside this thread? I was pinged/mentioned at Talk:Rajput#Why_shouldn't_we_remove_the_Russia_Rajput_image. When I noticed that thread, I made a comment about user Shinjoya, along with replying to him a couple of times. But I have never discussed anything with you outside this thread. So your claim that I am involved "in heated content related dispute" with you is not correct. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nitin Mlk: Actually, Ratnahastin is right. You are directly engaged in content dispute with him at Talk:Rajput not only in Russia Rajpoot disusssion but also in another thread related to origin section. So, WP:CBAN applies here. You and LukeEmily should have atleast tagged me when making my reference. Shinjoya (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal

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

    Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40

    As far as I understand, IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is still topic banned from Race & Intelligence for pushing a conspiracy theory related to the topic area (per [32]). Their continued pushing of this conspiracy theory was discussed here last October, though apparently no additional action was taken: [33].

    This IP user has now reappeared once again, pushing the same conspiracy theory over at a user talk page, with the apparent approval of other like-minded editors. Some of the chatter on that talk page is clearly inappropriate (aspersions, etc.), but the only actionable item I'm going to suggest at this point is a longer-term range block for the IP to enforce the t-ban. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request that an admin action this request, and broadly. The R&I subject area was a terrible quagmire until an ArbCom case cleaned it up somewhat, but if sanctions are not enforced, it's likely to become one again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large range with a large number of edits. Previous blocks were partial page blocks - the Race & Intelligence page and an Arbcom page. What is being proposed here, and can we have a few more diffs? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant background diffs are in the two discussions I linked above, here and here, and then the most recent t-ban violation is here. With regard to the best way to handle the situation, I will defer to others, though I certainly agree with what Beyond My Ken has stated above. It seems to me that there should be some way to enforce a well-earned topic ban. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only give you my observations the way I see it. There's some diffs from the previous year, and thousands of edits from the range since (presumably many different people, but obvious collateral), and who knows how many legitimate account creations. This doesn't look like a productive full block situation to me. Maybe a partial block against the one user's talk page? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The conspiracy theory being discussed at that talk page is ridiculous beyond belief: the earliest reference I can recall off the top of my head (and I guarantee I could find earlier ones if I looked into it) to there being an establishment of scientific racism within psychometry was in a letter written by Richard Lewontin in 1970. Somehow, I don't think he was inspired by some trolling at RationaWiki in 2018. I know for a fact that in the late 90's, people were discussing it in the context of The Bell Curve and it's failings.
    Honestly, I truly believe anyone at that talk page involved in that discussion could benefit from a TBAN, because the simple fact that they're taking those claims seriously evinces a grave lack of competence to work in this subject. In at least one case, this would be the re-imposition of such a ban. As for the IP, TonyBallioni said it in the discussion in which the IP's topic ban was imposed: range blocks on these IPs usually have very low collateral damage. I say go for it, and if anyone else in that range wants to edit, they can create an account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that -- as opposed to range full blocks -- range topic bans, in the form of partial blocks, have much less chance of collateral damage and would seem to be a good way to handle the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what I had in mind, but yes, page blocks from the talk pages of the involved editors, as well as the article in question would likely get the job done. Honestly, I'm still unfamiliar with the concept of partial blocks. It seems alien and strange and I want to squint at it and tell it to pull up its pants and get a real job, then go mutter about kids not knowing what respect is to myself while I sit on my porch in a rocking chair and whittle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting in the hopes this edit will show up on an admin's watchlist. There's a literal cabal of editors plotting ways to get around the community consensus and inventing excuses to engage in POV pushing, led by an IP editor who's been topic-banned from this subject. I'd like to repeat that I wholeheartedly encourage an admin to topic-ban the whole group of them, to avoid the future disruptions that this sort of behavior makes clear is inevitable, if nothing is done about it. If evidence of a long- term pattern of disruption is necessary, I will gather and provide it upon request. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it should be clear that it isn't possible to topic ban a big group of people in a report at a noticeboard. That's only possible in an arbitration case. Also, it seems admins are showing little interest in this report, so probably no one will be blocked or topic banned here. tickle me 12:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen multiple ANI threads result in more than one topic ban being handed out. Pinging zzuuzz to see if they'll follow through with at least the partial block they suggested on that IP range. If we're not going to enforce existing topic bans, then there's little point in having them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes we can't even enforce the fullest of full site bans, so don't get your hopes up. Topic bans are not one of my specialties, and this subject certainly isn't, so if anyone else needs a topic ban then that's a different discussion. However, I've renewed the partial block on the IP range since their topic ban is still in place and this block is cheap. I've added the user talk page, which has been edited twice in the past year. Talk:Race and intelligence is currently EC-protected for some time, but I've also added that to the block mainly for its symbolism. Other admins should feel free to add to the block as they see fit - I believe the limit for partial blocks is currently 10 pages if anyone has any better suggestions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm aware that not all actions can be enforced, but it's certainly in the best interest of the project that we at least try. This article has been a shitshow for years thanks to editors like these, constantly plotting ways to advance their cause without ever once stopping to consider that if they can't make their case with reliable sources, they don't have a case to make. It's especially concerning to see an admin falling for this obvious bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really think all of our behavior is that bad, you should request an arbitration case. The fact that you haven't requested one yet suggests you're aware that if you do, the case wouldn't necessarily go in your (and NightHeron and Generalrelative's) favor. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going to help make a great evidence diff when this does eventually end up at ArbCom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You and the others have been threatening an arbitration case for over a month. If you intend to request an arbitration case, please just do it instead of trying to scare us with empty threats. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Content replacement vandalism [34]
    • Unhelpful theorizing [35]
    • An aggressive presumption of bad faith/shilling [36]
    • Anonymous IP with "all my PhD friends" WP:OR [37]
    • An existing ANI and ArbCom discussion regarding a protracted debate involving an IP editor (who has preferred not to use a previous account or create a new one, making conversation and identifying which IPv6 user is being replied to in a threaded conversation difficult)

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

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

    Page protection would be a huge help - the situation is out of control [38]. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, my intention is not to suggest that you are uniquely suited for the task, only to receive feedback like this. And this give me the impression that, as has been argued elsewhere (including the ArbCom case above and past ANI discussions), GS aren't getting enforced at a level to be effective. Not necessarily because individual admins are doing anything wrong, but because the effort and backlash are too high to result in action, and there's not enough motivation to solve those root issues to produce effective policing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there was ever a GS as active as WP:GS/COVID19. Not to broken-record-it-up, but compared with WP:ACDS, WP:GS is pretty much disadvantaged from the outset. It's basically ACDS-light — because GS has WP:AN/WP:ANI, while DS also has those plus WP:AE/WP:ARCA (more often than not, superior forums). El_C 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in parallel to the ArbCom case. It is too early to have this discussion. When the case request has been answered (and the case, if accepted, has been resolved), please have a look at the situation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see today that the current proposal includes a change in the method of sanctions, so I agree that a delay would make sense. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as policy goes, I'd think it's covered under the GS which allows admins to take measures they deem appropriate. Although talk page protection is still very uncommon, and thus clear consensus at ANI is better I think. But given the recent discussion at ANI that found a consensus in favour of EC/semi-protection on another page in the topic but on this exact issue, the community seems to have already made its position clear on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @183.83.147.38: With respect, if a user is making valuable and productive contributions, they won't be hampered by creating an account. I'd suggest it's much easier to carry out a conversation and come to an agreement when users aren't an ever-changing string of numbers, particularly in protracted discussion with multiple IP users which can be mistaken for one another. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we're discussing the topic of the benefits of IP editors, I'd like to point out that the above IP user has received a temporary ban on editing for harassment. While this obviously shouldn't be used to imply all IP editors are unproductive, I think it's worthwhile context both for how to interpret above user's comments, and for the depth of the issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "harassment"? The reason for my temporary block was a joke I had cracked on a user's page; I had no idea that it somehow constituted banworthy "harassment" on this site. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The joke in question was diff: "I write this in admiration of your valiant efforts to please your Chinese paymasters. Too bad it'll all come to naught in a while..." As a hint to editors monitoring this topic, I will issue long blocks for any other disruption that is brought to my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support locking talkpage to non-registered users. First we made sure to kick off wikipedia all those that had unappealing opinions. Now we must make sure that there is totally no wp:Cabal that maintains the status quo at any price. This must be done even if it goes against the shifting mainstream public consensus shown by peer-reviewed articles scientific articles and even heavily left-leaning mainstream news outlets. We cabals cannot let the opinions of those easily swayed journalists count, especially since these weak-willed journalists did a 180 in less than a week. We must stand strong behind the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to let wikiactivists like this do their job of removing any mention of reliable sources that might have the potential to unsubstantiate the status quo without leaving the option of anonymous IP calling out their heavy biased pruning. Please give awards to such glorious wikipedians that defend the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted at User talk:205.175.106.86 to warn them that any further poking of other editors or poorly sourced commentary at article talk will result in an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Stewart rekindled that posture Monday night in a segment that seems like a potential inflection point in the debate over the coronavirus’s origins." quote from the article whose mention you happily removed from the talkpage, thus styming from the start any potential discussion on the merits of including such a perspective in the article. very wp:npov indeed. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page is filled with mainstream sources presenting dissenting opinions to what the wiki article in its current state implies. None of those mainstream sources are used in the article, and any additional discussion on said mainstream sources presenting disagreeing opinions has been removed by "established users". Said established users are now comfortable to even list said mainstream sources on the relevant talkpage. wp:npov in action. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    here is the latest example of removal of any such discussion under the guise of mentioning of wp:cabal in the middle of a discussion where a small "collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" that defends the current status quo and disregards any regent developments discussed in mainstream news sources. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why one would consider a comedy show to be a reliable source. The bigger question is: have you even read the mainstream (non-scientific) source you're citing (beyond the title)? This clearly notes how Stewart is "oversimplifying complex issues to land a joke", the "chicken-and-egg issue" and so on. I'm not going to bother explaining NPOV and our preference for SCHOLARSHIP for a thousandth time when the best you can come up with is the above. @Johnuniq: btw, is the above block evasion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the presented source is a WaPo article discussing the said event. you stymied even starting a discussion on the merits of including such information in the article by dismissing any disagreeing opinions. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's the source on which I just offered my comments. Too bad that you also insisted on posting accusations along with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad you used the excuse of one "offending" comment to remove multiple other comments, all the other comments being direct links mainstream sources related to the topic. But then again, there is no such thing as "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" since removal of all non-offending comments together with a single other "offending" is perfectly within the rules agreed by the "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest". Indeed, all your edits have been about improving the subject to cover wp:npov without accidentally or intentionally falling within the scope of a "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not a link-farm, and your comment did not suggest any tangible change to the article. In short, it looks exactly like any of the dozens of other previous disruptive edits in the area. The ironic tone of the remainder of your comment is not really acceptable, either. Again, go read NPOV, since you're citing it so much, particularly the bit about good research, due and undue weight, and the explanatory supplement guideline about dealing with an idea which departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I strongly object to any further protections on this article. The science is very much in flux, and new contributors should not be bullied out of the process. I have been observing these pages and it appears to me that certain editors/admins are hyper-vigilant about maintaining a certain hegemony (perhaps unintentionally) rather than a bias-free reflection of where the science actually stands.
    While we're on the subject, I take issue with RandomCanadian's above interpretation of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories as it pertains to the origins of SARS-CoV-2. This is an open scientific question, and it should be treated as such. Because there is currently scant evidence for any scenario, any hypothesis that has not been ruled out can not be considered a "fringe theory", and certainly should not be classified by wikipedia as "misinformation", or "conspiracy theory".
    I will assume good faith here, and will not presume that anyone is attempting to administer their way to their desired article. I will kindly ask users Bakkster Man and RandomCanadian to return to the talk page and attempt consensus.KristinaLu (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages are placed under general sanctions because many inexperienced editors waste time by making grand statements rather than following the advice in my message just above yours. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world who takes issue with what. If someone has been bullied, post a WP:DIFF showing the bullying and corrections will be applied. Otherwise, don't make evidence-free sweeping statements. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KristinaLu: I appreciate the WP:AGF here. While I disagree on some details you've presented above (better to cover at the talk page), I absolutely agree on seeking consensus and finding ways to get NPOV coverage of contentious topics. I think you'll find much of my talk page participation is trying to sort through edit wars or disputed content to try and find a way to build consensus. I certainly don't think my suggestion here is in opposition to that goal of consensus and NPOV, having suggested it only after a week of persistent IP-based disruption. And, as I mentioned above, it's very difficult to converse -let alone build consensus - with an IP-user (on one occasion, the participation of two different IPv6 users - whose addresses varied from day to day - with different views in a single conversation meant I mistakenly attributed comments to the wrong user). I wish I didn't think such a request was necessary, but the Talk page protection of the misinformation article did help us minimize disruption (and, I'd argue, better build consensus and improve the article).
    I'll add that I still think semi-protection is a very mild inconvenience, and not a serious barrier to participation (like the originally proposed ECP for the Misinformation talk page could have been). It would limit only the drive-by comments (rarely productive, usually disruptive), and the 10 edit threshold would be easily met by the IP users engaging in actual conversation. Especially since it would only apply to these two Talk pages that appear to be targets of most disruptive edits, leaving other COVID talk pages for productive edits by those seeking autoconfirmed status (I'd very much agree with your concern if disruption increased to a level that all COVID-related talk pages were being considered for semi-protect). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom notice and subsequent discussion

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

    Sri Lankan Civil War Dispute (again)

    Sri Lankan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This is another topic area that is the subject of battleground editing because it was a real battleground. The issue appears to be a dispute about how many people were killed. (One answer is too many, but that is obvious and says nothing.) Another dispute has been filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War But it appears to be a re-litigating of a dispute that User:Nightenbelle appeared to have resolved successfully in March 2021, in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

    Jayingeneva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    84.209.141.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    At this point, I think that we have either or both of two alternatives:

    • We can topic-ban some or all of the users. I haven't reviewed the case in enough detail to know who is the problem, and am inclined to the draconian solution of banning them all.
    • We can impose Community General Sanctions for the topic of the Sri Lankan Civil War, which doesn't fall within the scope of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (because Sri Lanka is not one of the nations listed).

    Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    just a comment- this exact issue was solved, agreed on, the sixth version of a paragraph that we debated every nuance of for almost a month was inserted in the article and in 24 hours the involved editors threw the agreement out and went back to editing and reverting and arguing. This was “solved” for 24 hours and is a battle that has been raging for 4-5 months at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the previous WP:DRN: "At this point- I'm going to throw the infobox out of this disagreement- because you have changed your mind twice now. So- ya'll will need to discuss that back at the talk page, this DRN was about the paragraph, and that is the only topic I am going to agree to mediate at this point. Does anyone have any further problems with the paragraph or are we good to close? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)"
    • The second WP:DRN is only regarding the Infobox. Namely, can Oz346, Obi2canibe and 84.209.141.236 please provide a WP:RS to support their edits/reverts listed below that claim 276,000 casualties? Like last time, the discussion has descended into accusations/incivility and stalled. Can the WP:DRN process please elicit WP:RS to support their text in the Infobox?
    • @84.209.141.236: Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, the user made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.
    WP:Verifiability clearly states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with both User:Robert_McClenon and User:Nightenbelle that non-intervention does not appear to be an option anymore. User:Oz346, in edit 1015417372 modified the compromise text less than 24 hours after the WP:DRN process was completed, and refused to self-revert when requested by the mediator. I have not modified nor added to the compromise text. If I have transgressed the Wikipedia rules then, yes, there should be consequences. Please let me know which rules I have transgressed and what the proportionate consequences are. A Collective_punishment based on the actions of others or association would be very disappointing. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit that I did above was a non controversial edit, and it was just a clarification on the exact period the 40,000 deaths figure referred to (the last phase of the war). Without that clarification it would be misleading to the readers, who would take it to mean the whole period of the war (1983-2009). I explicitly asked moderator Nightenbelle about this oversight at the end of the first dispute resolution, but she did not reply to me. I would please ask everyone to read through the first dispute resolution. Those paragraphs agreed upon have actually remained stable for the last couple of weeks (apart from that oversight which I edited).Oz346 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was immediately contested on the talk page- so... it was a contested change. You did not revert. You did not discuss. I had already addressed that concern in a previous version and your insistence on changing away from what was agreed on was yet another tactic to obstruct the process that I did not choose to acknowledge for another time. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but that is not true. My concern was not addressed at all. You closed the discussion before addressing it. May be you missed my comment? Please read the discussion, I quote:
    //Discussion about 6th version
    The 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous. The way Obi2canibe worded it below seems fine to me:
    "However, in 2011 the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths."//
    The only reason it was contested by Jayingeneva is because he wanted to score some points that I had the changed your final rendition of the paragraphs. But he did not contest the accuracy of the statement during the dispute resolution.Oz346 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was the only WP:DRN that I have participated in and thought I shouldn't comment directly on the text of other participants. I tried to focus my comments on the mediator's compromise text and replying to any questions I was posed. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Are you saying that you dispute the fact that the 40,000 dead refers only to the final phase of the war? Because if you are not disputing that, the only reason you made it an issue was to score some points.Oz346 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That allegation should be removed as RD2, and is in itself sufficient reason to topic-ban User:Oz346. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is not preposterous, it is pretty obvious that some Sinhalese editors want to cover up the crimes of the Sinhalese dominated government, and by banning Tamil editors, it will allow them to censor and distort the facts in Wikipedia as well. I think the non-Sri Lankan wikipedia editors can see that it is only Sinhalese and Tamil editors who are heavily invested in this topic.Oz346 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And regarding when User:Robert_McClenon had to 'deal' with me. That was an accident on his part, he missed the timings of my submissions to the admin board. He explicitly said at the close of that, that I had not done any violations of wikipedia policies during that discussion, and he can corroborate that here. I see you are trying your best to censor prominent Tamil editors on wikipedia.Oz346 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Are these the only users that are disputing? If they are, I'd say topic ban them. General sanctions seem too extreme so far for something that appears localised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The four listed here are the ones that are WP:BATTLEGROUND disputing. Other editors are involved with the article but have not had major issues I'm aware of. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saddened by this jump to topic ban people. There are users here who I have reported for using sockpuppets to abuse me, who never got banned. But editors who generally do not cause any problems are being banned right off the bat without people even reading the full dispute. How is this fair? Oz346 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Jayingeneva (talk · contribs) has accused the other parties of vandalism on multiple occasions [39], mostly against Obi2canibe (talk · contribs). I don't think this is 100% accurate, as for instance the two edits at Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka show that Obi2canibe allegedly conflated a higher death toll estimate from a different panel (full page history). And this diff at Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War seems to be an attempt to clarify a discussion by changing the indent. I can't talk further at the moment, but the summary search should tell us more. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Special:Diff/1010862789, on a clearly good-faith, but perhaps poorly worded edit by Obi2canibe that attempted to compare two different death toll estimates.
    • Comment: @LaundryPizza03: and @Robert McClenon:: Can we please clarify this? My understanding is that it is WP:VD because I gave an exact quote in edit 1010727776 with the summary "Add the quote from the report to replace the inaccurate paraphrasing" to correct the inaccurate summary by an IP Address. Obi2canibe immediately reverted back to the inaccurate summary from an IP Address. It's not obi2canibe's words, it's by an IP Address. And he reverted back to the inaccurate summary by the IP address multiple times even though I gave the page number of the quote. If that is not WP:VD, clearly I don't understand what WP:VD is and would sincerely appreciate some assistance. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Special:Diff/1010869138, which undid an attempt by Obi2canibe to change the indenting in a discussion.
    2. Special:Diff/1010871871, similar to 1010862789.
    3. Special:Diff/1012728317, similar to 1010862789.
    4. Special:Diff/1012729459, similar to 1010869138.
    5. Special:Diff/1012731607, which undid another attempt by Obi2canibe to change the indenting in a discussion.
    6. Special:Diff/1021091438, which corrected the death toll to 80K–100K and described edits 1006891705 and 1009458455 as vandalism.
    7. Special:Diff/1022689241, which undid Obi2canibe's reinstatement of the 100K–276K death toll.
    8. Special:Diff/1027593935, which undid an attempt by Oz346 to reinstate the 100K–276K death toll.

    They dropped the same accusation several times at Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War, first in reference to the (initially unsourced) change by the 84 IP (from here on "1006891705") that changed the estimated death toll from 80K–100K to 100K–276K, then in reference to the same edit, then in response to an edit by Obi2canibe, then making the same accusation again towards Obi2canibe and the 84 IP and further accusing the former of acting in bad faith for not correcting their own edit, and finally this accusation directed at both. Based on the edit summary, 1006891705 seems to have been WP:SYNTH and not vandalism, so neither the 80 IP nor Obi2canibe definitely acted in bad faith. In conclusion, I think this may call for an interaction ban as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs) Yes, I have referred to WP:VD by User:Obi2canibe. I hope my usage of the term was correct. Since the WP:DRN that completed at the end of March, I have realised that WP:EW and WP:VD did not necessarily mean the same thing. I'm fairly confident I have used the term correctly since that time. If I have used the term incorrectly in some instances, I apologise to User:Obi2canibe for those instances. Would you consider these to be valid examples of WP:VD by User:Obi2canibe?.
    • On 28th Feb 2021, edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address.
    • On 9th May 2021, edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address.
    Any advice on how you would recommend reacting to the aforementioned four examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Also, is extensively changing the formatting of other user's comments, multiple times even when asked not to, acceptable? --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to User:Jayingeneva and anyone else - Content disputes are almost never vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Vandalism does not mean edits that you disagree with. Vandalism does not mean edit-warring. Vandalism does not even mean disruptive editing. You had been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that there is a definition to vandalism. You were yelling vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute. That is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Thanks! I was completely unaware that the use of the term WP:VD is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. I apologise to anyone that was offended and I agree to not use the term WP:VD in relation to content disputes. Regrettably, I was using WP:VD as a shorthand umbrella term to describe content that had no citations, had no WP:RS, text and citation mismatch, instant reverts without discussion, etc. I will use more specific terminology to describe content in the future. Having said that, I will accept any consequences that are proportionate and consistent with my unwittingly incorrect use of the term WP:VD. --Jayingeneva (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Obi2canibe

    Oz346

    The allegation, made on 16 May 2021, against another editor, violates the assumption of good faith, and is a personal attack, but is too outrageous to be repeated here, and is, in my view, sufficient reason at a minimum to topic-ban User:Oz346 from all articles and talk pages related to the Sri Lankan Civil War.

    It's not outrageous, now that I'm going to be banned. The Sri Lankan government runs IT wings for this purpose. There are groups where Sinhalese youth are being recruited for this purposes, to fight a propaganda war online:
    https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/gotas-envoy-to-germany-wants-lankan-anti-terror-task-force-to-monitor-instagram-in-europe/
    The Sri Lankan government has spent millions on official lobbyists:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16051177
    Assuming good faith, is one thing, but when an Wikipedia user's sole existence is to cover up and downplay the final massacre, it becomes near impossible to assume good faith. Even the moderator Nightenbelle noted Jayingeneva zeal to downplay the atrocities committed by the Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan army on the first dispute discussion.
    I will remove that accusation, but removing me only aids the evil people trying to cover up the full extent of the final massacre:
    https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone
    And atrocities like this, they are trying to hide:
    https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18447
    Oz346 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To further add to this, the said user 'Jay in Geneva' only started editing this page in the run up to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March, where the Sri Lankan government is trying hard to escape censure. Oz346 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you honestly believe the UN relies on Wikipedia for information on who to censure? Honestly? Cause- I know we are big and important and widely used- but that's a bit of a strech bud. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The UN Human Rights Council is attended by multiple NGOs, Unfortunately many of them are not well versed with this topic, and this might surprise you, but Wikipedia is the first port of call for most lay people regarding an unfamiliar subject. It is not as unbelievable as you think. Members of the Norwegian Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission even described certain policy decisions re: the Sri Lanka conflict being made in the EU for example, being made at coffee shops! It sounds unbelievable, but this is the low priority and lack of care that was given to this issue by many international bodies.Oz346 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A general overview is NOT what they use to make decisions. They read briefings, reports, primary documents. the things we summarize. ANd this confirms you are trying to use WP as a persuasive essay to push your point of view- that is NOT what we are here for and makes you as dangerous as those you are trying to warn us of. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole argument here is on the numbers of people killed. It is not a persuasive essay. My contention is that the accurate figures of the death toll should be on wikipedia, and not be covered up, like how the tens of thousands of dead bodies were in 2009. I am not pushing any view. Facts are sacred, and Wikipedia should aim to be accurate, not a mouth piece for the Sri Lankan government and its apologists. Oz346 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as it pains me to say it, Wikipedia is more concerned about providing information from what can be verified from reliable sources than whatever is purported to be the truth. On the plus side, if your additions are considered acceptable by consensus after RSes report them as such, you can tell everyone "I told you so". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I understand there are agents of misinformation on Wikipedia, however users like this actually enable those agents to pass more false information because of their battleground npov behavior which distracts from more subtle attempts to push NPOV. And the accusations, lies, ignoring consensus, ignoring agreements, and just general rudeness turns other good editors away from these topics. People disagree.... doesn't make one person a hero and another a villain- just means they have different perspectives. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a villain is immature, and not conducive to creating a better encyclopedia- which should be all of our goals. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Long discussion with long posts collapsed for convenience
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    "lies, ignoring consensus". Are you accusing me of lying? I have clearly pointed out where I asked you on the first dispute resolution regarding the problem I had with the wording of the final paragraph. Can you please point out the lie. Because I find that very offensive and a baseless accusation. Oz346 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you not reply to my concern on the first dispute resolution? It was a genuine concern and of a non controversial point in reality. You are punishing me for ignoring consensus, but the first consensus was not a real 100% consensus, because I had a problem with that minor wording oversight which I made very clear from the outset. But you ignored me. Why are you ignoring this? And now you are making a false claim of lying? Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a villain is immature". Well for you this may be a distant topic, because it's not your family members who were buried in mass graves with no whimper of justice. I do regard these anti-Tamil racists who are trying their best to cover up the final massacre as despicable, immoral people. If that is not villainous I don't know what is. They are even destroying monuments made in memory of the dead.
    https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/protest-jaffna-university-authorities-destroy-mullivaikkal-memorial
    They want to erase the massacre from the history books. Oz346 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are lying when you say I didn't address your questions. I addressed your questions over and over and over during the DRN. In your last post- and only in your last post- I ignored the ones I had already addressed multiple times that you refused to drop- repeating why they were against WP policy for the 3rd or 4th time was not going to help the process. And these comments above- the insistence that you are the only person to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS this is why you need to walk away from this particular area of WP. You would make a great activist.... but not a good encyclopedist for this particular area. And do not assume that because I am not from Sri Lanka I don't give a damn. That is rude and just plain wrong. You don't know me, my history, or my feelings on issues. You don't know these things because this site is a place for neutrality. So I take my opinions elsewhere. So I suggest you strike that part of your comment. You don't get to tell me how I feel about any of this. And you don't get to assume I don't care. You need to check your emotions at the door before you edit here again. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely think you are confused and are mixing up the details of the first DRN. I am Oz346, NOT Jayingeneva. I was agreeing with most of the iterations of the paragraphs that you had wrote at each stage. Please read that whole discussion again. It was Jayingeneva who was constantly disagreeing with you!
    "I ignored the ones I had already addressed multiple times that you refused to drop"
    This is patently false. You never answered this one question multiple times, because this was the first time i even raised it in that whole long discussion! Please actually read the old discussion properly before making accusations of lying. It was Jayingeneva who you were having the repeated back and forth with during the DRN. I think you are referring to the exchanges with him.
    I'm copying and pasting both your versions of the 5th and 6th iterations of those paragraphs. In the 6th version you removed the mention of the 40,000 dead figure being only for the final phase of the war (for god knows what reason), and this is what led to my final question which you ignored:
    Fifth Draft of Paragraph

    The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.[112][113][114] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. [49][50] In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[115] The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[116] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[117] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[118] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[119][120] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[121][122] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[123][124]

    6th Draft

    The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006.[127][128][129] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.[130] [49][50]However, in 2011, The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[131] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[132] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" while some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[133] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[134][135] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[136][137] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[138][139]

    Oz346 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The accusations of lying was made by a moderator, not by me or the other editors who are currently being considered for banning. Oz346 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment by Oz364

    In my defence, I note that the description of this board says the following:

    "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I do not think I fit that criteria. Yes I should not have made that accusation, as I do not have 100% evidence. And I will never do it again. However, it is far from a 'chronic' or 'intractable' problem.

    And to add to this:

    "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia"

    Where have my contributions to the actual topic been disruptive? Oz346 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose As one of the editors who has edited Sri Lanka civil war related articles for many years and as a person who has worked very hard to maintain a civil environment for all to edit peacefully, I feel a life time ban is too excessive, but given the particularities of the issues raised, I think a 3 month ban is appropriate. If after the cooling off period, the editor(s) come back with the same attitude, then a life time ban is appropriate. Kanatonian (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, the Srilankan civil war topic area is usually very chaotic, I have seen many users from both sides accusing each other of many things and new users come up only to push their POV. This user must be warned as I'm not sure if they are aware of WP:AGF. This topic area needs an Arbitration enforcement. SUN EYE 1 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Evidence of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems":
    • Recently, the Talk Page behaviour spilled over to the Article Page in edit 1022832126 (and with no WP:RS and removing existing WP:RS).
    In the Talk Page discussion I started, I don't recall any of those, above, opposed to the proposition, helping/advising Oz346 to cease the personal attacks. --Jayingeneva (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban per the above. The repeated personal attacks and partisan editing means this user needs to be removed from this area of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give an example of what you mean by my 'partisan editing'. Can anyone show me one distorted/partisan piece of editing I have done in this topic area. Every thing I have added to the pages are supported by sources, and I try to write in an objective manner. I do not whitewash or downplay any war crimes on any side. I just want all the facts to be correct. However, I can show you the clear partisan editing of Jayingeneva, if you delve into this particular content dispute and read through the first DRN. No objective, neutral person who reads through all the sources can defend the pushing of that one lower figure as the definitive 'UN official' figure. Are people going to read the content dispute, to see who is actually being partisan? To see who is being non-objective?
    Also in regards to repeated 'personal attacks', some of those diffs that Jayingeneva has highlighted are not personal attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Me commenting on someones age was not a personal attack (that user had a significant social media presence and was of much younger age), I was an adult during these events, and he was too young to be familiar with them first hand. Unnecessary personal comment I agree however, and I should not have made it. I never meant anything derogatory by it. I did conclusively show in that particular discussion that there was a significant distortion. Read through the whole discussion, not just one diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1004273545&oldid=1004258867&title=Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
    Finally user UMDP made this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009479994 which is evidence of what I said. He removed all mention of anti-Tamil violence. Can someone please explain the motivation for that removal if it was not for the reason I had stated.Oz346 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS See all your posts accusing editors of being government agents, see every time you accuse anyone who makes an edit to this page you don't like of being out to hide the truth. You are 100% partisan and you are a detriment to this article because other editors have to spend so much time fighting with you (also read WP:BATTLEGROUND) that they don't have time to actually improve the article. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi I never accused everyone of being government agents, please cite your evidence for that. Some are working on their own. What I did make accusations of was of downplaying atrocities (accusations which I have decided to no longer do in the future when editing articles). Regarding whether something is the truth or not will be decided by the sources. It's nothing to do with what I like. It's about what is true. The so-called 'fight' I had with a previous editor was resolved with me finding evidence contradicting his figures, and he relented after seeing those. The contentions I had with this article were all to do with the accuracies of the facts, and if you want to discuss those we can do that.
    "Other editors have to spend so much time fighting with you (also read WP:BATTLEGROUND) that they don't have time to actually improve the article"
    I disagree completely with this. They were going to make the article worse with distortion of the truth/facts. Again if you want to discuss those individual points we can do that. If you are not willing to discuss those points, then how can you judge that the falsehoods they were going to push would have improved the article?
    Why did you not respond to my earlier comments regarding your false accusations of me being a liar? There is nothing wrong with making a genuine mix up, I do not blame you for it. I think you did a good job on the DRN. Only at the very end did you not respond to my genuine query.Oz346 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an excellent example of why I !voted the way I did. You seem to consider yourself the arbiter of WP:TRUTH, determined to paint everyone else as making the article worse, and accusing editors of "downplaying atrocities." You need some time away from this subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think I am the arbiter of the truth, but the overall evidence indicates overwhelmingly to any neutral person who studies this topic, that an estimate of only 100,000 deaths for the whole war is absolute nonsense. I invite you to read all the reliable sources mentioned in the article and DRN if you do not believe me. I am not saying the 100,000 figure should not be there, but it 100% should not be pushed as the definitive figure (it is very much a fringe belief). There is a reason why no UN report ever used that figure again. After the whistle blower leaks of 40,000+ dead, it was impossible to justify that fringe figure.Oz346 (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not respond because I responded over and over and over in the DRN- and I will not respond to them now either. I'm done explaining RS to you. I spent weeks explaining it- no more. Now- I'll just keep pointing out how much of a distraction and detriment you have become to this page. You seem to have one of the worse cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. You also seem to think that saying "These editors are hiding the truth... which is something the government is trying to do" That is insinuating they are working for the government. When you constantly bring up that the government is trying to hide the truth and hide these numbers in a discussion about other editors changing your numbers- that is an accusation that they are government agents!!! You're not coming out and saying "John Doe is a government agent" which is the only reason, I believe, you are not banned. But you are accusing them- and saying you are not is just more foolishness or lies. You need to find a new platform for your campaign- WP is not the place for you to force your version of the truth which is, I'm sorry, not the only version supported by reliable sources. You don't get to dictate which sources are most reliable. You have done that over and over and over at the talk page and the DRN. I do not intend to interact with you again- because I'm sure you will ignore this and pretend like everyone but you is crazy and we just can't see how you are the single harbinger of truth. But maybe, just maybe, this time you will see reason and realize the problems you are creating by perpetuating this pointless battle. There will be no clarity and agreement on this subject by reliable sources for years. Until there is agreement, WP will not pronounce anything "Truth," we will, instead, discuss the variety of sources and conflicting stories and how things are being analyzed to find truth. If you want to go proclaim truth- find. another. platform! Nightenbelle (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will keep it very simple, you said:
    "You are lying when you say I didn't address your questions."
    You did not answer this concern:
    The 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous.
    I only mentioned it once at the end of the DRN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War.
    This is the point which i said you did not answer, which spurred the lie accusations.
    I give up as well, too much to address. But i will say i do genuinely believe there are editors who are downplaying atrocities. If an agent of the government is someone who supports the government's cover up (regardless of wherever they are paid or directed by the government), as per your definition (which is a very loose one). Then that would mean i believe that they are agents of the government. But i do not have the right to make that call publicly without 100% evidence, even though it is obvious to me through their editing history. I get that. I did a mistake. Oz346 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Evidence of partisan edit with no sources
    As Obi2canibe as already said, that was a revert of your attempt to push a fringe underestimated figure as the sole definitive figure of the cumulative death toll. And I have since removed that figure which had no citations, which as Obi2canibe has already clearly said was there for months. I did not create that text.Oz346 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Afterthoughts (Sri Lanka Civil War Dispute)

    Since it now appears likely that nothing will be done, and that my limited proposal for a topic-ban on one editor who has made extreme allegations, that other editors are collaborating in a coverup of war crimes, I will make a few comments for the future, for when this topic comes up again.

    Arbitration is for disputes which they community has been unable to resolve. This, unfortunately, appears to be a dispute that the community will not resolve. If, as seems likely, this case is closed without any formal action, it will come back sometime. So this statement is partly for the record for the ArbCom.

    User:Oz346 - Now you claim that this is neither an urgent incident nor a chronic behavioral problem. If you believe that another editor is a foreign agent, isn't that an issue that you should have brought here? Either you believe that claim, or you don't. If you believe it, you should have raised that concern either here or with the ArbCom. If you don't believe it, and only made it in order to "win" a content dispute, then you were lying.

    I do not feel comfortable saying what I believe anymore, because it can be interpreted as an 'extreme personal attack'. So I am going to be silent regarding this claim, and will not be involving myself in this particular content dispute anymore. I will no longer be speaking about the motivations of the other Sinhalese editors who want to downplay the atrocities committed by the Sinhalese security forces. I will just stick to the content. But please note the prior precedent of an agent hired by Sri Lanka: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861 Oz346 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Oz346 - Yes. If you do not feel comfortable saying what you believe anymore, perhaps it is because some things should not be said anyway, even if one believes them, such as unsubstantiated allegations of great wrong, or expressions of hate. There are some things that people should not feel comfortable saying, and those include unsubstantiated attacks on the motives of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oz346 - I was about to make a further proposal that you be site-banned by the community for a truly extreme personal attack. Apparently the community is unable or unwilling to deal with your conduct.

    User:Jayingeneva - You should have known. You acted like an experienced user, until you were told that your conduct was inappropriate, at which point you decide that you didn't know as much about vandalism as you thought you did. Either you had read the vandalism policy when you started calling other edits vandalism, or you should have read it. If you read it, you knew that the edits were not vandalism, and were yelling vandalism to "win" a content dispute, or you didn't understand the policy after all. The fact that you never reported the edits to the vandalism noticeboard makes me think that you did know better. You should have known that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and that yelling vandalism when there is no vandalism is uncivil.

    That is correct, I misunderstood what WP:VD meant and definitely didn't know there was a specific noticeboard. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obi2canibe - My comments to Jayingeneva also apply to you.

    ArbCom: If the community doesn't resolve this dispute this time, you will get it. The plague of Wikipedia is nationalism, in this case where two nations share a nation-state. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert, salute to your remark, “...in this case where two nations share a nation-state.”; otherwise it would not have happened.Lustead (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I appreciate that this thread is now getting stale but as one of the users being reported I thought I'd add my comment. Contrary to what Jayingeneva has stated here and elsewhere, I did not add the 276,000 figure in the infobox. It had existed for months before Jayingeneva replaced it with the 80,000 figure which was the source of the dispute which ended up the WP:DRN. Not only is the 80,000 figure dubious, as evidenced at DRN, it goes against the spirit of the DRN compromise which was to include all reliably sourced figures. All I did was to revert back to the status quo that existed for several months whilst there was the ongoing discussion about this matter on the talk page.
    I share Robert McClenon's frustrations - I've had to deal with these kind of disputes ever since I joined Wikipedia 12 years ago. It's never ending but banning a few editors won't solve the problem. Wikipedia is a mirror of real life and as long as there are disputes in real life about what happened during the civil war, these disputes will spill into Wikipedia. ArbCom may be the only answer.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Article History doesn't agree with User:Obi2canibe. User:Obi2canibe reverted, with no WP:RS, back to the 2 week old "276,000" text from an IP Address. The "80,000-100,000" text was added to the Article in 2019.
    • Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, User:84.209.141.236 made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.
    This does not appear to be a content dispute anymore. The details above and Obi2canibe's claims such as "It had existed for months before Jayingeneva replaced it with the 80,000 figure" and "All I did was to revert back to the status quo that existed for several months" suggests characteristics of chronic, intractable behavioral problems that will continue if there is no intervention. --Jayingeneva (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    West Bengal economy articles

    Disclaimer: Although I became aware of this issue through the actions of two editors, I am raising an issue of a wider pattern of behaviour across many editors and not focusing on the conduct of these two specific editors.

    Looking at recent changes this morning, I saw an edit war between Meltry Filok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MADdutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Economy of Kolkata article about GDP figures. Neither party cited sources, and I partially blocked both from that article. I noticed the GDP data was unsourced, so per WP:V, I removed it.

    I was monitoring both editors' activity, and I noticed MADdutta edit the Economy of West Bengal article. Again, the topic in play was GDP, but it was a different cast of editing characters, whom I have not interacted with.

    At this point, it seemed to be systemic, so I brought the matter here to get more eyes on the matter. I'm sure it happens with other economy articles, but I get the feeling that we may need some focused attention to economy articles in West Bengal? Does this topic fall within the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan discretionary sanctions, to where the articles can be placed under deeper restrictions like the 50/300 requirement for editors?

    Again, I do not seek specific action towards either of the named editors through this thread. They were just the proverbial tip of what I think is quite the iceberg, so I'm looking for action related to these two articles plus other similar ones. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption (at least to Economy of West Bengal) continues. pauli133 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still going at it. Is there a better venue, where this can get some attention? pauli133 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been fully protected, and I'm trying to drive some actual discussion on the talk page. However, it looks like the back and forth disruption is continuing at Economy of Kolkata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There are at least five accounts involved, I think. pauli133 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked Meltry Filok, Ronjon Das Gupta and Gopal bosu. They are all backing each other up across several articles. All three posted to my talk page, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather# and the two below, telling me to "Correct it quickly", "edit it quickly" and "fix it quickly" on the Economy of West Bengal. Also at User talk:C.Fred#GDP of West Bengal Gopal bosu says "Sir, I am an employee of the Ministry of Finance of India. I know the GDP of West Bengal. As of 2020, the GDP of West Bengal is 143 billion US dollars But some people are making wrong edits to increase their GDP. Correct it quickly. West Bengal's GDP is 143 billion US dollars.." and at my talk page "Sir, I am an employee of the Ministry of Finance of India. I know the GDP of West Bengal. As of 2020, the GDP of West Bengal is 143 billion US dollars. But some people are making wrong edits to increase their GDP. Correct it quickly. West Bengal's GDP is 143 billion US dollars.." by Meltry Filok. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    KIENGIR again

    I'm going to boldly close this. KIENGIR is banned on ENWiki, and we do not have any control of the edits they have done on HUWiki. A global lock request was submitted by BMK on Meta, so at this point, we should let that run its course. As for the English Wiki, they are not coming back any time son, so this discussion is moot. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    KIENGIR just reverted his userpage on huwiki to restore the personal attacks. I have reverted it per hu:KSZT, but I'm not autoconfirmed on Meta so someone else needs to report him to m:SRG for crosswiki abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs)

    KIENGIR'S rant was beyond the pale. English translation He attacked myself, @Cealicuca, Robert McClenon, Boynamedsue, Azur94, Rsk6400, Robby.is.on, David Eppstein, Indy beetle, Deepfriedokra, RandomCanadian, Obenritter, Cullen328, Arminden, Elvisisalive95, Biruitorul, and Power~enwiki: and @Schierbecker:. I have filed a global lock request. [40] I've never done this before, so if someone with experience would like to look it over and amend it if necessary, it would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good BMK, I'd just edit and remove the * ... line but the rest is good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I second RickinBaltimore‘s endorsement. Kiengir has had over two months post-ban to contribute to hu.wiki (where he’s fluent in the language), but he’s spent that time sniping and griping at perceived enemies from this project, in an increasingly unhinged tone. Enough. — Biruitorul Talk 00:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this even related to? I only vaguely remember interacting with this user and don’t know why they bothered bringing me up. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle I suppose I better fulfil my alleged role as "useful idiot" and provide you with an answer. He was banned for a variety of situations which burned a massive amount of users' time, battleground behaviour, having competence issues and making it clear at AnI that he wasn't going to change his behaviour. It may be you interacted with him on a thread on nazi Germany which ended with an RfC on whether the nazis could be described as fascist? That was the straw that broke the camel's back.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mildly amusing that I am accused of saying that this editor has a "love of bludgeoning" in the midst of a lengthy rant that can be fairly be described as bludgeoning. Guilty as charged, I guess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the chance they'll get blocked or banned at hu.wikipedia? Seems likely that such a block or ban would assist in the global lock request. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that @Pallerti: is a CheckUser on hu.wiki, perhaps they might be able to give us a sense of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left them a message on their hu.wiki talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Unfortunately, I don’t know the story in depth, KIENGIR has edited very little on the huwiki, currently only 144 edits despite being registered ten years ago. Hungarian is his native language, never had a problem with his communication in Hungarian, he communicates politely. The userpage policy on huwiki is similar to enwiki, it should not contain comments that offend other editors, of course we will pay attention to this. I asked KIENGIR on his huwiki talkpage, I would like to know about the conflict from his point of view as well. --Pallerti (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pallerti: After you get his point of view, you might want to check it against the banning discussion, which you can find here. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk)
    @Beyond My Ken: Thank you very much, I was convinced of this, it is legitimate to ban it from enwiki. On the huwiki he did almost no editing, there is no basis for a block yet. We warned him not to use his user page as a battlefield, we will keep an eye on his edits, if he does again, we will block him. --Pallerti (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    English translation of KIENGIR's response to Pallerti on hu.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Hello,

    yes i see they started the nefarious witch hunt again but the joke about it is that a notorious sock puppet king (Iaaasi) started this when he reported me maybe a week on the english wiki but he did it after he wrote me a private email that how unfair that they were banned because then you could work with me and my edits were helpful and sympathize with me. Then after a while, hiding behind his usual IP address, he confused him with the ANI report (split personality, he's banned from everywhere, that's why I answered him openly, but he always comes back like a sock puppet in a double role, interestingly not). examined ...). That’s when I noticed that a completely new editor there, he started macerating my user page, even though I didn’t break any rules with it (that’s the point, I was banned by sympathy voting because it could only be, since I didn’t break a single rule, but those who worked hard on they disappeared, they just didn't like me to prove it, etc.), and I predicted to Szilas that I was going to write an informative summary of this event, but if that wasn't enough, as soon as I wrote it, I also informed Him about it, as a very important case study is the double standard of how organized groups try to manipulate and apply the rules by double standard.

    I’m not afraid of the public, but they are very, since they organized themselves against me with surreptitious correspondence and tried to jump in (the source comes from an editor who has tried to block me several years since I appeared, mainly because he didn’t like my objectivity and professionalism on a historical issue, but he could only fight this insidiously now, with various tricks, guides, jumps, etc.), but there was no way to achieve this, you see, it was not enough for them to be eliminated from there by conceptual methods, they are not left alone here either. What you are asking for is exactly the content they want to remove from my user page here (and even since I wrote this, several additional events have even doubled what I mentioned, which is extremely sad and supports the double standard I wanted to point to) , this is the most concise summary, even if a few diffs would lead too far. The case is complicated, intricate, so it’s an ideally concise summary you’d like, I don’t think it would be feasible, you’d rather ask if you’re more interested in something in detail. By the way, one of the (main) colossals has already launched the global block request, proving his boundless benevolence, but I am no longer surprised by this, and even the many nonsense they are trying to figure out or beat me right now (I can respond separately). I say even in this situation I smile more, human evil really has no limit ...

    A word like a hundred, run through my user page and ask calmly, I will answer as soon as I can, but be prepared that, as you can see in this report, with a full arsenal of people trying to falsify or misinterpret what happened, one goal to get everything out of me because my insight and summary of the phenomenon I just became the victim of (too much a step before I investigated things with an admin on the top forum of the wiki there) but it doesn't matter, this is also described or included in the relevant diff (and by wanting to remove it, it justifies me, because if there was a problem with me, it would be my writing that is proof of my own stupidity, which should just be advertised as a bad example). Hello (KIENGIR debate 13 June 2021, 00:10 (CEST))

    He just left a message on my talkpage on huwiki in hungarian, translation is here. He says it's inappropriate to give him an ANI report message, despite it being required. dudhhrContribs 22:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were right to notify him, as it is required that you do so. Whether he likes the notification or not is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the event that this global ban doesn't go through, might I suggest that we simply deny K. the oxygen of publicity? The only audience for these increasingly bizarre rants is people on the English wikipedia. Nobody on the Hungarian wikipedia has the slightest bit of interest in what a non-contributing editor has to say about people they don't know. It is my strong recommendation that unless any sock activity occurs we simply leave him shouting into the void about conspiracies and making himself look silly. What he craves is being proved right, which is impossible, the second best thing is the ability to continue arguing he is right, thereby reinforcing his entirely inaccurate self-image. For that he needs to know he is being seen, and this process, based in policy though it is, is giving him exactly what he wants.
    TLDR If we ignore him, he might go away, and if he doesn't, who cares? Ne etesse a trollokat. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree. I rather fancy the thought of him, 5 or 10 years down the line, maintaining his hu.wiki conspiracy blog, raving about how he was right all along — the best and yet the most misunderstood of editors, how a cabal of evildoers directed by one long-standing opponent organized his purge via e-mail, how the project had so much more to gain from his invaluable contributions. Meanwhile, some of us silently check in periodically, in need of a sad laugh, while his bewildered hu.wiki colleagues politely pretend not to notice the madman in the attic. — Biruitorul Talk 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • KIENGIR left a 3rr message on my talkpage (again in Hungarian) despite my reverts being over 13 DAYS and threatened that I could get blocked for a day, and he thinks that I am harassing him and vandalising his user page. dudhhrContribs 17:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My first and only business with KIENGIR was at DRN in this case, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_203#Romani_people_in_Hungary. This dispute was filed by User:Boynamedsue, and was a complex dispute over material in that article. The dispute was opened on 6 February 2021 and was closed by publishing an RFC on 7 March 2021. In my opinion, it was open for about two weeks longer than would have taken to get the issues identified and sent to the community via RFC, except that KIENGIR made everything take a long time. They wanted to roll the article back to six months before mediation started, which we don't do, because mediation (at least when I am mediating) proceeds from the article as it is seen by the readers. They also provided a confusing flowchart of different versions of the article that they would accept. Eventually I did publish an RFC. It seemed that they were stalling all the time, and I was trying to remain neutral because I was the moderator. I didn't take part in the later discussion that led to the ban. (I didn't look at WP:ANI for a few days, and by the time I looked at it, the discussion was closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are they commenting in English in the Hungarian Wikipedia? Probably because they are not there to improve the Hungarian encyclopedia, but only there to editorialize in English for an English-reading audience by insulting other English-writing editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ongoing - User:Slake000 (continued)

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

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

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

    (Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[42]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[43] after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies[44]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Austronesier:, User:Glennznl seems to be undoing the reversions to Slake000's edits on Sylheti Nagri and threatening to report people that undo Slake000's edits even though his edits are illogical. UserNumber (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure why this case was dismissed. The user Slake000 has now been causing major disruption in Wikipedia, and seems to be behaving like a troll. Several other editors have also expressed their concerns regarding him by either leaving a message on his talk page (such as myself and User:Chaipau), or by constantly deleting/redirecting his new articles. Examples of his articles include Sylheti script (issue solved by User:DGG), Sylheti alphabet (User:Uanfala tried to solve this), Sylara, Sylheti Braille, Category:Sylheti writing system among others.

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

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

    Pages created by Slake000

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

    Pages created by Slake000 (talk · contribs)
    Page Date Description Action
    Sylheti Braille 2021-06-08 A Braille system for the Sylheti language. No action yet. Only primary sources, notability is questionable.
    Sylheti alphabet 2021-06-09 A promotional article about a non-notable Latin-based Sylheti script invented by a self-published author. Later recreated at Sylara. Unilaterally redirected to Sylheti language#Writing system on 2021-06-12, which the user subsequently restored twice (1st, 2nd).
    Sylheti dialects 2021-06-11 An overview of dialects of the Sylheti language. No action yet. Probably okay.
    Sylara 2021-06-12 Recreation of content previously at Sylheti alphabet. PRODded by Austronesier (talk · contribs) on 2021-06-15.
    List of Books written in Sylara 2021-06-13 List of books written in the Sylara script. All books are self-published and by the creator of the script. PRODded by Austronesier on 2021-06-16.
    Sylheti dialect 2021-06-13 WP:POVFORK duplicate of sylheti language. Restored redirect to Sylheti language.
    Bilingual Sylheti Speakers 2021-06-15 About people who speak Sylheti and another language. No action yet. Possible WP:SYNTH violation.
    Category:Sylheti language 2021-06-11 Topic cateory for the Sylheti language. 9 pages. No action needed.
    Category:Sylheti writing system 2021-06-11 Category about written Sylheti. 3 pages. Will be CfD'd shortly for failing WP:SMALLCAT.
    Category:Sylheti dialects 2021-06-14 Category containing only the eponymous article. Will be nominated for speedy deletion at WP:CFDS.

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

    UPDATE: Sylheti Braille has been PRODded by me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've gone ahead and just removed those sections as irrelevant or of dubious relevance (and sometimes unsourced!). Any more comments about the page, or diffs about this user's conduct outside of the pages they created? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

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

    " This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.": If this is true then, irrespective of POV edits and poor writing, this seems clearly enough to be vandalism and, if the user received sufficient warning of it, it should have been possible to handle the situation through WP:AIV, no?. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, here is the page I was devleloping, then he complained, I stopped editing that page, later another user redirected the page. User:UserNumber complained saying "it doesn't make sense". That page discontinued there Sylheti script Or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Sylheti_script.

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

    Post by Slake000

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

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

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

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

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

    I moved this from the bottom of ANI to this section.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Slake000 actually intended to report UserNumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slake000: Please refrain from WP:personal attacks such as USERNUMBER hate Sylheti speakers...Clearly a BENGALI Supremist and denying other communities and languages. Use the talk page of the respective articles if you disagree with User:UserNumber's reverts. –Austronesier (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is rather humorous reading this as a Sylheti myself. There are other Sylheti editors on Wikipedia who think quite the opposite, and have awarded me several barnstars for my contributions to the History of Sylhet and several articles relating to Sylhet and Sylheti such as List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Sadeq Ali among others. It is a shame that I get labelled the opposite of what I am for simply trying to suppress POV and maintain Wikipedia's guidelines. UserNumber (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi UserName even in that page List of works written in Sylheti Nagri you have removed all books written in Sylheti language in late 90's and kept onoy the list which you are forcefully relating to Bengali language and Dobhashi dialect. May I know the reason of this? When I am simply making lists of Sylheti languages or writing systems, why are you getting angry or upset on that. If any Wikipedia guidelines or quality issues, you could jus advise me to improve it, instead of removing Sylheti language related almost anything from Wikipedia. Comment by User:Slake000
    This is to maintain Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. There is a big difference between historic manuscripts and recent self-published books. UserNumber (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:2B00:9A89:F600:19E8:744C:811:935D in his edit summary on Nick Carter (musician) here. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP range, and posted a message to the IP talk page explaining how to request an unblock if the threat of legal action is no longer in force. JBW (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely no issue with the block for NLT, obviously that's black and white. And on the face of it, I agree that removal of sourced information is generally revertable with minimum thought. But let's take a step back here and think about this. I think it's fair to say that this person is either the subject, or someone associated with the subject. The sentence they are trying to remove is sourced, so agree that it has the right to be included. But is it a fair representation of the sources and situation (WP:NPOV)? For me, no. It doesn't mention that he denied the claims. It doesn't mention any of his viewpoint. Right now, that paragraph reads to someone who doesn't click thru to the source as if the only thing that 'saved' him was the statute of limitations, and does not even touch on the fact that he denied the claims. In my view, I can just about understand the removal of content by a person closely associated with the subject, given the emotion they would feel reading it presented the way it is. I feel like we can make some changes here to benefit the presentation of the information, and improve the content around this paragraph to make it more reflective of the situation (and hence, neutral). Thoughts? (Pinging those who have edited the article recently @Vedbas:, @Johnnie Bob:, @CodeTalker:, and blocking administrator @JBW:.) Daniel (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am largely inclined to agree, Daniel. In fact on reflection I wonder whether a friendly explanation and warning might have been better than an immediate block. I will look again at the disputed content, and if I find I am substantially in agreement with your view I shall remove it, and I suggest that if anyone thinks it should be restored they seek consensus before doing so. In dealing with negative statements about a living person we should err on the side of excluding material if in doubt. JBW (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed disputed material, and created a section about it on the article's talk page, asking for it to not be restored without consensus. I have copied the comment above from Daniel, and my reply to him above, into that section. JBW (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ANIME and WP:TV issues again

    I noticed IJBall, Netoholic, and an anonymous IP have been having an isolated consensus for certain Requested moves. Those are Talk:List of KonoSuba episodes and Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes into articles for the sake of naming conventions.

    Personally, I find the timing a little too coincidental for two WP:TV editors to quickly intercept a requested move for WP:ANIME. I won't hold too much into that theory. However, instead of informing the appropriate Wikiprojects, IJBall opted to canvas to other like-minded editors. [45].

    User:IJBall, in the past was part of a group of editors to having WP:ANIME become a subproject to WP:TV's and in turn nullify WP:ANIME's MOS guidelines. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 63#The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TV. So IJBall is completely aware that the attempt to nullify WP:ANIME's guidelines were not successful and also proved WP:ANIME doesn't have guidelines that contradict WP:TV's. only that WP:TV have different editing practices. I only bring this up only to prove that IJBall is aware of the current consensus and is actively attempting to sideline it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blue Pumpkin Pie: You must notify the editors you are discussing on their talk page, per the information at the top of this page. I've gone ahead and done so. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you SamStrongTalks. Wow, what a pathetic ANI filing. This should be closed as WP:POINTy, and involving no violation of anything whatsoever. I will ignore Blue Pumpkin Pie baldfaced mischaracterization of what's going on here, but would urge that they be reprimanded for casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only providing what can be observed. iknow you're the accused, but it would be good to at least attempt to approach this civilly?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well thats about as blatant a canvass as you can get. Despite having a very clear consensus that no, WP:ANIME does not have to do everything the way WP:TV does. This crap over article structure has been going on since 2013 when Ryulong and Lucia Black were the most disruptive users and caused headaches for many others. Nip this in the bud early this time and just topic ban the offenders from creating move requests, moving or otherwise dicking around with anime articles or its just going to go downhill. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • One: I didn't open these RM's, I have only commented. Two: Topic banning people for expressing opinions is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear of. Three: The closing of that RfC doesn't say anything that you people are claiming – "interconnected" means there is overlap. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Canvass doesnt require you to have started the discussion. What it does is prohibit Campaigning (Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner) and vote-stacking (Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions). Only an idiot would claim your message was neutral, and it was to someone you knew shared your views because you participated in a discussion about exactly this issue with them. So no, I am not suggesting you are topic banned for expressing an opinion. I am suggesting you are topic banned from Anime-related moves because you engage in blatant canvassing and then are being deceptive about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, my bad – I'll admit that I probably shouldn't have done that. (Self-WP:TROUT.) (Not that it matters – Gonnym has not commented, and I honestly don't expect him to either, because he's shown no interest in getting back into this petty squabble...) One mistake does not justify a "topic ban". Why don't you admit that what you are really after is silencing all critics of current WP:ANIME practices? – because that's exactly how this comes off. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For my part, this aspersion against me is ridiculous. Even a cursory look at my contributions shows that I am a frequent participant in a variety of move requests, and I particularly frequent those related to TV and film as a broad area of interest. I was never canvassed nor have I coordinated with IJBall or 184.146.38.122. These two RMs were simply present on my patrol of recent RM discussions. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And also, this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want anyone to be topic-banned over this and felt the punishment too harsh, I just wanted this to be brought up so that WP:TV and WP:ANIME can really just work together without discourse. If anything, I want more people working on Anime-related articles, not less. I'm personally apologizing for assuming bad faith. I only observed two RMs that were very isolated with no mention to other wikiprojects and the previous comment to be interpreted as admittance or refusal to work with WP:ANIME, and sideline the current consensus, and within 24hrs, only the same editors responded. If you weren't aware of the current consensus, then I'm even more sorry. But it should be noted that it is disruptive still to not try to work with an actively involved wikiproject. WP:TV and WP:ANIME share 90% of the same guidelines except for article hierarchy. And right now, what hurts WP:ANIME's reputation isn't article structure, it is lack of accessible sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, BPB. Let me just say that "article structure" potentially does hurt the WP – if people are looking for KonoSuba (TV series) (i.e. searching), and can't find it because it's at List of KonoSuba episodes, that's not good. (That may not happen often, but I bet it happens.) And WP:TV have laid out a process here – treat the "main" (manga) articles like "franchise" articles (e.g. both WP:FILM and WP:TV have articles like this), and then treat the anime series articles like "TV series" articles (which puts them under MOS:TV and WP:NCTV). I get that this could involve moving hundreds of articles, but we've done stuff like that before with bots... Now, this is veering out of ANI territory, but the point is there is a discussion that can be had, but WP:ANIME has in general "preferred to keep doing things the way they've always been done", and what WP:TV feels like it has seen is a lot of heels-digging-in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            I don't see anything in the previous closed RFC that would indicate that WP:ANIME has to, or even should, bring their article naming conventions into line with WP:TV. Correct me if I'm wrong on that count.
            They have an argument for why it makes sense to do things the way they currently are, and the primary argument I've seen for changing it is that it isn't consistent with how it is done in a related but distinct area and that possibly some people (who would have to be pretty experienced Wikipedia users) might get confused by searching for "<franchise name> (TV Series)" and not finding it. It is theoretically possible people make this mistake, but I would be shocked if it was anywhere close to a significant number of people. If there is a different argument for changing things, I'm open to the idea, but this entire discussion probably belongs in another RFC if the sides can't come to an agreement. Either way, not an ANI topic, in my opinion. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I don't understand is why I was lumped in as a "WP:TV editors". IJBall identifies as part of the WikiProject, but I don't and I don't think the IP user is. My interest and interaction with the WikiProject is at best in regards to article naming/move requests... not authorship. I think I see Blue Pumpkin Pie's fault in this report as WP:FACTIONing - in his mind dividing (wrongly) people into ANIME vs TV and ascribing ill-intent, rather than addressing the merits of the actual move request and the best interests of the article. For example, if a list of episodes also includes a lot of detail on the production, cast, broadcast history, home media, etc., then its no longer appropriate as just a list but should be formatted and named as a TV series article. I think most ANIME participants think of the anime as an extension of the manga, where TV participants probably view an anime series from the perspective of a separate production in the franchise. The debate isn't about which WikiProject you are part of -- its about whether there is enough content beyond the simple listing of episodes to warrant expansion to cover the other production details of the series. Surely, both ANIME and TV participants want the articles to be as broadly scoped and information packed as possible, so if we can avoid limiting the content to just an episode listing, that's good for everyone. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Production and reception are the main factors of splitting anime and manga apart. And there are examples of good splits. In an ideal world, we had all the substantial information to split them off. And this is why I say accessible sources hurt more than structure. Because WP:ANIME's philosophy is trying to keep all the content as tied together as possible if there's not enough substantial information to create solid articles. And this is also to avoid the stigma of having low-quality articles. I'll bring this up in WP:ANIME in hopes of a compromise that will encourage editing from more WP:TV editors.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • As a member of WP:ANIME, I feel like IJBall has committed canvassing here, despite the consensus having been drawn clearly in the past. I Support topic banning IJBall from participating in or starting requested moves relating to "List of (anime) episodes" articles. I really don't like to support this kind of action, but this just makes me angry. I would like to add that List of Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World episodes and List of Overlord episodes have also had similar requests done by the same IP address. Link20XX (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since Link20XX has chosen to comment here, I'll point out that I find his factionalism and WP:BLUDGEONing is far more egregious than anything else mentioned about the these recent discussions. This is apparent at Talk:List of KonoSuba episodes, Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes, and now Talk:List of Overlord episodes where he has been replying to every supporter of the page moves, repeating the same arguments and attempting to use the RfC as a hammer in the discussions, when the the result of the RfC actually shows there is much overlap and interaction between ANIME and TV MOS guidelines (ie not one overriding the other). And now trying to get one participant topic banned (even from "starting requested moves" which IJBall hasn't done here) shows Link20XX's factional mentality. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not mean to do bludgeoning-related actions. I was mad after realizing everything, and I would like to apologize for my conduct. That being said, I do still oppose all of the requested moves that have been made. I also think that IJBall has done clear canvassing-related actions, and should at least get some repercussions. Now that I think about it, however, what I said earlier was too harsh and a stern warning is likely all that is needed. After this is over, if you wish to block me for a bit, fine, I will take it (and probably deserve it). Link20XX (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to make one more statement on the matter of this case before it gets closed. I am not a fan of the the IJBall has not once, but twice generalized anime and manga editors to sound like they are against standard, when RfC's have gone against that, the first was at Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes, where they stated !Vote above is the typical one to expected from some WP:ANIME members, thinking that they can flout naming conventions and the second on User talk:Gonnym, where IJBall stated we still have WP:ANIME editors who think they can do whatever the heck they want. You are welcome to ignore this or write this off as me being too sensitive; I just wanted to make thoughts on the matter known. I am probably going to take a wikibreak soon because frankly I am done putting up with them. Link20XX (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block Evasion

    BLOCK
    Ip range blocked for a month (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Back in the February another Admin (EvergreenFir) blocked User:Tevin21 infinite for block evasion, then a month later the same person that created User:Tevin21 came back and was using multiple ip's to add incorrect information to articles, as a result the ip's were blocked by Admin (EvergreenFir) for block evasion, Now fast foward to June now he (User:Tevin21) is using multiple ip's to add false information to these articles and here is the ip's that he is using .

    Ip's right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:69EA:B3E4:6D68:AEF8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:FC38:3B6D:8293:98DD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:C0B0:998D:5CBC:7DFB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:99E:5BD0:15BF:9053

    Articles that he is adding false information to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SummerSlam_(2021)&oldid=1028576814 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_TakeOver&oldid=1028374637 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SummerSlam_(2021)&oldid=1028225337 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_TakeOver&oldid=1028374637 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bash_at_the_Beach_(2000)&oldid=1028069805 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_American_Bash&oldid=1027727477 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SummerSlam_(2021)&oldid=1027726059

    I can confirm that another editor (JDC808) said that Warnings are completely useless because the person that uses the ip's is ignoring all warnings that on all ip's talk page that other editors have given him and it is a direct block evasion of User:Tevin21. Chip3004 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I can confer. The above editor (identified as Tevin21) has used multiple IPs for several months to continue to try and add false information, despite talk page posts, warnings, etc., for why the information they're trying to add is false. We believe it is in fact the same editor as they have made the exact same, or very similar, edits across all of these IPs. Having seen them do this multiple times now, the warnings have become useless as they just continue to make the same edits from different IPs. --JDC808 ♫ 21:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those IPs are covered by range Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ed00::/64 which I blocked for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent disruption by socks from Atharv Bakshi

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

    SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atharv Bakshi

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

    Airtel ranges are usually crowded, wide, and have erratic assignment patterns (Despairtel might be a more fitting name), so a rangeblock would be largely ineffective while incurring significant collateral. I think a filter based on two or three combined factors might do the trick, but this hasn't been going on for very long so they might simply get bored if they keep getting reverted and blocked for a little longer. --Blablubbs|talk 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just reverted him editing from 106.213.34.58 (talk · contribs). Given his focus on Indian election articles, and the fact that there is regular vandalism and disruption from other IPs and new editors, I wonder whether semi-protection for Indian election articles (1998 onwards) might be worthwhile. Cheers, Number 57 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good suggestion. Let me know next time this happens. Deb (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb Happened today about an hour ago from the same IP. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits by relatively new user

    I'm not sure what's going on, but this editor is making plenty of repetitive edits across multiple articles (including this, which is kinda implausibly large - except if they're copy-pasting at a rapid rate - given their last edit before that was just 1 minute before). They don't seem to have any edits beside this, so I see no evidence that this mass editing was discussed anywhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They appear to be one of two users adding "mobile-friendly" they're referring to as hubs to military history articles as the existing navboxes don't appear on mobile view. Except these "hubs" are inferior in formatting, presentation, etc. and look god-awful on desktop view because they are duplicative to the existing (IMO superior) ones. Personally, I think these additions should be reverted for now and then discussed as to if they should be added back. It looks like the better situation would just be to let navboxes show up on mobile view, instead of making this mess. Hog Farm Talk 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Any useful tool to waste less time doing mass rollback (i.e. based on the above)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's a mixture of edits from two editors, any form of mass rollback would probably be ineffective. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm loathe to suggest this, but given the nature of these edits and mostly their quantity, a short block from mainspace to get them to discuss this here might avoid more trouble. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE by Roje Vala

    Roje Vala (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The editor has been warned more than once (March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, June 2021) for going against WP:NICH on North American ice hockey pages and MOS in general. The editor does not use edit summaries and does not react to messages on its talk page. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at some random reverted edits of theirs, they look well-intentioned. I agree that many of their edits are disruptive, but they seem HERE to me. – Rummskartoffel 17:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dokabutts6, disruptive SPA

    Dokabutts6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits other than to the Darren Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and two previous blocks for edit-warring haven't stopped them turning up and repeatedly reverting to their preferred version. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @FDW777: indefinitely blocked from editing the article. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobo192

    I have asked User:Bobo192 nicely to leave me alone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Allen (cricketer), and he is still continuing to harass me. I don't feel a block is necessary at this point, but I would appreciate some admin backup. I'm finding this distressing. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A block, for indenting conversations so they are easier to read? When indentations are left in chronological order rather than thread of conversation, it makes them very hard to read. Bobo. 17:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)If I were either you or Bobo192 at this point I would disengage from the conversation. But that's just me. That conversation does give me the feel though that Bobo192 seems like one of those people who just has to have the last word, and you seem determined not to let Bobo192 have the last word. Both of you have said what you need to say and at this point are just repeating yourselves. It would probably be best if both of you just stop replying. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. That’s why I didn’t reply to any of the final comments made yesterday. But then he started a new discussion today directed at me after I didn’t engage. He won’t stop when I asked him to blatantly. 4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A good way to end a conversation .... is to stop participating in it. ;-) If you don't engage, they can't continue. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptions to voice actors, anime, animation, with promotion of BenQ, Hitarchi, and Panasonic

    There are several IPs focused on voice actors, anime, animation, dubbing, etc by adding unsourced biographical claims or unsourced casting with promotion for BenQ, Hitachi, Panasonic and perhaps others. These ranges capture good chunk of the disruptive editing which seems to have started around the March and April timeframe, but picked up momentum in May and June:

    Here's an example for one of the IPs in just the last two days:

    This account adds unsourced biographical claims and casting claims primarily regarding voice actors and appears to be adding promotional links for BenQ and Hitachi.

    Some of the edits from the IPs and even a named account or two, are using primary sources in contravention of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY for date of birth, place of birth, and birth_name.

    There are some apparently good unrelated edits in those ranges, but most of them are disruptive. There are other individual IPs and accounts in play (perhaps socks). Is a temporary block on those ranges indicated? Is there anything else that can be done? 108.56.139.120 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAICT this is just bogus rather than promotional. I bet it's best dealt with by an edit filter. Nardog (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that an edit filter could work on the explicit BenQ, Hitachi, Panasonic edits, but many of the edits are just BLP violations on birth date, birth name, and birth place and don't mention any of those companies. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:LTA/VCV? 108.56.139.120 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been occasionally reported on my Talk: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#User:84.68.10.246, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#User:86.64.17.253 and User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_3#User:84.68.93.179. I have no recollection of how it landed there, but Daniel_Case has suggested that a range block might help. Flagging/pinging here, and I had suggested HoanganhLe1234567890 take it to AIV next time as I'm not always on line at the same time

    User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas

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

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

    As can be seen in the links above, there is no consensus on the Catholic vs Roman Catholic debate. I've only removed the term in places where it was either inaccurate, awkward, or otherwise unnecessary. The other matters are also currently in dispute (or settled), and Elizium has made a habit of trailing my edits to revert them regardless of merit or consensus. The issue may be personal moreso than canonical. natemup (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the disputes you have had with @Avatar317:, @Binksternet:, @Hijiri88:, @CorbieVreccan:, among others? Elizium23 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I feel the need to respond on a noticeboard to every editor dispute I'm involved in, but the edits I made on the St Joseph page were eventually integrated after other more level-headed editors got involved. The edits I made on the Yasuke page have not yet had that sort of intervention, but I plan to make an RfC or something soon. The issue (with you) on "Black Catholics" could also use a similar treatment, but I'm content with that situation for now. Generally speaking, the matter is whether one intends to improve a page or rather impede a user (or edits) they don't like. Your refusal to make even the slightest attempt to improve pages (with which I'm involved) without reverting edits seems to speak for itself. As they say, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. natemup (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natemup: Sometimes the quicker action to improve articles is to prevent junk from being added to them, or to remove otherwise poor quality content. I contribute to many articles, but it takes more time to read several sources, cite them, compose a good summary, and figure out where it fits in an article than to keep "junk" out of articles. Just because YOU want an article to be bigger or have better coverage, doesn't put an obligation on others to do that. If editors add a poorly written summary of a Reliable Source, I'll generally reword it; but it is DEFINITELY not my obligation to search out sources if no good ones are supplied by the editor adding the text. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was. I was replying to Elizium. natemup (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I first saw Natemup at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, with Natemup disrupting the article so severely that his edits were revdeled.[56] More recently, Natemup showed up at the Catholics for Choice article to shoehorn in a contemptuous term – Cafeteria Catholicism – as if it is a neutral term for dissenting Catholic.[57] Natemup appears to be WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to further a dogmatic Catholic agenda. The most effective solution for NOTHERE editors is to ban them. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't shoehorn the term. I linked "dissenting Catholic" to it because they're synonymous concepts (regardless of wording; it's literally the description in the first line of the Cafeteria article). There's no point in pretending otherwise. Also, no editor is involved in that matter (or any other) without bias; I made an attempt to normalize an awkward adjectival mash-up and an ideological dispute is holding it up. In any case, the idea that my contributions overall are to damage Wikipedia or that I deserve a ban is patently ridiculous and clearly a matter of personal disagreement. natemup (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that you are trying to force a dogmatic Catholic viewpoint even when that is not an accurate representation of the literature. The literature allows that Catholics may hold contradictory viewpoints, but the dogmatic church stance is that the Roman Catholic church is monolithic: there is only one way, their way. You have been trying to force that viewpoint across Wikipedia, rather than trying to accurately summarize the literature. As such, you are working against the WP:Neutral point of view policy. You are WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia in its stated mission. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making things up. I have done no such thing here or anywhere else.
    I am in total agreement that Catholics hold a variety of viewpoints, and the literature is in agreement that those who dissent from Catholic dogma or doctrine are colloquially called "Cafeteria Catholics". That said, I think there should be a page on "Dissent from Catholic teaching"; since there isn't, and Cafeteria Catholicism is basically the same topic by a different name, I added a wikilink.
    The dispute on the St Joseph's page—where various anti-Catholic editors (unsuccessfully) attempted to shoehorn their own viewpoints into a page under the guise of a source none had read—is totally unrelated to the charges you're attempting to bring against me here. In fact, most of the issues being collocated above by Elizium are unrelated to one another and are an attempt to silence me rather than improve Wikipedia. natemup (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nateump is grossly misrepresenting what he did on the St. Joseph's Indian School article. Natemup's initial edits there were to repeatedly blank sourced content, removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" with no edit summary or new sourcing added.[58][59][60][61] I reverted them as vandalism, and warned them on their talk page.[62][63][64] [The CNN source, already in the article, clearly cites, " St. Joseph’s Indian School – a 200-person boarding school in Chamberlain, South Dakota, that’s affiliated with a Roman Catholic charity based in Wisconsin." (bolding added) (Source:U.S. Indian school’s fundraising letters sent to millions signed by fictitious kids. David Fitzpatrick and Drew Griffin, CNN Investigations. Updated 9:53 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014).]

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

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

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

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

    Natemup refuses to take any responsibility for his actions, as seen in his statement about his actions here: "I did not violate any rules and my edits were not even all reverts (or directly related to the dispute)."[65]

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

    We are not, to my knowledge, obligated to use in a Wiki article the exact terminology used in a source. In fact, we are encouraged to put the content in our own words, and in this case the words established on this site as a sort of norm. It really doesn't matter what we call the Church, but the page for it here is titled without "Roman" (though it does mention it as a secondary name and devotes an entire section to explaining why the secondary term exists). It is fairly established on Wikipedia that "Roman Catholic" is only to be used in restricted settings, not in every reference to the global Catholic Church. Right or wrong, my removal of that term is hardly vandalism.
    Plus you skipped the part where you (unsuccessfully) fought on the St. Joseph's page for the "source" you included without reading (as it's literally unreadable/inaccessible), claimed not to know how the source got into the article, and were defeated by consensus in the talk page. You also skipped my addition (and your removal) of a reliable source and additional info countering the info allegedly from the aforementioned phantom source. You and others proceeded to (unsuccessfully) argue against the reliable, readable source on the grounds that it's Catholic. My other content removals on that page concerned information that did not appear to have anything to do with St. Joseph's.
    I encourage any and everyone to peruse the edit histories of that page as well as the extensive dialogue on the talk page. I have nothing to hide. I have a habit of using reverts rather than talk pages when dealing with obscure Wikis, as it more quickly gets other editors involved. I probably shouldn't do that, but I don't know of a better way at this point. Maybe RfCs or something? I should work on that.
    In any case, your characterization of my overall contributions to Wikipedia (and to the St Joseph's page in particular) are manifestly false. natemup (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is fairly established on Wikipedia that "Roman Catholic" is only to be used in restricted settings, not in every reference to the global Catholic Church. Please specify exactly where this is "fairly established". I have an ongoing interest in this topic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, editors who remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" are regularly blocked as vandals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the discussions cited above by Elizium, and elsewhere. I have no doubt that other editors have vandalized articles along these lines, though. Like the wording itself, it's case-by-case. natemup (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are two discussion, one on a WikiProject talk page, and one on the NPOVN page. They are not RfCs advertised Wikipedia-wide in order to get the views of the entire community, and they therefore "establish" nothing. (The first has a section labelled "RFC" but it was not even registered as one, and only attracted a small number of participants, while the second also is a discussion among a small number of editors, some of whom also participated in the first discussion.) Your "elsewhere" is pure hand-waving, I asked for specifics. The long and the short of it is that it is not "established" in any way, and your actions in upholding it are therefore not valid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea that it is fairly established comes not from the results (or nature) of those discussions, but from what the participants related about previous discussions and practices. I also viewed a number of closed/failed proposals that included similar comments. Clearly there is some sort of practice in place, though it is clearly inconsistent and contentious. Of course, if there is *nothing* established in any way on the topic, then I don't see why the topic is even up for discussion here. Several (and perhaps most) of my edits on this matter had to do with wikilinks to the page entitled "Catholic Church" that nevertheless read "Roman Catholic [Church]" on their respective pages; that seemed like an obviously appropriate kind of edit to me. natemup (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, RFC registered in October 2020 and expired 30 days later. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that information, which is not indicated anywhere in the RfC. Was it advertised on WP:CENT? In any case, less than a dozen people participated, and the RfC was never closed, so it established nothing definitive, which is what Natemup is claiming. It certainly does not justify the removal of "Roman" from "Roman Catholic". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Since it seems like consensus is moving in the right direction here (and I therefore no longer need to fear ... what I fear, feel free to ask me in private), I will chime in and say that, if anything, Natemup's edits to articles that have little to nothing to do with Catholicism are worse than the ones alluded to here.[66][67] I am not sure if this is because WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR with regard to what counts as a reliable source for a scholarly topic like medieval Japanese history, but the result is the same. Therefore, I suspect that anything short of a site-wide block would only make this problem worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There has been only one user to participate in this discussion that was not directly involved in one of the disputes (and literally tagged into the discussion by the OP). And the only users tagged were of course the ones who opposed my edits. Surely that's not consensus, and it surely isn't the point of creating a noticeboard discussion. In fact, how is that different from canvassing?
      As to Corbie's response, I again have nothing to hide. The talk page on the St Joseph's article speaks for itself and I haven't edited the article since it was locked. Corbie added a source from a Dr. Landrum to establish that students at St. Joseph were kidnapped, assimilated, and forced to convert to Catholicism. She's never read the source, the source is inaccessible, and it has since been removed by consensus—which Corbie is characterizing as oppression.
      You, on the other hand, vandalized the page for "Yasuke" by refusing to allow him to be referred to as a samurai, despite nearly every source in the article and on the internet calling him such. You were called in to do so by another editor, who is assisting in blocking the edits now that you have backed out due to personal issues. If I should be banned for fighting that fight, so be it. natemup (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above accusation of "vandalism" (actually agreeing to the restoration, by User:Goszei and separately User:Havsjö, of the long-term status quo of the article in question, and seemingly in accordance with the consensus of professional historians -- I may be wrong about this latter assertion, as the topic is very obscure and I am reading between the lines of, among other things, Professor Oka's blog and Professor Kaneko's book, but, per this and, more importantly, CorbieVreccan's comment below, this is irrelevant) is typical of this user's behaviour. I posted a non-comprehension grab-bag of diffs of similar remarks here. He has been warned about this countless times both on his user talk page and on the article talk pages where he has repeatedly made such comments. I would advocate that he be removed from the project, since either he is incapable of understanding how disruptive his behaviour is or he is willfully pretending to be incapable of understanding how disruptive his behaviour is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Probable socks abusing "thanks" functionality

    There are a few accounts with zero contributions and no communication that spam editors with automated "thanks" hundreds or thousands of times:

    It seems like they find a page and thank the most recent several hundred edits to it. This has been going on for a few years now, with two accounts being active in the last two days. One is already blocked and most have received a warning to cut it out. There's not a clear pattern in the articles but it feels very disruptive. The articles they use seem to be related to things like true crime (To Catch A Predator, Linda Collins-Smith, Christchurch mosque shootings, Alicia Kozakiewicz, Bernie Madoff, Anthony Sowell), US politics (Michael Flynn, Eric Lander), COVID (COVID-19 pandemic in Russia, COVID-19 pandemic in South America), and Russia (Antisemitism in the Russian Empire, Russian language, Andrei Platonov).Citing (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Go-here-look thanked me the other day for an edit I made in September 2007 that's about 2,200 edits deep in the history. I thought it was rather odd, but they had no other edits or logs. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    May not be related, but I got multiple thanks from User:DarleneEis (who has no live or deleted contribs here) for random edits I'd made to my userpage. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's harassment (duh). As the header says, they're probable socks, so blocking probably won't do much good. Nevertheless, after checking the thanks logs, I have blocked the two accounts that have gone on a recent thanks spree, but left the others alone; they usually desisted (if only in the sense of creating a new account) after being warned. Does anybody know if blocked users can still use the thanks feature? WP:THANKS doesn't say. Also, perhaps a filter or other technical means could be deployed to disable machine-gun-like "thanks"? It's absurd that it should be needed, but still. Hog Farm, your DarleneEis has also behaved oddly, but in a more limited way; my sense is it's probably not related. Here is their thanks log. Bishonen | tålk 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    99.242.98.170 on London, Ontario truck attack

    The edit summary in this edit feels like a legal threat. They keep blanking content and then finally did it again with an edit summary that makes it appear they claim to be doing it on behalf of a court order. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if they aren't (and I have every reason to believe they are) the source has actually retracted on the claim mentioned in that diff, so it shouldn't be included per WP:BLP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and thank you for removing it from the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't have blindly reverted to reinsert it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for that. It wasn't a "blind" revert but a misunderstanding. The edit summary didn't appear to reflect the deletions as what they removed was referenced to a news article and not court documents. Notfrompedro (talk)
    The court documents in question were used in the CTV article until they retracted everything that was based upon them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I returned a portion of the material with updated sourcing. It doesn't appear that CTV retracted the statements because they believed them to be untrue, but rather because the documents on which they were based were released in error.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand the suspicions as the IP editor had previously been removing content without explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they wanted the CTV source removed entirely. They came into -en-help a minute after their last edit and basically demanded we remove the source wholesale, even hinting that a lawsuit against CTV was being brought. We told him in no uncertain terms this wasn't going to happen. (If a lawsuit was indeed in the mix that would explain why CTV retracted, as well.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B. Fairbairn reported by User:OuroborosCobra

    After a six year break, B. Fairbairn has returned to their behavior of trying to sanitize any and all foreign relations and similar pages and sections of pictures involving US politicians. This behavior has gotten them blocked three times before, and there are at least four previous ANIs on this behavior for this editor [68] [69] [70] [71]. For some reason, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/B._Fairbairn&dir=prev&offset=20191024144335&target=B.+Fairbairn they are back at it, and if it continues again, it's just going to be a headache for someone to go through and revert everything again. This is by far not their first time doing this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Comment I don't know the backstory here so I can't comment intelligently on any past issues or warnings. However, looking at these specific edits, there doesn't seem to be any instance of 3RR and - insofar as the content of the edits themselves are concerned - it appears to merely be decentering the United States from articles on countries other than the United States. It has always struck me as strange that every article about countries other than the United States features an outsized number of photos of American politicians and American military units. (Functionally, I understand the reason behind that is because the U.S. Government spends a boatload on public affairs staff and releases all of their images into the PD. As a result, the U.S. Army has more Wikipedia-usable photos of Iraq than anyone.) Fairbairn's userpage definitely magnifies the problem WP has in this regard to a rather astonishing degree. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think an edit summary of "boring" for removing pictures long present in articles is an indication that they are approaching some large issue with intent on working with the community on this. Nor do their 3 blocks for specifically this behavior, and 4 ANIs against them for the same. They are literally repeating the same behavior, just with a six year break. That's why I provided links. Please, read the past behavior. If it was as simple as you are making it out to be, I would never have brought it here. This editor has had many, many warnings made against them (from administrators), and has not learned. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've taken the time to sludge through this all now. "They are literally repeating the same behavior, just with a six year break." It appears three of his four past reports were for edit-warring, and the fourth was for WP:POINTY edits ("changing sides" to make a point). You said his previous blocks were for "specifically this behavior" but they were actually for edit-warring and harassment; the content being warred over didn't seem to be the problem, the warring itself was. In the above diffs I'm not seeing any 3RR, nor am I seeing evidence of pointy edits. He was previously blocked to arrest edit-warring and pointy edits, not to compel him to change his opinion on the centrality of images of Americans. He's certainly entitled to edit with that perspective as much as he fancies, provided he doesn't resume edit-warring, pointy editing, or harassment of other editors. If you disagree with his removal of these images, you can restore them, discuss the matter, or open an RfC. If you have evidence of 3RR it can be addressed to the WP:3RRN. As for "boring" as an edit summary; that seems not useful but I'm not sure it's a smoking gun. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bergeronpp making a base personal attack

    BLOCKED
    No comment on the WP:NOTHERE points raised, but no, incivility is not an acceptable nor excusable form of interaction. At what point did the common courtesy of apologising for an outburst (regardless of the fact said outburst shouldn't have happened) stop? Bloody hell Wikipedia. - TNT 😺 19:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After a heated exchange related to image placement of all things, where I repeatedly pointed to MOS:IMAGELOC, Bergeronpp (talk · contribs) made a base personal attack toward me on their talk page. I requested that the editor strike the comment among other things, and got a response of "cringe". I did not (and still don't) understand what that means, and the editor has continued to edit without apology or striking the comment. The way the editor was editing also appeared to be WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:NOTHERE by CarrotJuice101

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

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

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

    Kambliyil

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

    @Alandyept: I noticed there was a problem and commented at their talk. I've been caught up elsewhere but I was planning on warning them that they would be indefinitely blocked if they do not respond to the problems mentioned on their talk. It would help if you were to give two or three short examples of what you mean, with a brief reason why the edits are a problem for the specific cases you mention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alandyept: Hi, can you give some example? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 08:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: The user Alandyept is engaged in edit war on the page Kerala cuisine. The user reverts sourced edits. According to Alandyept, the Malabar cuisine is a derivative of Thalassery cuisine. However, it is not the truth. Each of the cities has their own local cuisine - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/what-is-the-real-malabar-biriyani/articleshow/65090374.cms. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I assume that the user with IP address 2409:4073:4E84:DB7:7080:FA92:B909:95F1 and the user Alandyept are same. Both of them do the same thing on the page Kerala Cuisine. The user with the above IP address appears to remove a section from the page continousely since 28 May 2021. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: Just look at this users history and see how much warnings this user has got. I dont know why this person is doing disruptive and large scale editting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kambliyil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kambliyil

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

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

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

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

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

    @2409:4073:2e82:7a44:c470:faa7:8125:cf16: Hi, you are true. That cuisine was there for hundreds of years. But nobody called it Thalassery cuisine. But the cuisine in each of the cities were different. The term Thalassery cuisine is used to denote the indigenous dishes of Thalassery. The news report I have mentioned above clearly states the differences between Thalassery cuisine and Kozhikode Cuisine. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Barrow1965 indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Barrow1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued disrupting biographies by changing subjects' national identities to British to enforce uniformity,[72][73][74][75][76] even after they were notified about WP:UKNATIONALS, which specifies that users should not do this.[77] KyleJoantalk 09:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I agree with the changes to British, since those people are British. The newbie's going about it the wrong way. GoodDay (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about the other articles, but there have been multiple consensuses to describe Christian Bale as English, and there was even one to oppose changing his national identity from English to British. Barrow1965 had been notified of this, but that didn't stop them from the revert shown in the second diff. KyleJoantalk 09:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked some of the other articles, the user was wrong on some, perhaps correct on others; but they seem to blanketing all articles to "British", when the identity/ethnicity of the individual is stated (sometimes as in the case of Bale as quite an important clarification) clearly as "English" et al. Also I see the users private criteria changes depending on the articles, eg, the place of birth is important for one, but not another.Halbared (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been blocked twice before, the last time for one week, for disruption and for personal attacks. It is clear that they use at least one IP for socking (avoiding 3RR by doing so). I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent cheating by Mr.Rajvanshi

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

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

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

    Blocked indefinitely. Aimbots are not allowed! El_C 13:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you also salt the article which you just deleted and plausible variants to prevent more shenanigans like this from this vandal?Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've WP:G4ed the targetless redirect Draft:Abhishek Nigam. An application of NaCl might not be misplaced. Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:RuPaul's Drag Race

    RESOLVED
    (non-admin closure) IP has been temporarily blocked for a week by Bbb23, and has been told that editing on both a named account (Underpaid Intern) and from an IP is not allowed in certain venues, like AfD. They have been warned that continuing to edit under an IP address may result in an indefinite block for them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    An unregistered user is edit warring at Template:RuPaul's Drag Race. I fear violating 3RR, so I could use help maintaining the status quo version of the template during an active Talk page discussion. I've shared a warning on the user's talk page and I've also removed their comments from my user talk page, which they've reverted. A little help? Template page protection? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Links:

    ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Another Believer initially reverted my edit, without giving any explanation whatsoever. After I remade the same edit, he invited me to start a discussion on the talk page - which I did. There, he said that he agreed with my edit, but that he reverted it because he didn't like a detail of it. The situation would have been very different if Another Believer would've just explained to me their revert or, even better, edited the template further to remove the detail they didn't like. I think it's a double standard to ask an user to discuss an edit before doing it, when Another Believer's revert was unjustified. If anything, they could've started a discussion. Since this is not my first interaction of this kind with Another Believer, I'm inclined to believe he may have ownership issues on some articles. The fact that they asked a third user to revert my edit, in order to avoid being flagged for edit warring, demonstrates that to me. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "There, he said that he agreed with my edit" -- that's not even true. Stop mischaracterizing. There are rules to follow and you should not be edit warring during an active discussion. Also, I'm allowed to remove your unnecessary comment on my user talk page. Another editor has restored the status quo version of the template. I strongly suggest you not continue with aggressive editing. Also, I do not have ownership issues. I will gladly accept and follow consensus, but you're not giving other editors time to weigh in on the ongoing discussion. Please be patient. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You agreed with me that there should be consistency within the template. My edit was aimed to unify the style of the template, which, as you said, should be consistent. Yet, you still reverted my edit originally - with no explanation. If you agree that there should be consistency on the template, then why revert an edit that aim to improve such thing? My interpretation is that you would like to keep the style that you like on the template, and for this reason you saw my edit as an attack to your "ownership" of this particular template. As I said, it's not the first time that I see this kind of behaviour from you. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I'm done here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The editor continues to post at User talk:Another Believer, despite me asking them to stop. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not vandalising your main space. I am just replying to what you left on my user's talk page. I don't think you should delete my reply on your talk page only because you don't agree with it. Why do you think is it okay to start a conversation on my talk page, but then don't allow my reply to exist in yours? 78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Users have the right to delete most content from their talk page if they desire; if someone's asked you not to post there, you should respect that rather than antagonising them. If you want to continue to discuss the content dispute, the place for that is Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. — Czello 13:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if User:Underpaid Intern is the same editor? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is. Some actions can only be done by registered users, but I mainly use my IP account. I hope this is okay --78.148.25.46 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that User:Another Believer's contributions to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RuPaul's Drag Race: The Mobile Game may be useful for admins when reviewing this complaint. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm being harassed/hounded/trolled at this point so I am going to excuse myself from interacting with this editor from now on. No longer worth my time. Happy editing, all! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware that removing content from talk pages was allowed. If you noticed, my last edit in User:Another Believer's talk page was actually of me reverting my own edit - and removing my comment from their talk page definitely (following what was said in this discussion). I apologise for that. However there is more to this discussion that has not been addressed, so suggesting a block for just one aspect of our (Another Believer and myself) interactions is a summary decision. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked the IP for one week. As I explained on their Talk page, they cannot use an IP and a named account in this manner, even if they admit to being the same person. They are both editing the same AfD, among other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor deleting citations

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Thethxrn indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    @TheScottDL: when starting a discussion at ANI you must notify the other party. I have done this for you. Laplorfill (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that TheScottDL (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Anonymous IP namecalling and unsourced data

    Throughout the past few months, i've been responded to by an unknown IP who has been constantly using homophobic slurs and other uncivil words while reverting my edits or talking on talk pages. They seem to be just IP hopping, so I'm not sure what to do, but I'm positive its the same person.

    It can be seen by 47.147.70.139 (talk · contribs) at the following edits:

    Here by 47.147.78.75 (talk · contribs)

    Previous attempts to discuss this with the user were just reverted by the IP. I've tried discussing our edits in a civil matter on certain article's talk pages, but with little to no luck. What should we do? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we need to do anything unless the IP continues. So far, they've made only two edits, the personal attack (sorry about that, I'm sure it's unpleasant) and blanking their Talk page. The previous edits by the other IP happened almost a year ago, so it doesn't seem like it's a frequent occurrence. I have deleted the offensive edit summary so it won't show up in the history of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123

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

    Out of an abundance of caution given the canvassing allegations, I've notified every participant at the AfD of this discussion although the allegations are all made by a single editor and concern only me and two others. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting for the record that while I have participated in previous London Buses AfDs, I found them and this one via the main AfD list, which I browse semi-regularly. firefly ( t · c ) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Purely as a point of information (although not really being on either side of the debate), "whingeing" is a spelling accepted as standard by, for example, the Collins Online Dictionary ("If you say that someone is whingeing, you mean that they are complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant.") I'm assuming that your "(sic)" indicates thinking otherwise, and apologise for wasting your time if this was not the case. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Andreas Philopater for pointing that out, I thought it should be spelt "whinging" and so thought it was a typo, but I can see now it can be spelt eitherway (spelling/grammar is not my strength!) Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    univolved nac: From my POV no canvassing occurred everyone from a related afd was pinged who coincidentally all voted the same way it is impossible to ping an opposition that wasn't expressed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, Can you provide diffs for personal attacks and gaslighting? As for canvassing, if all pinged editors were the ones who participated in the prior similar discussion, and nobody was omitted then it seems fine. If only one side was pinged then it would be bad. PS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except WP:CANVAS explicitly states In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. (Note this was not reconsideration of a debate but a very similar debate about a very similar article). Also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification explicitly states notifying a partisan audience is inappropriate. So I cannot see how you reconcile that. Surely if there is no opposition, the right thing to do would be to ping editors from a different AfD or notify editors at a wikiproject etc. Or simply not ping anyone! Nowhere does it say on WP:CANVAS does it say it is OK to notify users from a partisan group simply because no other opinion is expressed - why choose to select users from that discussion when opposing views have been expressed in other discussions? Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: This little exchange relates to the PA and gaslighting. My gaslighting comment refers to being told that someone who was pinged into the conversation to say nothing apart from telling me to stop whingeing somehow found the discussion by their own volition. But none of this warranted ANI. Regarding the "continuing allegations" they are referring to this. Note, the user who pinged participants from the previous AfD has acknowledged it could be interpreted both ways. Any further discussion on the matter is an exercise in frivolous pedantry, and it is really up to the uninvolved closing admin to comment on whether canvassing has any bearing on the discussion! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no gaslighting just editors pointing out that no canvassing occuring and only you disagreeing with them, also telling someone to stop whingeing isn't really a personal attack, it may be considered uncivil but it is not a personal attack. 07:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)
    Where am I complaining it was a PA? I did not bring it to ANI! So I don't consider it serious. But I've explained the gas lighting refers to a user who was pinged into the discussion to make an uncivil commment and then being told they arrived there not because they were pinged. But again, not something I consider important enough to be here at ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lavalizard101: I've just realised I pinged you accidently, which explains the confusion. My ping was meant for @Piotrus: (fixed now). Talk about incompetence! Sorry about that. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The tempers did get heated, but personally, I'd suggest WP:TROUTing people involved in it, then having them dring a cup of WP:Cup of tea and shake hands. There is nothing major going on there and it's best to de-scalate ASAP. Before things really get serious and admin intervention is needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already made my peace with the user and was contemplating an apology on their talk page. I'd rather not have a trout, but a cup of tea would be nice! Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I cannot provide diffs because I do not believe they occurred - I posted here because accusations of those behaviours were being made (diffs of the accusations available on request) and felt that it was better to get outside input as the editor making the accusations showed no apparent interest in doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I request this discussion be closed, since everyone seems to agree there is no requirement for administrator intervention. I went ahead with my apology. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish War of Independence

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

    I see no indication Visnelma (talk · contribs) has been notified of this AN/I thread. I will correct that, but OP, I strongly suggest you stop accusing people of pushing propaganda. It makes you come across as just as much of a problem. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021" request i made few days ago. I tried to create counter argument with sources. Which was discredited due to one being news source and other being Lenin's direct words regarding the Independence War. First reason Contradicts with this users actions( He uses any source he can find the discredit the war). At the moment this user has the free reign to edit however he seas fit without challenge. That in itself is problem. Second reason is Very debatable considering direct words of someone who participated in the War being discredited due to being First Person Source. The problem is that there is systematic block on what the Turkish side can add to this site. If only one side has free reign while other side is blocked, then the term propaganda applies(Strongly). I sincerely hope that Turning page to propaganda is not the intention here at higher levels. --Oyond (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The genocide happened. Just because that upsets you doesn't make it less true. Deal with it. 2001:4898:80E8:38:725E:9119:2DBD:B368 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The genocide you claim to have taken place took place in 1915, 1917. But the Turkish War of Independence started in 1919. What is wanted to be done here is to associate Turkey with the genocide. 1 of the sources is an interview made 1 day ago. another one is the interview made 2 weeks ago. In addition, almost 1 book is cited as a source about ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder, has this IP ever been warned regarding WP:ARBAA2? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have one major question after having read this thread. Who is "we"? Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "We" would be the Turkish nationalists/genocide deniers summoned as meatpuppets by Turkish websites, see Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Topic is on turkish news and Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Possible planned vandalism by Turkish far right groups. The history of the article (and talk page) from that time show semi-protection is a wholly necessary intervention to prevent co-ordinated disruption. FDW777 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

    Can anyone explain what does Azerbaijan have to do with this war? 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
    Good question. Maybe because one admin pointed out "has been notified of this AN/I thread."...Maybe unsigned users should be ignored for the moment I can see flocks coming pretending to be something else in order to deviate this Topic from the real issue here. Limited access to Turkish Users to modify anything, organized cooperation(border line crusade) against any topic related to Turkish History Oyond (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no limited access to Turkish users. Semi-protection of the article does not discriminate on race, nationality, gender, sexuality or anything else. FDW777 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In Every page that group is challenged, the extended protection status is placed by one admin(wont name unless needed). Afterwards only your group has the ability to edit without any challenge. Who has the ability to change without discussing the topic in the discussion form indicates intentional bias. What I don't know if is a system being abused here by the group I mentioned, or is it intentional. Maybe You can clarify it for me. Want me to provide examples? I have two in mind besides Turkish War of Independence, Kemalism is being another. Let me talk on personal level here. I wanted to add left wing anti-imperialist perspective that indirectly supports Turkish War of Independence(more so identifying nature of the war). The more I get involved the more similar(group movement, propaganda) trends I see in side topics. Done by the same group of people which you are involved. I could pull list of users here if needed --Oyond (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your use of "your group" to describe myself and unnamed other editors is nothing but battleground behaviour. It is also ignorant of facts, if I am part of some anti-Turkish group it wouldn't explain why I persistently report sockpuppets of blatantly anti-Turk editor Cypriot Chauvinist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to the extent they say "I really dont know your problem with Greece and Cyprus" and "I really dont know your issue on Greek pages", among other things. I am neither pro-Turk nor anti-Turk, but what I am against is the concerted campaign by several editors to attack the best referenced part of the Turkish War of Independence article, because they are personally (and often, as a country) in denial about the ethnic cleansing aspect of it. FDW777 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actions speak louder then words and lets not victimize ourselves so easily. My questions are still not answered. Contributions and attitude and cooperations in both Turkish War of Independence and Kemalism speaks for itself. I dont have to the interest to dig into other past actions(At the Moment, though guessing more can be found), these are the only ones I see happening now.--Oyond (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a hard science. There is always some degree of "I like it" or "I JDL" with social sciences. The environment on the talk page of this article is pure toxic goo. After I saw comments about the content UNDUE from editors who supported inclusion of the disputed content, seeing they were not "Turkish nationalist" meat puppets, I made the naive request of asking the editors to seal the deal with an RfC. I could not get out of there fast enough. Editors defending the content claimed that there was a consensus for it because all the oppose editors were meat puppets and they didn't count. I strongly believe uninvolved editors should discuss the merits of the WP:MEATPUPPETRY claims. I don't believe that all the editors were meat puppets, making it impossible to evaluate the consensus while this is ongoing. It's not in the interests of the project to allow involved editors to ignore opposing editors in talk page discussions based on unsubstantiated claims of meat puppetry. Spudlace (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I see that you are a prejudiced and cynical Armenian. If you knew the history, you would probably know the size of the navies of those times. You would also know that a submarine was not invented. These attacks on Turks, especially by Armenian editors, need to be stopped. Here, a black propaganda organization deliberately directed against the Turks is seen.


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

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

    Visnelma is deliberately trying to make a propaganda.His method is to add anti-Turkish sources wherever he wants without anyone noticing. his only defense .is that the source he entered has been there for a long time.please stop the damage this editor has done to wikipedia. He is constantly making his own propaganda.it has an AN/I topic for it. However, he is not responding. 


    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and probable sock IP

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

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

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

    User:‎SP Eatcha

    Another admin has indeffed the reported user. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Shizuha Nakano

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

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

    This user has also been doing some bizarre, hateful stuff at Jessica Yaniv. They changed all the pronouns of a trans woman to who or whose and added an external link to an attack site in two unexplained edits (diff). They were reverted twice (once by me) and they re-reverted both times with not-great edit summaries. First re-revert: "Yaniv is Not operated transsexual. Should not decide he or she." Second re-revert: "WP:BOLD". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit is pretty bad too, for all sorts of reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

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


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

    (Non-administrator comment) Please notify Solarson919 of this report on their talk page, as the red text at the top of the page and the yellow edit notice when creating this section dictate. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent the ANI notice to the editor. Jerm (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Blackbear456

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

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

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

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

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

    Glossary of professional wrestling terms#mark. Narky Blert (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A toxic fanbase, but perhaps we shouldn't venture into WP:FORUM. Cloudbearer (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's a bit like idol culture, fans can identify and get very attached to their favorites.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Don't tell Drmies there's another wrestling thread at ANI, unless you are planning for the whole of Alabama to be powered by the steam that comes out of his ears. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, it's all about Euro 2020. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Page removed for Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church

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

    Lisa.landen78, I don't see any edit history at Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Lisa, I'm not seeing that the page was deleted at all, as it was never created. Was this under another name by any chance? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also unable to find anything. We do have articles on Laestadianism and Laestadianism in the Americas, where the "Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church" is referred to as "Reedites" and "Pollarites", but no deleted articles there, either. Woodroar (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an article for Apostolic Lutheran Church of America. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continous replacing of flag and coat of arms in article

    User 2010F11 keeps replacing the flag and coat of arms of Wallachia [78] (this is the latest time, see history article). User seems not to have an actual valid reason to use these symbols, these are the arguments given by them: "I wanna add the 1831 flag in the info box!" "Probably many people would want to see it!" "Maybe everyone wants to see it!". I've explained to them they do not have stated any reason that complies with any Wikipedia policy to justify this change, but it seems of no use. To summarize what I said at Talk:Wallachia, the white flag with a crow (the one this user is not promoting) is by far the most common (there's not a source of this, because there's not a source that specifically says which flag of a dead state that had several others was more common), which you can see by simply looking up "Wallachia flag" on Google. Click on images, scroll down and you'll mostly see the white flag with a crow (or a blue variant which, as far as I know, is only a naval ensign) or some alternate (mostly not historical) variants derived from it. But you most likely won't see a red and yellow horizontal bicolor flag which is the one that this user promotes.

    It is for this reason that I oppose using two flags (first of all because it's unnecessary, it would make sense if the state only had two flags, but it didn't) which have a clear difference in relevance at the same "level" if I explain myself. The red and yellow flag is simply not known by almost anybody, while the white flag is the most commonly associated with Wallachia. Which this user does not seem to understand. Regarding the coat of arms, this one (which this user promotes) is not contemporaneous to the principality (see description at the file's page), so it shouldn't be used. By the way, the white flag has been used since at least 2009 in the article [79] and it is used by Romanian Wikipedia (Wallachia is in Romania). The user has been warned because of their changes at their talkpage twice [80] and their changes were reverted by two other different editors [81] [82]. Super Ψ Dro 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Peace4worlds - NOTHERE

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

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

    Date-changing vandal from Illinois

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Request to Block this user M.Bitton

    NO ACTION
    A potentially productive, new editor is currently familiarizing themselves with WP's editing process. This thread is more appropriate to the WP:TEAHOUSE. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    As it says at the top of the page in big red letters you must notify the user of this report, I have done so for you. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~).Tommi1986 let's talk! 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, LeRobert93! I have reviewed your "request to block this user" [M.Bitton]. "Deleting" (or reverting) another user's contributions is a normal part of the editing process on Wikipedia. From a review of the editor interaction analyzer, it appears M.Bitton has reverted you in four articles. In none of these cases was WP:3RR violated and in each case M.Bitton articulated a valid reason to do so. For instance, in this edit [83], you were reverted because M.Bitton said you misrepresented a source. Reviewing the source, that does appear to be the case. In the edit you cited, the revert was followed by an extensive and ongoing discussion on the Talk page, one in which you are participating. Given the very limited number of instances in which M.Bitton has reverted you and the apparent validity of each of those, I'm disinclined to believe that "the moment one idea don't please to him, everything is deleted" without further evidence. Thank you for working to expand WP's coverage of Berber-related subjects. Please consider visiting the WP:TEAHOUSE where additional guidance and advise on editing WP is available. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    The diff that contains insult written in Turkish and baselessly accusing me of "anti-Turkish propaganda"[84]. He also claims to be the one who started a discussion about me on this page[85]--V. E. (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC) The user continues his attack against me although being warned by other users in the article talk page. (personal attack)[86] (previous warnings)[87] This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.--V. E. (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC) He is also adding non factual dates to the articles and ignores the concencus on the article by doing so.[88]--V. E. (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Range of Indianapolis IPs puffing up music arranger Belford Hendricks

    Somebody using a range of IPs from Indianapolis has been puffing up the legacy of music arranger Belford Hendricks. They have coatracked promotion of Hendricks into other articles.[89][90] They have been using peacock words such as "talented" (every arranger with a biography on Wikipedia can be described as talented) and they have added lots of unreferenced, unverifiable claims. They have edit-warred at the same articles,[91][92] added claims that are contradictory or verifiably false, for instance here claiming that Hendricks arranged the song just a few lines below a description of someone else arranging the song. And here where Hendricks supposedly arranges the song but the article already says that there was no arranger. And where Hendricks is inserted despite a verifiable source saying a different guy arranged the song.

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

    Persistent disruptive behaviour

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

    Why is this [93] considered harassment? Take it your own way, but I was pretending that we were in a editing competition on how could make the better edits and I said that I made a good edit and he did too so he is trying to bounce back. [94] You already explained that this was not appropriate [95] and I understood and moved on (and as you can see, I never did it again). I am not tracking anybody's contributions, I just check whoever's user page I'm on's contributions just to see what they're editing and see what things I should edit. It's not like I check the same person's contributions to stalk them. (People give me ideas!) For example, I quickly checked out Sakiv's edit history and came across List of countries by average annual precipitation, and thought that would be fun to improve. And I ended up improving it a bit. [96][97][98][99] I'm not very creative so I need ideas on what to edit. You're actually tracking MY contributions. [100] I don't mimick people's edit summaries. If I like an edit summary I'll use it, that should be taken as a good way. I am not sending false accusations, I can prove that SteveMc25 sent that a few seconds before the game ended, what I can agree is I pushed it a little too far, but it wasn't a lie at all. [101] I'll be nicer in approaching someone who did a harmless edit. [102] I don't mean to remove content to other people's talk pages. I have reasons for doing so though. 1. They were my edits. [103] (removed literally 8 minutes after adding, not like it was an age-old message that everyone saw). 2. Nobody replied to them. [104] And I do remove warnings sent to me. If I have a warning, I read it, learn from it, and move on (same with disambiguation links). Also, the warnings you gave me were extremely unfair (just like Stevie fae Scotland's warning). [105][106] On, England national football team results (2020–present) there was a discussion between me and you between adding yellow cards. [107] Then you were ignoring me [108] so I removed them, [109] and you warned me. [110] So you ignore me for the discussion but when I remove it myself you warn me of vandalism (even though there is an ongoing discussion about it). Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They (the cards) were already there before any discussion began between us and you should have waited to reach a consensus before removing them. You have been told to stop mimicking by SteveMc25 and I also warned you that it is inaproppriate. You have been given more than one chance but unfortunately you can't change this behavior. It's clear that you don't know the purpose of why we are all here.--Sakiv (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I would've (and was doing) with the cards, [111] but when you ignore me [112] [113], it's not really a productive discussion. I'm not mimicking him! Is there a rule that says editors are not allowed to use the same edit summaries as other editors, even if it's a good edit summary? Mimick means to imitate (someone or their actions or words), especially in order to entertain or ridicule, [114] which I am not [115]. The only thing you warned me that was inappropriate was this, [116] which I listened to you [117] and I didn't do that again. [118] You never told me using a valid edit summary in an appropriate situation was wrong (just because someone else uses it). It's not about chances, everything I've done wrong I've been told about, and had never been done again. Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He has just accused me of cheating.--Sakiv (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, I'm still editing my comment as you can see, [119] once I am done you can judge it however you'd like. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please don't base this on your personal experience with me, read my responses, please. I provided 26 pieces of evidence (which you are free to look at). I do listen to sakiv when I am told I've done something wrong (look at my response with all my sources and claims), but I haven't done anything this time, truly. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then move on, and stop repeating the same pattern of persistent bickering in response to simple warnings. General Ization Talk 04:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't even about that. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AGain, if you read my response, you'd see I said "I read my warning, and moved on." It's that he's trying to BAN me. Do you not want me to defend myself or give reasoning? Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is going after you. Stop pretending to be targeted. You persisted in your undesirable behavior and as a result I made this request.--Sakiv (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you were, I'm just saying that if someone's requesting to ban you, you need to defend yourself. My behavior is not undesirable as I explained in my responses. Occasionally I may do something wrong and I just need to be reminded that I can't do that, but what have I done here? Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mwiqdoh's Allegations

    - Harrasment – [120] Mwiqdoh's response: Not even harassment. Explained here: [121] and was told that it was a bit unnecessary and looked weird [122] and I listened.

    - Lying – User_talk:Mwiqdoh#False_reverts. Mwiqdoh's response: Was an overreaction but not a lie. Explained here: [123] and said that I'd be nicer (which I have done so far): [124]

    - Deleting talk page content – [125] Mwiqdoh's response: Was something I did wrong. But, it is an inappropriate use of talk pages (WP:OWNTALK) stating, "talk pages aren't social media websites" and what I said was improper usage so I deleted it.

    - Removing Warnings – [126] Mwiqdoh's response: Clean-ups are allowed. Especially, if you already read and understood the warning.

    - Mimicking – [127] Mwiqdoh's response: Using the same edit summary as someone else appropriately, is not mimicking someone.

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

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

    What Mwiqdoh has done

    Talk page removal - Mwiqdoh has removed things he said on other people's talk pages.
    Arguing - Mwiqdoh has argued and bickered over small things.
    Removing Warnings - Mwiqdoh has removed warnings (but there isn't anything wrong with that)

    What Mwiqdoh hasn't done

    Harassing - [128] does not meet the harassment guidelines. It may be unnecessary (which he has been notified here [129]) and he followed the heads-up. It was not harassment though
    Lying - Mwiqdoh has been placed in the argument section for the stevemc25 incident, but it was not a lie. (As proved here [130])
    Mimicking - Mwiqdoh has not mimicked any user in a humorous matter. Anytime he had copied someone's edit summary was in a valid situation, as such: [131].


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

    Potentially biased editor

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

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

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

    I don't see any posted evidence, or the name of the person you are talking about. I also don't see that you have notified the person as is required when discussing them here. It is not really reasonable for us to react to this because without being able to investigate the edits ourselves we can't really make a judgment. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Okay I am seeing what you are probably talking about here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu. I think you had better support your accusations as they are serious accusations. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Soupmaker: the next step if you want an administrator to intervene (which is the purpose of this page) is for you to identify the editor about whom you are speaking, and for you to notify that editor that you have submitted a request here, which is required. See the notice near the top of the page and a suggested template you can use to provide that notice. If you are looking for advice rather than intervention, and would prefer they not be notified at this stage, the WP:TEAHOUSE is probably a better place to inquire for general advice on dealing with this sort of issue. General Ization Talk 06:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This editor has made over 470,000 contributions to Wikipedia over 11 years without ever being blocked. They are good at what they do, that is how.
    You have been asked to provide evidence. The fact that they have nominated a couple of articles for deletion is not enough. I suggest you show a concrete example of what you are talking about or withdraw these accusations. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is able to rapidly review articles concerning academic subjects for notability because they are intimately familiar with the criteria set forth at WP:NACADEMIC, and have participated in many discussions concerning those criteria. You will need to provide evidence that the editor is not applying those criteria equally to academics of all races, or you will need to swiftly withdraw your accusations of racism. General Ization Talk 06:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor off the rails wrt Bigfoot video

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

    • "[I] am prepared to die on this hill & engage in a revert war with you"[132]
    • "Yeah they do, asshole" [133]
    • "Nope, fuck off" [134]
    • etc.

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

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

    Dab(h)i Rajput(s)

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

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

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

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

    NPA from User:Hanoi Road

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

    Guilopez/Sean Lucy

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

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

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

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

    The quacking is loud in here....

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1029190628"