Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 9 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 5 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 25 requests for RD1 redaction
• 64 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 24 requested closures
• 127 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 18 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7756 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith

Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics

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

---

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.

1. As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an Undercover commie wikipedian here noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join them to defend the motherland and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies.
2. The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
3. Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind and Let’s start editing it 👍.
4. More recently, the subreddit has discussed trying to infiltrate wikipedia and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the would have a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential.

I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tendentious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.

Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.

Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?

My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described psy op seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mitchen Mackvid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly needs a block promptly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's been blocked by Canterbury Tail. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). Silverseren^C 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another thread today, celebrating the ban of Oranjelo100 [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: You and I appear to be mentioned there too in the comments. The title "includes only one more CIA to go," which implies that they may be planning to ban another user (the OP on the Reddit post keeps calling me one, and I have definitely seen random IPs engaging in personal attacks over the past few weeks or so). It's a community with an extremely online focus, so I do not expect this sort of stuff to go away any time soon.

On a separate note, the thread also appears to be smearing the now-banned Oranjelo100 by posting pictures of another thread involving a vandal IP and attributing it to Oranjelo100. They also say I have proposed to twice ban edits(???) on the Uyghur genocide page for a year, when I don’t think I have ever requested full protection on the page for a year. If it isn’t incompetence (and the amount of digging through Wikipedia and citing policies by u/No_Static_At_All doesn’t appear to indicate that incompetence is likely) it would seem like an attempt to rile up the base towards some WP:NOTHERE end. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To update the above, a couple of posts over the past five days have been made that seem to be directly targeted at me, and both of which are spreading disinformation regarding my editing habits. One of the posts (reddit archive) is regarding yet another topic sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party, the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. The other post just appears to be a straw man post (reddit archive) that wants to smear me by making false sockpuppetry and CIA operative allegations and vaguely pointing to Operation Earnest Voice. Again, this is from the same redditor, /u/No_Static_At_All. The following of my edits by a non-Wikipedian would be rather strange, so I'm having suspicions that the user may be an editor that following around my edits and using the subreddit to try to stir up their reddit buddies. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• More harassment from single use accounts [3][4], both now blocked. Thank you @Sasquatch: and @Zzuuzz:, I hope this thread sheds a little light on those two seemingly random incidents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I usually do not edit in this subject area, but yes, there are definitely many accounts with few edits in this subject area who edit clearly to support POV of CCP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• What especially troubles me here is persistent editing through proxies. For example, [5], [6]. As appeared during a recent SPI case, some named accounts in this subject area also edit though proxies, which effectively make them "immune" to SP investigations. I have three suggestions. (1) make a semiprotection of such pages, (2) use 30/500 protection; and (3) named accounts should not be allowed to proxies in this subject area, or any other areas covered by DS or CS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: Do you plan to make this a formal proposal, below? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I may not be around to follow-up, so you or someone else could do it. I am not sure though. Since we have the CS regime now, (1) and (2) can already be enacted on specific pages by admins if needed (I think). With regard to (3), one would need to consult with someone more familiar with proxy accounts and other related issues. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year

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

---

As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year

• Support retract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions

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

---

What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Would it be appropriate to ping the users who have contributed to the discussion above but haven't specifically commented on this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose portion of my comment above applies here too. Discretionary sanctions should not be applied lightly, or solely because a topic area is experiencing (or has experienced) disruption. Probably every topic area on Wikipedia has experienced some degree of disruption at one point or another over the past 20 years. Community discretionary sanctions should be authorised when the volume/nature of disruption is too much for WP:ANI to handle, or where there's a need for admins to skip steps in the protection policy when protecting pages. There needs to be clear evidence presented that these measures are necessary, and that existing measures are insufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that any of such accounts would be banned on the ANI because they would have some supporters. One needs a qualified judgment by one or two admins here, and that is exactly what DS provides. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have links to ANI discussions of this happening? Or are we just assuming that ANI won't do anything, and so aren't trying it in the first place? Looking at the evidence above, it's a bunch of blocked socks at SPI, one ban at ANI (unrelated to the genocide), a bunch of reddit posts with no evidence of any disruption onwiki, several harassment/DE blocks, and some talk page comments that were never reported to ANI... Really struggling to identify any evidence suggesting there exists disruption that's actually reported but not resolved by admins / ANI consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This appears to be an area where easier access to administrative action would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• I haven't read the whole thread, so don't put much stock in this, but I'd rather not add another DS/GS category right as ArbCom is trying to rework the system. Like PR was saying, there are a lot of hot-button issues that experience disruption when in the news cycle, but generally these can be handled through our existing policies and tools. Would it be enough to just tell admins to be aware of this situation and keep it in mind when determining protection and block durations? I'd even be open to more specific restrictions similar to 4/10 or 30/500 protecting the area or central articles, but a general sanctions regime feels too bulky for the problem. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? If adopted here, that would be a community sanction, and Arbcom would not have to do anything with this. But the individual admins would be able to do a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support It seems like the right solution at this point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is every bit as contentiously-edited as, for example, the Israel-Palestine dispute, which is under similar discretionary sanctions. I am not surprised to see these people proposing entryism and even becoming admins on Wiki and I think we should try especially hard to guard against this. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support It's clear this article is being targeted by a coordinated off-wiki meat puppet campaign, so this makes sense. — Czello 09:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  DS is not particularly useful for offwiki meat puppet campaigns. Firstly because editors need to be WP:AWARE first, and secondly because meatpuppets tend to be site blocked. DS is more useful for established editors for whom topic bans may be better than site blocks. If the issue is solely about page protection, then something like WP:GS/PAGEANT for that purpose should be created. With all due respect, I think this proposal is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to do something about the issue, without fair consideration as to what 'something' will actually help. If this sanction is implemented I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there were an empty or near-empty user sanction log after a few months or a year. See above, where many of the votes either don't provide a rationale as to why this proposal will help, mention a concern not solved by DS, or are purely idealistic (eg so that the remedy will be community-derived rather than ArbCom derived). The stickiness of GS authorisations, such as WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ and WP:GS/UKU, which fail to be repealed due to vague unspecified 'concerns' (even though the log is completely empty of admin actions going back to 2014), should urge caution before instituting useless sanctions regimes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It depends. Perhaps some of these "meat" accounts hide their tracks well. But some others act almost openly, by starting their editing as a "new" account from aggressively reverting edits by others to whitewash CPC and slander reliable "West" news organizatiions as propaganda outlets. At the same time, such "new" accounts are showing an exceptional knowledge of WP policies and practices. If that happens, I think such accounts should be blocked on spot, which will be much easier with DS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is a good candidate for community discretionary sanctions. Hopefully we can handle it through the community rather than having to take it to arbcom. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support way overdue. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I've seen a lot of problems in this area. ProcrastinatingReader makes a good point above, and sanctions might not be the solution here; at the same time, the worst they could do is be useless, and the best they could do is help to fix the issues. jp×g 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Consistent source of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: administrator investigation

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

---

Some accounts active in the Uyghur genocide topic area are also active in the COVID-19 origins topic area, and their views are very much aligned with the Chinese Communist party’s narrative. There needs to be an administrator investigation into what is going on here. Tinybubi (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Tinybubi (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what specific data or other non-public information that admins would have access to that would enable an investigation, and I'm also not sure what the scope of an investigation like this would be. Do you mean to suggest a sockpuppetry investigation, or is there something else you had in mind?

  I'm also not sure that supporting the natural origin hypothesis of COVID-19 (if that is what you mean by the Chinese Communist Party's narrative) is evidence of malfeasance, especially given that various versions of that hypothesis appear to be clearly within the mainstream scientific views on the matter. Do you mean to suggest that somebody involved is spreading misinformation relating to a non-China origin of COVID-19, or is it their spreading of one of the standard natural origin hypotheses? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/

Hello, I'm requesting the creation of an {{R from file metadata link}} redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ that redirects to Matplotlib. This link showed up in the EXIF metadata of File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, but I guess since it has a url in the name I do not have permission to create the page. Thanks! --Yarnalgo _talk 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it usual for such metadata to 1) not have a space after the word "version" and 2) include a url? If there are no controls over what is placed there should we really automatically create a redirect? I throw these questions out as food for thought, rather than necessarily a reason not to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Nobody would search for that string, or enter it into the search box, so creating it as a redirect is useless. That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest. Sandstein 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, no one would use that as a search term.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done With due respect to Sandstein, based on subsequent discussion it seems that there is a de facto consensus that these redirects are appropriate and may be created by administrators on request. While that consensus may or may not be wise, AN is a poor place to make editorial decisions like this. Interested editors may want to start an RfD nomination for the bunch or an RfC at WT:Redirect for wider consensus on these redirects as a group. Absent that, I've fulfilled the request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support creation. We allow file metadata redirects, do we not? So it seems to go against consensus to not create it as requested. Many file metadata redirects are long and completely unsearchable terms like this one. For example:

1. /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html
2. C150,D390
3. C70Z,C7000Z
4. C-1Z,D-150Z
5. Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992
6. DROIDX 66360001fff80000015d76040101d01f
7. HandBrake 1.3.3 2020061300
8. ImageMagick 6.6.9-7 2012-08-17 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
9. ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86 64 2015-12-02 http://www.imagemagick.org
10. FE360,X875,C570
11. MicroStation 8.11.7.443 by Bentley Systems, Incorporated
12. Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
13. Leaf Aptus 22(LF7220 )/Hasselblad H1
14. Sinarback 54 M, Sinar 4x5" view camera
15. SAMSUNG ES15 / VLUU ES15 / SAMSUNG SL30
16. Pdftk 2.02 - www.pdftk.com
17. R4CB020 prgCXC1250031 GENERIC E 4.6
18. Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)

etc. and more in Category:Redirects from file metadata links, and the redirects which aren't categorized. You can see that the bold ones contain URLs just like this one. By all means we can have a discussion if we want to deprecate redirects created only for the purpose of being a redirect from file metadata. I would also note that in Sandstein's "not done" comment, they say that "Nobody would search for that string", but that's not the point, they unbreak an incoming link. They also note that "That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest", however they are a purpose of a redirect and can be categorized as such with {{R from file metadata link}}. They also appear to meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP because deleting one will break incoming links, and they simply are helpful for some people because they can immediately go to the article about the software or hardware that helped create that file. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I didn't realize that this type of redirect was not well known by administrators otherwise I would have offered more of an explanation. This type of redirect has been around since as early as 2005. As you say, the point is not that someone would search on Wikipedia for this. The point is that it exists as a link on the file page so this redirect fixes that broken link for anyone that clicks it there. And for a tool as common as Matplotlib, it's likely that this link exists on more file pages and will continue to get added to new files in the future. As you say, we can have a discussion about whether this type of redirect in general is worth keeping (although I struggle to find any reason why these helpful and harmless redirects should be removed), but until that discussion takes place denying my request because "no one would search for that string" makes no sense.

RandomCanadian, the reason I posted it here is because Wikipedia told me this was where I should post this request. When I tried to create the page it said "If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." If there is somewhere better to post this request, please let me know. --Yarnalgo _talk 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but please delete all of these and use the solution already in place for the first file. At File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, you indeed get that strange Metadata link: but you only see that when you actually scroll to the bottom and open the metadata. On the other hand, in the file summary, in the "source" section, is a box which states "this plot was created with Matplotlib.", with a link there. So the need for the additional link, which won't be seen bby 99% of the people looking at the file anyway, is gone. Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand why you see that box as a better solution, but can you explain to me why we can't have both? What harm does it do to have these redirects in place so that when someone does click that link they get taken to the correct page instead of a non-existent one? I hear you that that hidden link is unlikely to be clicked very often, but on the off-chance it does (I personally click these links all the time), why not have this redirect in place? These redirects are not getting in the way of anything and have a chance to help someone out, so why delete them? As Dylsss explained, they meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP so on that grounds alone they should not be deleted. What is your reasoning for wanting to delete all of these ~1200 redirects that have existed for years, are harmless, and that some people find helpful besides the fact that it's possible to put a template with a link in the body of the file page? Putting that better-formatted link is great, but the broken link still exists on the file page regardless and will continue to get automatically added to the pages of any files made with the same software (while the Matplotlib template will not). I really did not think this would be a point of contention when I made this request. This seems like a no-brainer to me to make these redirects, and I am still struggling to see why there is such opposition to something so harmless and potentially helpful. There doesn't seem to be any downside to me to make these redirects, and there is a potential upside. Please help me understand what I'm missing here. Thanks. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because they are a never-ending series of redirects (1200 already? Yikes) from "somewhere" (impossible to see from enwiki, impossible to know if the source for the redirect even still exists or not) with very little use, which look like spam and pollute the genuine "what links here" human redirects. While it may look as if these redirects already existed in 2005, at that time they were things like DMC-FZ20, which are actually useful. The vast majority of these are either such bvious redirects, or at least in a somewhat readable form: not the ugly, extremely technical ones proposed here. Huawei P Smart, fine, why not? Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis?? Uh, please no, it isn't even clear what the target has to do with the source of the redirect as "libvorbis" isn't explained or mentioned there. Perhaps it should redirect to Vorbis instead, but not knowing where the redirect comes from, it is impossible to judge. And redirects where we can't even judge whether they point to the right page, are redirects we shoudn't have. Fram (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are failing to provide any reason that actually meets the criteria for deleting a redirect page, and you have not addressed the two provided reasons that they should be kept. The fact is that these redirects fix broken links (WP:R#K4) and are useful to some people (WP:R#K5). To quote WP:R#K5, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Why does the fact that they are a never-ending series of redirects mean that they should be deleted? Wikipedia is a never-ending series of articles. Does that mean all articles should be deleted because there will just always be more to make? Of course not. The articles that exist are useful even if there is always more to be added just like these redirects are useful even though there will always be more that can be created. Your next points seem to be arguing something different (certain redirect pages should be deleted, not all of them). Why does it matter if there are some that are "ugly" and "extremely technical". Who cares? Again, they fix broken links and are helpful to some people so they meet the criteria to be kept. Being ugly, extremely technical, or "polluting" the what links here page are not valid reasons for deleting a redirect. Your third point about the connection between the redirect page and the page they point to not being clear is also not a reason for deleting a redirect, and it does not apply to the page I originally requested. It's obviously clear that "Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/" is referring to Matplotlib and should link there. The example you provided (Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis) shows up in the metadata for files created with the ffmpeg tool, which is why it redirects there. Maybe it should link to Vorbis or libavcodec instead, but that is really a separate discussion pertaining to that one redirect and not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. --Yarnalgo _talk 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason for deletion 8 (novel or very obscure), plus reasons 2 (e.g.the libvorbis one), arguably 4 (urls in redirects?). Reason to not delete them (4) is often ignored when an external site or tool creates "redlinks" automatically (like here, but this e.g. also happened when some tools (I think Listeria) created redlinks for "article name (Qnumber)" combinations, which some people then created as redirects to "article name". Such computer-generated redlinks are then not considered a good reason to have or keep these redirects. Which leaves us with reason 5, you find them useful. I don't believe this outweighs the reasons for deletion (or not creating them), you obviously disagree, fine. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason 8 states "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful". We've already established that these redirects are useful due to the fact that they fix broken links on file pages so this doesn't apply. Reason 2 may apply to that one example, but again that may mean that one redirect needs some discussion but is not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. As for reason 4, we've already discussed at length the purpose of these redirects. They are clearly not "self-promotion or spam". On your next point, calling Commons an external site or tool is a little disingenuous. The file pages (and the broken links) exist on Wikipedia as well. This isn't creating redirects for some random external site that has broken links, it's creating redirects for Wikipedia's sister project that is heavily used within Wikipedia itself. There are two broken metadata links on file pages that are currently on the Main Page, one click away from anyone visiting the front page of Wikipedia. There are also two metadata links there that have redirects made for them. Because we have those redirects in place, any readers clicking around from the Main Page will be brought to the correct articles about the software/hardware that created the images. That seems pretty useful to me. As you say, we disagree, but again you don't need to find it useful for it to be useful to others. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Creation of new metadata redirects and nondeletion of existing metadata redirects. These are absolutely useful and allegations of “spam” seem to suggest that the English Wikipedia has no obligation toward integration with Wikimedia Commons. Sister projects need to work together.  Mysterymanblue  07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I didn't even know these kinds of redirects were a thing, but it's clear that while they're not terribly useful, they have some value, don't break any rules, and WP:CHEAP. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#Creating blacklisted title for precedent. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of Ancestry Information Sections removed by single editor

I had first noticed last week that the ancestry information section for Louis I, Duke of Bourbon had been removed by an editor (User:Surtsicna) among the articles for his son and father's article pages. After reverts and dimissive behavior by that editor, repeatedly citing the "irrelevant" nature of the immediate ancestors of the first Duke of Bourbon, I brought in a third opinion for that which I linked to those several pages. Later that day I had found that around a hundred, with up to several hundred biography articles' sections of ancestry information had been removed by this individual within the past 10 months or so in a similar fashion, with explanations in nearly all of the details in the revision history for these edits that I find frankly confusing going into seemingly hostile towards the subject matter. I left a notice stopping the third opinion for that before it was given anyway, citing that many more pages were affected than thought, and that this would be reported instead. Frankly I had not seen this type of thing in the articles I have created and contributed to since I've come over to here from the French Wikipedia several years ago, and did not know what to do nor was I familiar with the specific terminology and jargon used on this website. If this was the first place that I should have come to, again, I admittedly was not aware of how to do deal with such an eventuality as I have not encountered anything of this sort on here before, and googled and searched within this website as well and could not find anywhere except the report page for edit wars and vandalism, so wrongly put it in the vandal project, as cited by that administrator's response. I had eventually found the neutrality notice board, and tried to argue towards the bias in these edits to the editor and make it more widely known. The efforts to do so and reach out to this individual have failed, and with continued resistance to stop the restoration of these dozens to hundreds of sections of ancestry information removed on biography pages by them with these confusing reasons continuing to cited, after googling a bit more have found this specific noticeboard that I had not had to go to before and was unaware of until this afternoon. This can all be explained in more detail at the posting on the neutrality noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hundreds of Ancestry Trees for Royal Articles Removed by Single Editor​), so I won't get into all of the details here. A list of several examples of the ancestry information sections on pages removed by this editor's edits, but not nearly all of them include (one would have to go back in this person's contribution list to even try to count all of them):

● Thomas I, Count of Savoy ● Rupert, King of the Romans ● Louis IV of France ● Amadeus III, Count of Savoy ● William II, Duke of Bavaria ● Louis VII, Duke of Bavaria ● Philip III, Duke of Burgundy ● Louis I, Duke of Boubon ● Philip II, Duke of Burgundy ● Louis VII of France

and many, many, more...

Thank you,

--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You first posted this on Talk:Louis I, Duke of Bourbon and Talk:Capetian dynasty. You were dissatisfied with the answer you got from the major contributor and from the "third" (actually fourth) opinion you had requested. Then you went to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was told by an administrator that there was no vandalism. Then you went to the administrator's talk page to complain some more and was told... off. Then you took it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, going on about a bias that nobody else sees. All the while you have been refusing to accept or even acknowledge the months-long discussion involving a dozen editors at Template talk:Ahnentafel. And now you are here, apparently taking this all over Wikipedia. I do not even wonder what it is anymore when I see a notification. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that discussion at the template talk page is irrelevant and reached no actual project wide consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not quite so fair. A dozen editors did not discuss for months just for all their effort to be called irrelevant. During that discussion, no consensus was reached to enshrine Template:Ahnentafel as exempt from WP:V, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say put the limit at great-grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should put the limit where reliable sources put it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a very important Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that describes the general principle that "Wikipedia is not a directory" and then goes into detail about genealogy, mentioning as content to be avoided, Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. I fail to see how listing somebody's great-great-grandparents without context meets our goal of providing encyclopedic content, since that type of direct ancestry "family tree" excludes cousins and uncles who may have influenced the person's life much more than their distant and mostly forgotten ancestors. Our biographies should include well-referenced content on influential recent relatives not distant ancestors. So, stick to policy. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of royalty and aristocracy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I will be the first one to remove the ancestry information sections if it is cited as "genealogy", although royal parentage up to great grand parentage has been understood as dynastic unions between nations and territories, and academically not looked at as personal genealogy (why they are added here). The neutrality policy is very important also, so for one person to go through arbitrarily saying that hundreds of these sections that have been up for over 10-20 plus years understood as such are suddenly irrelevant, not giving any explanation and removing them, while leaving others up, I would strongly argue is a very widespread violation of that policy. Could someone please explain to me how the parentage and great grand parentage of Philip II of Burgundy are "irrelevant", and "pointless", and "useless", while the same for Henry of Grosmont aren't? If so I am sorry for wasting everyones time.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I finally agree with the user who has removed these sections and kept challenging their restoration that they should go back until they are reliably sourced. That is actually quite far back. I do not think they are all needed for royal biographies of every ruler and every major figure going back into the Dark Ages, and a number of them should not include that section most definitely, but I do plan on restoring some of the more obvious comparable ones that were deleted in bios of major royal figures without being discussed first. I will take a significant amount of my time and effort to properly source them before I restore any if they were not already (which if a chart is not found within an acceptable literary source that could just be cited up top, then that means arduously sourcing each box for every individual separately and individually). I would appreciate at least the possibility of some help, so any suggestions would be appreciated. There are a number of these sections with a one year "citation needed" warning at the top, which is automatically updated and maintained by the anomie bot, if that is not sufficient for sourcing, then please make that known. I would appreciate an acknowledgement and understanding of some sort on here going forward, so that no more bickering and edit blocking keeps happening here like this for the mentioned articles, and have an agreement that if the validity or relevance of these sections are challenged for a royal biography, that from now on they will be done so on an individual basis and not just summarily dismissed and removed, as per the Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality, and that any willful attempts at circumventing that by any editors or IPs will be addressed. Likewise, if there are any objections to this, please make them known here.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not be rude to my Wikifriend Surtsicna. Thanks. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing each box for every individual separately would lead to original research by synthesis; 30 sources cannot be cited for something that none of the sources say. This was one of the major issues discussed at Template talk:Ahnentafel. I suggest looking up biographies to see what kind of charts are used and which relationships are shown for which individual. Then you could create such charts using Template:Chart and source them to the published biographies that feature them. Only such charts would comply with WP:V, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chart is not the policy here, the collapsible charts, whatever you want to call them is irrelevant, are up and have been up since the beginning of this website for many thousands of bio articles and are sourced just fine. Just because yourself and a few others do not like the way they look will not change that. I am actually not an advocate for ancestry sections to be included on these pages, I think they look fine without them, but I am an advocate for the fairness and neutrality of this website, and the dozens to possibly hundreds of these sections you have removed because you did not like the way they look has thrown that balance and fairness off. Please stop making up reasons like "an 18th century source is not relevant", or "chart not found in any biography", for blocking the restoration of these sections that were removed and have been up for good reason for 10-20+ years, because you personally do not like the way they look. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahnentafeln are not "policy". You have been told numerous times, even by an administrator in this very thread, what the actual policy is. Another administrator wrote to you that this has nothing to do with neutrality. That you continue to ignore us all proves the latter administrator's assessment that you just do not want to hear what is said to you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this post and by the response when this was filed in the vandal project, I was unable to find and therefore unaware of the appropriate place to bring it to, which is what that administrator said, also stating several times that they did not understand the nature of the matter and did not have an opinion concerning it either way, so you are mistaken in that regard. Since it was brought into the neutrality board and here, the majority of people have disagreed with yourself about this. The word "ahnentafeln" is not English, and the term "ancestry chart" would be more appropriate, and again that as well as semantics are irrelevant for the purposes here. What is relevant is the neutral nature of their placement on this website and it would be in the best interest of it as well as yourself if you would stop trying to interfere based upon a personal preference in that regard. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508 Please don't misrepresent what I have said. (1) I did not say that I "did not understand the nature of the matter", nor anything remotely like it. I merely said that I had no opinion on whether articles should contain genealogy tables, which is far from being the same thing. (2) I said that once, so far as I am aware, not " several times". (3) You refer to me as saying that I did not have an opinion concerning "it" either way to refute what Surtsicna said about what I said about something else, not about the specific issue on which I had said I had no opinion. You quote out of context, in such a way that anybody reading what you say without prior knowledge of what I said would get a completely wrong impression as to what "it" (what I said I had no opinion on) was. It is difficult to avoid the impression that you are being disingenuous, when you take words that I use and quote them in such a grossly misleading way,especially when taken in conjunction with also putting words into my mouth that I never said at all, as explained above. At the very best you are having severe difficulties in understanding what is said to you, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to take so benign a view as that. JBW (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The extended ancestry charts (or ahnentafel, or whatever) that extend past the grandparents have very little value in helping understand the actual lives of the subject of an article. Great-grandparents are very unlikely to have an any influence on a person - certainly much less than siblings or aunts or cousins. People are not pedigreed animals (where such extended charts are more common in the literature) and I believe I demonstrated once that such pure-ancestry charts are not at all common (in fact almost never show up) in scholarly biographies of rulers nor in general works of history. When found for humans, they are almost exclusively found in genealogical publications. No chart showing great-great-grandparents is showing anything useful that couldn't be shown in a chart showing just the grandparents. Again, we have to consider what will help understand the subjects of the article - if we need to know how a line of descent for a title came, showing ALL the great-great-grandparents is not helping that - it's burying the line of descent in irrelevant details. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not going to keep doing this, either eliminate them all, or keep them up fairly, pick one.--JLavigne508 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Your demand is neither reasonable nor appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not my demand, the number one policy of this website, which is neutrality. I will say for the last time on here, please stop removing and keep removed large numbers of sections from articles because you do not like how they look. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been told by an administrator that there is no neutrality issue here. And I do hope that was the last time. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, that administrator admitted he did not even know what this is referring to had no opinion either way. This is all plain to see on here. There was and apparently continues be a gross violation of neutrality here.--JLavigne508 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody but you sees this "gross violation of neutrality". That should tell you something. JBW had one very clear opinion: that "this is nothing whatever to do with neutral point of view." Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508 Once again, as I have explained in detail above, don't put words into my mouth. I certainly never said (let alone "admitted") that I "did not even know what this is referring to", and I said that I "had no opinion either way" on one specific issue, which is not the issue you are here claiming I said I had no opinion on; on the contrary, I believe I expressed a very clear opinion, as correctly described by Surtsicna. JBW (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone considered having an RFC on the disputed topic? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

How dare you! PackMecEng (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We have had one, and we have policies which are quite clear about this. The result of the RfC was that Template:Ahnentafel is not exempt from those policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If the policy is to ban Template:Ahnentafel, it would have to be done fairly and without bias. Since all there is now are entire dynastic lines with these sections removed completely, with others left up, a large chunk of the history section of this website amounts to a very large degree of bias and violation of neutrality.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not the policy. If you cared to listen to what others tell you, you would know what the policy is. Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop being rude and dismissive as you have done since you first reverted the restoration of one of these sections. If that truly is the case then I expect not to be harassed anymore by yourself while trying to bring back parity to this website by restoring the ancestry sections that were removed.--JLavigne508 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: You mention that there was an RFC on this subject. Would you mind pointing me to it? PackMecEng (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Ahnentafel/Archive 1#Requests for comments (RfC). DrKay (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, Thanks for the link! Looking it over though it does not appear to actually of been a RFC nor does it appear to of produced any kind of consensus that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

[7][8][9] Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs point 5, RfCs do not necessarily have to be closed with a closing statement. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: I stand corrected on it being a real RFC! My mistake, thank you for pointing that out I will strike my comment above. I stand by my statement of not reaching any kind of consensus though. Yes a close is not required but by the same token it does not appear to of reached a consensus either. PackMecEng (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The RfC showed no consensus to declare Template:Ahnentafel exempt from WP:V, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY policies. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I will apologize one more time to JBW, as I had originally, for mistakenly dragging you into this for putting this in the wrong place the first time. It is not my intention to misrepresent anything said by anyone. I regret you not being able to deal with the long list of actual vandalism being stuck with this wrongfully (the report pages do not have any links to any of the noticeboards here as far as I could find like I said at the top here). If this individual stops harassing people over the Template:Ahnentafel, including myself (which apparently includes my sanity "something must be off", my personal intelligence, my listening skills, and more), but this actually includes a very long list of people on here in recent months (this would have been known if anyone else had actually been paying attention to all of these articles), then I have absolutely nothing more to say in this matter.--JLavigne508 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508 There is room for discussion of the article content issue involved, but this isn't the right place for it. This is, however, the right place to deal with conduct issues, and there is one glaring conduct issue which has become abundantly clear in this discussion. That issue is your disruptive persistence in plugging away at the same misrepresentations and misunderstandings, your absolute refusal to accept anything said to you that you don't like. Doing that is wasting a considerable amount of time for other editors, and achieving nothing of any use at all. Please drop the matter. If you don't, you will be blocked from editing to prevent you from wasting yet more time of other editors who could be spending that time on more useful tasks. JBW (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the section should be titled; "Ancestry" and not; "Ancestors", and yes, the sections should be referenced, as all content should, to reliable sources. We still allow the removal of unsourced content and I have seen these templates removed and then replaced with tree charts. I was given some assistance by an admin on how to reference charts and have the references encapsulated within the template. The section of WP:NOT under "Directories" listed as "#2 Genealogical entries ~Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic" is not as much detail as one would hope for guidance here but other guidelines apply. If an historic person's ancestry is relevant to that biography, reliable sources will cover it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508, speaking as an outside party who has read through this report... you're not being harassed. You have a misunderstanding of WP:N and others have been trying to help you understand the policies. That's all. I suggest you simply drop the subject for now and move on to editing another area of the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note this section has already moved to another page Template talk:Ahnentafel several days ago and this thread is no longer current.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I reckon with the pounding of the gavel, this report is hereby closed, with the verdict being no action taken. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin moving article into draftspace

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

---

I am not sure if this is the correct board for this; if it is not please feel free to delete and point me in the right direction with an appropriate edit summary.

Like most sports, the World Snooker Tour is divided into seasons, typically starting in July and ending in May. Late May and June is a period of tour qualification and restructuring, although last year Covid affected the time table somewhat. The off-season period is usually a frenzy of activity for WP:Snooker. I have been a member of the project for about 10 years, and one set of articles I have taken on as my responsibility is preparing the seasonal ranking points lists. You can view last year's points list at Snooker world ranking points 2020/2021. A couple of days ago I started prepping Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022.

The problem started when Discospinster moved it to draft space, incidentally wiping out some work I had not yet saved, despite an "Under construction" tag clearly indicating that I was currently working on the article. I moved the article back into article space but Discospinster again reverted the movie. Discospinster appears to be insisting on a certain threshold of development before allowing the article to exist in article space.

By insisting that the article be developed in draftspace first, Discospinster fundamentally misunderstands how these articles develop and is actively obstructing necessary work. These articles involve massive amounts of data entry, and it is not reasonable to expect a single editor to undertake this work on their own. This stage of work is usually undertaken by other project members, SPAs and anonymous editors. For this development to occur the article needs to exist in article space. Moreover, this stage usually occurs during the staging of a tournament. After the tournament concludes the WSA publishes an updated ranking list which can be used to source the data entry i.e. there is often a lag between the data being entered and the sourcing being added to the article. Before any of this occurs I need to prep the article i.e. build the table and add the player templates. To give you an understanding of how development occurs on these articles, here are some key milestones in last season's article:

1. I create the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=977724402 (Sep 10, 2021)
2. I prep the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=978538546 (Sep 15, 2021)
3. Over the course of the tournament other editors (project members, SPAs and IP editors begin the massive exercise of data entry when the season starts): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=980502087 (Sep 26, 2021)
4. Upon completion of the tournament the new ranking list is published and I added it as a source to the first ranking update: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=980893937 (September 29, 2021; NOTE: please ignore the malformed table here, the issue was fixed a week later)

This has never been an issue in the 10 years I have been working on this series. Requiring the article to be developed in draft space until the data in it is sourced would reverse the natural development process i.e. entering the data after the tournament when interest has passed. Moreover, the anonymous editors simply won't turn up and fill in the data in draft space. In short, it would vastly increase my workload to an excessive amount, that I am simply not prepared to shoulder on my own.

It is important to get the 2021/2022 article prepped ahead of the new season. If I can be allowed to develop it in article space then I would greatly appreciate that. The article needs to exist at some point, and the previous articles in the series are all fully sourced. Just to be clear, I am not asking for a relaxing of Wikipedia's sourcing standard just a bit of flexibility in getting the article to that point. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shunting articles into draft space might be ok when it's the work of a single editor and notability is doubtful, but it doesn't make sense when it's part of a series of articles on an established topic that will be improved by editors collaborating in mainspace. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're entirely right but I'd also like to add on that this clearly goes against the draftification policy at WP:NPPDRAFT. Discospinster seems to misunderstand how that policy works; notably that draftification should only be used "there is no evidence of active improvement". An under construction template is evidence of active improvement, and additionally point 3b explicitly states that "a revert of a previous draftification" is evidence that the author intends to continue working on it (WP:DRAFTIFY elaborates that authors are allowed to object to draftification; the proper remedy to such would be an AfD). It is concerning to see someone who has draftified 117 articles in this month alone (User:Discospinster/Draftify log) decide to just ignore policy like this. Discospinster should immediately refrain from draftifying any more articles until they actually read the draftification policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of the draftification policy explanatory supplement. I am also aware of the verifiability policy which states that Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. An "under construction" tag is meant to protect an already-acceptable article from deletion or draftification, not as a backdoor around the need for sources. All of this could have been avoided if @Betty Logan: had added just one reference before publishing to article space. Same goes for all of the other articles I have placed into draft. ... discospinster _talk 16:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: You're saying you routinely move unsourced articles to draft space? I don't disagree with this approach but I think it's against consensus to do so. Levivich 17:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: There is no consensus. ... discospinster _talk 17:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And so the justification for moving it repeatedly would be...? Because it's not WP:V, which is what you cited, because V requires content to be verifiable, not verified (sources are not required to be linked in the article at all). The line from V you quoted contains the words "that needs a source." This doesn't need a source, per V, as long as it's verifiable. Or maybe I misunderstand V. Levivich 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess there is a difference of opinion here. If I have gone against any policy or consensus please let me know. Otherwise I stand by my actions. ... discospinster _talk 22:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I agree with moving unsourced articles to draftspace to incubate. I would like to do that myself, I just didn't think we were "allowed" to. If it's permitted, I'll start doing it as well, but I don't want to be taken to a noticeboard as you have been :-) Levivich 23:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Draftification specifically is not a backdoor to deletion. So, draftifying to delete an article because you think all of it needs removal per "may be removed" from WP:V is against consensus. WP:CSD is what we have to remove whole articles; if an article doesn't meet a CSD criterion, it is against consensus to unilaterally delete it. Draftification is appropriate only when the article is not being actively improved. No matter how bad it looks, if it is being built, it can be built in mainspace. The solution we have for crappy articles showing up on google is, we expect autopatrolled editors to publish articles that make some sense and we don't mark reviewed articles from non-autopatrolled editors while they are not ready to go public. Additionally, draftifying twice is move-warring. "Draft" space is entirely optional; no editor or article may be forced into draftspace, except to enforce consensus (from XFD, ANI, etc.) The policy is WP:ATD-I but explanatory supplements are as good as policy, nothing's been made up. Levivich is correct that WP:V stands for verifiable, not verified. WP:BLP is the only policy that requires material to be verified. The rest is subject to consensus. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:DRAFTIFY is not policy or consensus, and it's not "as good as policy" (it even says so on the page), and WP:VERIFY places the burden to demonstrate verifiability on the person who adds or re-adds the information. This is what I use to guide my decisions and unless you can actually show I'm going against a policy or consensus (not your interpretation of it), then I think my position is clear. If you want to get a wider opinion then feel free. ... discospinster _talk 12:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators are not arbiters of an article's quality or notability. WP:DRAFT explicitly states that editors have a right to object to draftification and "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." That seems to be unequivocal on the matter. There is no support for your position so I will be recreating the article—in mainspace—later in the week. If you believe it violates WP:N then it is your prerogative to submit it to AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: This is the place where people get wider opinions. The opinions have been overwhelmingly that you're using draftification wrong. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that maybe you're going against community norms then perhaps it's necessary to have a wider discussion about your behaviour. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this can just be handled at AfD? If the article is truly not up to snuff then that can be argued there, if it cannot be argued there then I don't know of any policy that keeps it out of mainspace. Can we agree on this? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• If you don't like WP:DRAFTIFY (which in fact does have broad consensus), discospinster, take your pick from WP:EW, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DELPOL. If you move a page and somebody objects, stop and talk about it. If you think an article is not fit for mainspace, use the deletion process. However you look at it, edit-warring over a draft is counter to our norms and policies, and reflects especially badly on you as an administrator. Nothing in WP:V says that you alone get to decide what meets WP:V. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Closure for archived TBAN proposal (again)

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

---

For the second time now This topic ban proposal was archived without any sort of closure or descision made. Can we finally make a decision so that this can be archived once and for all? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Original Closure

This topic ban proposal was prematurely archived without any closure. There seems to be a strong consensus to enact it, now also including outside editors. Can an (uninvolved) admin please formally enact the topic ban?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Restoring it here. I agree that there seems like strong support for the sanction. Without considering quality of arguments: 10 support, 1 partial support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [10] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [11]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [12], and [13], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• weak oppose Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. After reading more of the comments, I agree with most of the comments, seems a lot clearer now. However, I still would at leastpartially support someone mentoring FDO.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm now opposed due to the canvassing concerns. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• moving to Netural HurricaneEdgar 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
  On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Also worth noting that I have contacted them off-wiki multiple times urging them to use edit summaries and not edit war. The usual result is simply WP:IDHT. If they can't listen to such mundane suggestions, mentorship isn't going to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose action at this time until you all get some more input from editors and admins outside the Wikiproject.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Recommend closure w/no action due to the stealth canvassing that took place in the discord room where a couple people mentioned the idea of creating an ANI thread. Other than the people who provided their own evidence, it appears everyone else was just pile on support that got canvassed by that initial discussion of creating a thread. While Enterprisey determined that none of the posts really crossed any lines, it is still stealth canvassing by even mentioning a discussion or its creation off-wiki in a project chat. This discussion should have been left in its grave instead of being dug back up. Noah^Talk 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hurricane Noah and WaltCip: Getting external input is precisely why the conversation should be resurrected, and there have already been external opinions. Even those alone have a consensus for enacting the topic ban. The policy-based reasoning for doing so, namely a WP:IDHT situation (so mentoring is ruled out), is sound. This filibustering is not in respect of WP:CON.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It honestly doesn't matter what Fleur did if the people making the thread canvassed it. The whole thing was tainted from the start and everyone piling on from WPTC should be disregarded. I think the lack of outside involvement and the bot archival w/o closure shows that most people and admins believe this is a non-issue. Noah^Talk 01:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Since Canvassing was mentioned here, thought I would link this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Canvassing within the WikiProject 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose action currently Due to allegations of stealth canvassing and little outside input.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose action for now Per Jackattack1597, and I want to point out that the consensus in-WikiProject is for support while outside input is mostly split on this, leaning towards oppose. MarioJump83! 23:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tban for now. It appears as if this dispute isn't actually about Fleur's editing onwiki. The evidence of bad onwiki conduct is pretty low quality. While the edit summaries in the first and second points are abrasive and Fleur should be more polite in the future (otherwise they'll be dragged back here) I don't see how calling photos of hurricanes "low quality garbage image", "dumpster fire", or "poorly made" violates NPA or civility guidelines. While it's a poor way to build consensus (Fleur should have explained how the images were bad because I certainly can't tell) banning people for calling images bad is questionable logic.

Additionally, looking at the history of the pages where these images were disputed I'm noting that the people engaging in disputes with Fleur have also not engaged in consensus building. [14] DachsundLover82 adds in the image that fleur removed for being "dumpster fire" and justifies with "the old image was better". Fleur responds with "no it's not" [15] and DachsundLover82 replies with "yes it is". [16] This is extraordinarily juvenile behaviour and both editors should be blocked per WP:Child protection for outing themselves as being under the age of 13 reminded that it's important to actually put some effort into their edit summaries; even if other editors don't seem to want to. The discussion at Talk:2020-21 Australian_region_cyclone_season#10L_Image could have been had in the edit summaries.

It's also strange to me that the creator of this thread called WP:F13 a "guideline" in their third point; WP:F13 is an essay, not guideline. Fleur probably should've explained in their edit summary that F13 is an unreliable source (specifically, because it is a YouTube channel not because an essay deemed it to be unreliable) but they're under no obligation to link a specific essay.

The fourth point is also weird. The creator of this thread says Fleur "unexpectedly changed the" infobox picture for the article 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. What fleur actually did was revert someone else's edit that changed the satellite image in the infobox for Deep Depression ARB 01 (located deep in the article; by no means the article's main infobox). [17] The original edit summary was just "way better image" and fleur's response was "no". These are both "low quality garbage" edit summaries; at least put in some REASONS as to why one image is better than the other. While Fleur's reversion was WP:IDONTLIKEIT the original edit was just WP:ILIKEIT so I don't see how this is bad behaviour specifically on Fleur's part. Fleur's reversion was based in as much policy as the original edit. I'll also note that nobody even bothered to discuss this on the talk page at Talk:2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season.

The fifth point on Fleur lying about "fixing a typo" seems pretty bad at first. But actually looking at the diffs, fleur changed File:Ana_2021-05-22_1510Z.jpg to File:Ana_2021-05-22_1505Z.jpg. These were two images taken 5 minutes apart that have pretty much no difference between them beyond a slight difference in the filename. It's entirely reasonable that fleur thought they were fixing a typo here given that Mario manually reverted that edit which may not have given Fleur a notification.

The evidence presented by the proposer of this topic ban has been exaggerated in its importance and some of it is actually misleading. While Fleur has demonstrated a habit of not properly using edit summaries in the aforementioned disputes; the people who were reverted by or reverted Fleur did not use edit summaries properly either. At worst this means Fleur should get some kind of formal warning, but I don't think we should single out Fleur for sanctions given that the bad behaviour was demonstrated by many of the other editors Fleur was interacting with in these cases. It looks like the proposer here has crafted a narrative here that doesn't have any basis in onwiki behaviour.

I think we should close with a recommendation that Fleur be more mindful to use descriptive edit summaries in the future; even if other editors aren't doing so. A mentorship might be helpful and Fleur should consider voluntarily finding one so they can get feedback and hopefully use better edit summaries in the future (I'd imagine it'd be beneficial if Fleur could privately ask an impartial person for advice every once in a while on how they could better phrase their edit summaries) but I don't believe involuntarily mentorship is justified here given that Fleur hasn't really done anything that bad. Also, if Fleur's behaviour on Discord is really bad and reaches the level of off-wiki harassment then that's something that needs to be dealt with and I would support an actual temporary siteban for. But this thread is purportedly about onwiki behaviour and I don't believe we should take vague claims about Fleur's behaviour on Discord into consideration here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 05:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm forced to pretty much agree with everything that Chess has stated here. I'm also not sure why CycloneFootball found it necessary to unarchive this thread. If there is no consensus, there's no consensus. Continually restarting the discussion won't help you get your way. WaltCip-(talk) 16:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "get my way" at all. I just want to have this discussion rightfully resolved, and actually have this resolved without issue. This has nothing to do with me trying to get my way. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence directly contradicts the first and third. "Rightfully resolved" = your way ("rightfully" according to you). Levivich 22:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No. "Rightfully Resolved" = Closed with at least some sort of consensus or at least agreement. I guess if that somehow equates to my way and my way only, you should also trout the user who pulled this out the first time, as it went unresolved then too. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 22:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycloneFootball71: Not every discussion ends in consensus or agreement. This is likely one of them. Since you don't want to let this die I dug into things a little more and we might have to start a new AN thread. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose tban due to possible canvassing dudhhr_Contribs 16:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chess and the other opposers (which even includes the proposer(!), who recognized the problems with how this turned out and recommended closure with no action), and a trout for pulling this out of the archives; there's more to consensus than counting bold votes. Levivich 21:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Especially when all the recent votes are going one way, with some people changing votes, due to new concerns, that's a clear case of no consensus to do anything.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• The canvassing alone taints any appearance of fair consideration of the issues in this discussion. A trout for the person pulling it out of archives, per Lev. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Also this is not how you request closure on archived discussions, or how you pull archived discussions out of archives. Once this gets archived, that's going to be three concurrent versions of the same section in different archives (slightly different versions, as they'll lack the newer comments), due to this copy-and-pasting approach... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • This is a good point of order: If the archived discussions were not undone when they were restored, then each discussion should be updated with a hatnote to this discussion either with a perma link or a link to it once it too is archived. Rgrds, --2600:1700:8380:2C30:412F:54DE:1DC8:AE3F (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I am the person who took it out of the archives the first time, and IIRC, I did delete the version in the archives when I did, so there shouldn't be any duplication problem there. I can't speak for the second time.
      An another point, there would be no need for anyone to pull anything out of the archives if someone would just close the damn discussion. A close doesn't necessarily mean that it is acted on, the close could be "CANVASSING considerations have tainted the blah blah blah..." and then it's over. It's the fact that the discussion keeps being archived with no close that is the root problem, not the taking of it out of the archives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

      Many discussions are archived without closure. It can also be the case that there seems to be a 'consensus', but a close saying the consensus is invalid is probably going to get challenged as a supervote. It doesn't really matter if it's not actually overturned, but it's just more hassle and headache for the admin to deal with, and less hassle to just pocket veto by letting it archive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

      • I recognize that many discussions are archived without being closed, my point was that when that happens, one can hardly blame those who feel strongly that some action needs to be taken for rescuing the discussion from that pocket veto. When that has happened once, as in this case, it's important that some uninvolved person make a closure before it's archived again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I had User:MarioJump83 come to my talk page entirely unsolicited, very early in this discussion, trying to get me to close it and institute a ban (diff of message). I declined, because something just felt off (diff of reply). Something still feels very off here, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Unban request from Thegameshowlad

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

User was blocked originally for WP:CIR and then sockpuppetry (in November) and then banned under WP:3X. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thegameshowlad. User has grown and has requested unblock/unban. A checkuser reviewed and has not seen recent socking or unlogged editing. We have Yamla's impramatur. Here is their request.

• In August 2020 I was blocked for 3 months with the reason ‘Competence is required; while good-faith, making too many disruptive errors in a short span’ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=110830381) after numerous unblock requests it became clear that an unblock would not be possible, at this point I knew basically no rules or policies. Then, recharge stupidly in October 2020, I created User:Gameshowandsportsfan2007, after a few weeks I got caught out and that account was blocked and this accounts block was extended to indefinite, at that point if I had have waited another month non of my Sockpuppetry and bans would have happened and I would have been editing legitimately for the last 7 months, after that I created a number of other Sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thegameshowlad, all of which quacked so obviously and numerous were blocked on the policy that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a dusk without CU evidence, all of this I deeply regret and am frankly ashamed of, after numerous unblock requests and apologies I made a ludicrous legal threat one which I withdrew unconditionally yesterday. Over the last 6 months I have been tirelessly reading policies and guidelines and now I feel I can return to editing without causing any issues. If I were to be unblocked I will expand and create articles on football and game shows, which I am passionate about. I FULLY understand no admin can unblock me without consultation with the community, as I have read WP:UNBAN numerous times. One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets, I have never vandalized any pages. I fully understand the reason ]s for the block and I admit that I have acted really stupid and I would love to be able to put it behind me, if an unblock is not possible at the minute, I will fully understand why and I would focus on that before requesting a further unblock. With this all said I am requesting the standard offer. Thanks

Carried over by me. (Cannot format for tqb template). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I considered saying "weak support", as this editor was fairly disruptive in their edits, primarily due to WP:CIR, prior to the block. But look, they say they've read the policies and guidelines and managed to avoid any more block evasion for the past few months. I support an unblock, but warn them that further disruption may lead to a quick reblock. Go slowly, step back and reread the policies if they make a mistake. I'm cautiously optimistic. --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, with a little bit of Yamla and a little bit of ROPE, and a healthy dose of maturity, they should be fine. If not, ——Serial 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support most cases in this vein have numerous issues plus the repeated socking. However, on a CIR original block, I'm more inclined to offer some ROPE given a reasonable appeal Nosebagbear (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support. While they haven't been socking here recently, they've very obviously been socking on meta as User:Quizzicalmind159 as recently as April (already CU blocked here). That being said the major issue here seems to have been a lack of competence driven by a lack of maturity, rather than malicious intent. Whether 10 months is long enough for the editor to have matured or not I don't know, but in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE it can't hurt to give them another chance. I would strongly suggest the editor enrol in some kind of mentorship, and avoid administrative/advanced areas of the encyclopaedia until they have significantly more experience. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Changing my position based on the follow up discussion on Thegameshowlad's talk page. I think it would have been reasonable to give them a second chance on the assumption that they might have matured a bit in the last 10 months, but their comments have convinced me that this is not the case. Their talk page messages seems to be showing the exact same behaviour that lead to their block in the first place though - the need to do everything "now", the repeated ignoring of advice from far more experienced editors and now threats of sock puppetry. The fact that they were "willing" to accept a voluntary topic ban from administrative areas but have now said that they would likely resort to sock puppetry when advised to wait a minimum of two years before starting an RFA has me seriously questioning the sincerity of their appeal, and leads me to believe they're just parroting what they think will get them unblocked. I also am unconvinced that this editor understands just how disruptive they were being across a huge number of areas of the project, their editing was like watching the restoration of the Ecce Homo, entirely in good faith but so lacking in competence that it was entirely counterproductive. To support an unblock I would need to see some kind of acknowledgement that they understand what was wrong with their editing in the first place, and a realistic plan for what they intend to do if unblocked without threats that they might resort to sock puppetry to get their way. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

    (To be fair, my two year recommendation was about keeping up the ban, not about the time between unban and RfA.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

    Apologies, didn't realise that they were responding to a comment you made here rather than the comment you made on their talk page about adminship. Still, I don't view "Unblock me because delay might cause me to start socking again" to be a remotely convincing unblock reason, and indicates to me that they haven't matured enough to avoid a repeat of the behaviour that lead to their first block. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Not see any block on meta or elsewhere globally. Only ENWIKI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. 26 August 2020, two days after the block: "I completely understand why I was blocked, I have read the policies and I understand everything better now." ([18])

  The user now says they "have been tirelessly reading policies and guidelines", but that's unspecific, looks like their August 2020 statement and doesn't necessarily imply an actual understanding of the read text. The problems that led to the original block are not directly addressed; all we have is a quote from the block log. It was a competence-related block, which is a rare measure reserved for extreme cases in a newcomer-welcoming community with policies like WP:IAR. The discussions at [19] (now removed) and [20] (currently present) display a horrible mess. I personally don't expect anyone coming from such a situation to have matured significantly within less than one year.

  Additional concern: Special:Diff/1029361737 and Special:Diff/1029354490, after the months-long block, add to an image of disproportionate impatience – exactly what led to the indefinite sockpuppetry block. The information could also have been extracted from WP:BAN, a policy that has been linked to multiple times ([21] [22]) and that imposes a minimum duration of "72 hours" for such discussions, for reasons described in the referenced RFC. This may be incredibly nitpicky, but I'd say it confirms my view: The request was made too early, with impatience, and it neither actually addresses the original concerns nor credibly indicates any improvement in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  (in response to Special:Diff/1029414674, I agree that both the position of the information, and the discussion that led to its addition, are mostly about banning, not unbanning. I can't know if Thegameshowlad had already seen the text and chose to ask for just this reason. Asking for clarification is generally a good idea and Thegameshowlad did so, so I'll strikethrough that part above.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  We've had a short discussion at Thegameshowlad's talk page (permanent link), and Thegameshowlad has approvingly addressed 192.76.8.91's suggestion to "avoid administrative/advanced areas", but also explained that their long-term goal is (still) adminship. This is a commendably honest disclosure, and usually not a problem by itself. It is, however, also very unlikely to change over time. The interest is there and I guess it won't ever fully go away even if they say otherwise in a few years. The ban is perhaps practically just another hurdle on the long path to adminship. The only solution from my personal point of view is to wait at least two more years before considering an unban. That would be three years then, and I believe that the human behind the account may then be ready for pursuing their adminship goal without causing too much disruption in the process. After less than one year, rather not, sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  sigh ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment. I was involved in discussions with this user at the time of their original block on how to source their content, and avoid material that wasn't suitable for the project. My advice to them at that time was an unblock request should come with (1) a detailed and explicit acknowledgement of what it was that led to the block, and (2) a written-down plan for how that would be different going forward. Since then six months have passed, and Thegameshowlad tells us that they have been "tirelessly reading policies and guidelines", but neither of the two things mentioned above have been offered. Personally I can only agree to an unban if they provide those two things.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think Yamla, and SN54129 make a good point here. It does appear that the appeal on their talkpage currently does a good job at explaining the reasons that they are blocked - and that they understand why that behavior is unacceptable / disruptive. I'd be inclined to give them a chance. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm all for second chances, and re-blocking is easy. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing any difference in terms of maturity, and it is still taking at least three users explaining something for them to finally get it, if they ever do. Do we have CU confirmation that User:Quizzicalmind159 is a sock of Thegameshowlad? Because if so, then only five months have gone by without socking instead of the expected six. The user was a time sink in November when I first indeffed them and they seem to still be one now. See also my discussion with them at User talk:82.41.12.175. Threatening to create new sockpuppets if this unban request does not pass also makes this an easy call. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree that reblocking is easy, but honestly that talk page discussion of this request is extremely concerning. There are still clear maturity issues. I guess there are enough people watching that editor now, though. Honestly, TGSL, if this unblock request is granted and you exhibit any CIR issues at all, you'll likely be blocked again for wasting the time of other editors. If you get blocked again, it's quite likely to be a year before anyone will even consider an unblock request. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I've read through the talk and at his sock. I see an editor focused on saying the right things, but not necessarily a commitment to do those things if/when they're unblocked. Does not appear yet to have the competence to edit or an indication on why he needs to, beyond wanting to be an admin eventually. Star Mississippi 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I like editors who reflect on their past behaviours and understand why it's wrong. This editor understands that sockpuppetry is wrong and that legal threats aren't OK either. What I don't like is the phrase "One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets". They clearly haven't otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place. Reading the unblock request in August of last year, they think that the problem with their article creation was that they didn't put articles through Draft and made them directly in mainspace. The problem was with the content of those pages. Additionally their sockpuppets made many bad quality edits. I'd like to see some reflection on what they did originally in the realm of CIR that got them blocked. Reading their talk page, I don't see that. For instance, what was the problem with this edit? [23] A good response might be "I tried to sign in articlespace, failed because I used nowiki, and made spelling/grammatical errors." I'd like to see something along the lines of this (can't use the diff I just gave) on their talk page (not in the block request itself) during the inevitable next block appeal. Multiple examples of how the appellant edited poorly and an explanation of what they did wrong would be very helpful in establishing that they actually have read policies and aren't just saying they've read policies.

I don't care at all about this person's opinions on adminship and I don't think we should take those into consideration here. It's irrelevant and if this person wants to rush RfA the minute they get extended confirmed (as an extreme example) that's their own business. It would only be grounds for blocking if they repeatedly nominated themselves from adminship in a disruptive manner. Likewise for the comment that if they had to wait 2 more years they'd probably sock. Sure the reality is that we'd prefer they never sock ever again even if they didn't get unblocked but let's face it a lot of people who we've unblocked have probably had the same thoughts in the past. The only difference is this editor thought it would be a good idea to actually put that on their userpage during an unblock appeal. Given that they claim to have autism I'm inclined to give them at least some leeway on that particular thing they said. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is a non-admin allowed to put WP:AC/DS banners like [24] on article talkpages? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen is an admin so I don't think there's an issue here. As to your question, usually no - although, if it's blindingly obvious, the objection could be overcome by just using a wee bit of common sense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am, but I believe Gråberg wanted to know, for future occasions, if he could have added it himself instead of asking me to. I told him I thought he probably could have, but I haven't researched the rules about it. See convo on my page.[25] Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen After a quick read, there's nothing in the WP:AC/DS page that specifically mentions talk page banners. The page is clear about formal actions (sanctions, page restrictions, ...), which must be done by uninvolved administrators. But a talk page banner? I guess WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY/IAR - if the topic is obviously related, I guess there's no harm done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a non-admin shouldn't helpfully and appropriately banner a page for purposes of informing other editors of existing sanctions. —valereee (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21 § Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when for discussion. As described in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § aware.alert, Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. If there is any disagreement on the applicability of the authorization for discretionary sanctions, the community can resolve it through discussion (if that fails, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be filed). isaacl (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Notices are nothing more than informational, and placing one does not authorize additional sanctions—it just informs people that DS covers the topic area already." That seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was an issue raised during the AP3 case a couple of years ago, and the conclusion (at least mine) was that there is no consensus. Sometimes non-admins add banners without any problems, sometimes for whatever reason it leads to resistance. If there are doubts about a particular page, it is probably safer to ask an admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I've just taken a look at apparently this (subject of a thread a wee bit below) wasn't tagged so I've done it (the claims of authorship are mentioned in the lead, so there's no doubt here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I sometimes add DS banners and I'm not an admin. My understanding is that it's an informational thing to inform editors that parts of the article could be subject to DS. It doesn't actually "invoke" DS so to speak and expand it to the article and editors can be blocked if they are considered aware of the DS even if the template isn't there on the article they're editing. If the presence of the notice was tied to page restrictions or imposed any obligations on editors I could see the argument for limiting to admins but that doesn't seem to be the case. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 03:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My take is that since the banner merely notifies of the fact that such sanctions exist that anyone can put it there. It does not actually impose a sanction. That being said if it is reverted by another user over a disagreement if it applies then it might be time to find an admin. In most cases it is non-controversial if a given topic falls under potential sanctions but I can see cases where it might. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A blast from ye olde past

Anyone around from the time of the Shakespeare authorship case? Refresh your memory at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, and consider having a look at Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship and its talk page--and maybe you can stop this before it goes too far and paperwork becomes necessary. I'll notify the involved editor, but the talk page is a better place to discuss, since otherwise this board will be clogged up soon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

EC 12 hours while we try to get people's attention. —valereee (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And editor p-blocked from User talk:Drmies for continuing to edit there after being asked by Drmies and others to stop. —valereee (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was there! I'm a little baffled that Vale.devin has not yet been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in the area. Always a good idea when there's disruption. OK, I've alerted them. Bishonen | tålk 02:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, they were--they have a habit of reverting talk page edits: [26]. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Drmies! I stared at the page history intently for quite a while but still managed to miss your alert. I probably simply shouldn't edit that late at night. I've blocked Vale.devin indefinitely from Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship and its talkpage. I know the article is currently EC protected, but that will expire very soon, and they're very disruptive on talk also. If they continue pestering individual users on their pages, which I have warned them about, I guess it will be time for a general indef. In my opinion, the article should be put up for deletion at AfD. I'd probably better not do it myself, since I've blocked the user. Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship now exists... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, RandomCanadian, good call. Bishonen | tålk 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

• Now Special:Contributions/5.90.101.133. Guess the article might warrant SP for the duration of the AfD (give it one more day so there's time for the discussion to be closed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Semi'd 2 days. Honestly, there must be a reddit where someone is canvassing... —valereee (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe there is, Valereee, but I'm sure that particular Italian IP is Vale.devin evading their partial block. At least that IP, from the way they talk. The account hasn't edited since I blocked them from Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship — many hours now. I've urged them to log in, not that I expect them to comply. Bishonen | tålk 16:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

  Yeah, I thought they sounded very familiar at the AfD. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Could there be a link between

  • Rrflorio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mariannaian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Vale.devin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  ? Vale has also gone on to make disruption at Victoriaearle's talk page. Their latest comments seem to support that they don't appear able to understand irony. I'd bother filing an SPI (or pinging an uninvolved CU), but giving the circumstances, it might just be time for a regular NOTHERE indef? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've ECP'd Shakespeare authorship question indefinitely until this shakes out some more. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much here, and I won't comment on the IPs (I haven't looked at the latest ones, obviously, since I'm watching the Dutch play North Macedonia), but I will tell you that the three accounts are not socks of each other. Maybe Risker knows more than I do, though. What I think is that these people are acquaintances and have worked together in this field, and they have been communicating throughout--which is fine, except that all of them seem to have the same poor understanding of Wikipedia, and really of some of the basics of literary and historical scholarship. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per the ping above - concur that there is no evidence that the named accounts are socks; they are more likely to be editing in a coordinated manner. The IP noted above is on a massive dynamic mobile phone range (anyone can check geolocation of the IP addresses), which is both too large and too active to even soft-block at this point; however, if we're seeing significant longer term disruption from the range it could be considered. It's worth monitoring their behaviour over the next few days while the AFD runs, to see what else comes from it. It's unlikely that IP is Vale.devin, but I won't comment on the likelihood of it being one of the other accounts noted above. Risker (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Risker; I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've done a substantial amount of trimming (I'm not exactly done). What's left leads me to think this could be covered in sufficient detail at John Florio (where it already is). The article should be deleted (as having no useful history) and recreated as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

AWB permissions backlog

Resolved

Hello, all. There is a backlog at AWB permissions. Could someone please take a look and see if you can help with the requests there? Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved by Trialpears. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Countries WikiProject

I'm putting this here as it is a question re: the correct interpretation of consensus at RFC. So, effectively a close review.

Would an admin please review this RFC to determine what the correct interpretation of the consensus (if any) is.

My understanding, both now and at the time, is that we were discussing inclusion criteria for lists and what words should be included to describe the entities in lists "of countries".

User:Guarapiranga appears to argue that, both at the time and possibly even now, I think that lists using inclusion criteria based on ISO 3166-1 should be required to use country names based on ISO 3166-1 and should not include information not included in ISO 3166-1. They argue that this was the consensus of the RFC.

One effect of such a consensus would be that all lists of countries with multiple sources based on ISO 3166-1 - which is most of them - would use Taiwan (province of China) as standard reference for Taiwan. Another is that lists would no longer be allowed to use parentheses to identify the parent state for dependent territories. Kahastok talk 17:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As a participant, I don't see how that RfC came to much of a consensus for anything. It was quite a broad question, and input was varied. CMD (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit wars related to the Armenian genocide

Hoeppala has made suspicious edits that can easily be construed as downplaying the Armenian genocide at Ottoman Empire, Anatolia and Turkey, being engaged in edit wars at all three articles. Another user began a discussion on the talk page of Ottoman Empire, but Hoeppala has continued to revert the article to their edited version, refusing to take part in a discussion on the talk page even when I reminded them of WP:3RR. I don't know if it is possible to ban a user from editing articles of a certain topic, but I find Hoeppala's conduct problematic regardless of whether their edits are correct or not. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma Shadow4dark (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to ban a user from editing articles relating to the Armenian Genocide. For future reference you should first warn them of the discretionary sanctions in place, by posting {{subst:alert|a-a}} on their talk page, which has already been done on this occasion. Then if disruptive behaviour continues, file a report at WP:AE. If you need any help filling in the report, I will be happy to help. FDW777 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not all too familiar with the correct process here myself so I apologize if I did anything wrong. Are you saying that the correct course of action here is to wait further or to file a report at WP:AE now? If it's the latter, I would appreciate the help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator you didn't do anything wrong, I'm just trying to give you some advice for dealing future issues regarding disruption in Armenia related areas. The Hoeppala account has now been blocked as a sockpuppet anyway, so no further report is needed at present. FDW777 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Education program namespace uninstalled

I feel I should notify that earlier today the education program namespace was uninstalled. I don't anticipate that any issues will occur because of it, but since this uninstalling namespaces is so rare I can't say with certainty. I know some templates (by far most significant of which was {{Namespaces}}) briefly behaved weirdly as they expected {{ns:446}} or {{ns:447}} to have an output but these should all have been fixed. If weirdness potentially attributable to this is found please ping me or otherwise fix it. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, Thanks for the notice. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove TBAN from User:Shinjoya

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Cullen328: I'd ask that you look at what I just posted in response to the evidence presented by LukeEmily, whose claims of pov-pushing at the original ANI thread (unsupported by evidence) are one of the reasons why we're here. [27] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• You know what? Support unban but immediately open a thread on whether to topic ban Shinjoya. There wasn't any evidence presented against Shinjoya at the original thread. It was procedurally unfair to boomerang on someone who hasn't had any actual evidence presented against them and just made a bad statement at AN/I, given that it's pretty clear that the discussion to tban Shinjoya was mostly based on Shinjoya's editing in the area not on their AN/I comments. I'm not saying that boomeranging against someone who participates is wrong, but there should be actual evidence presented during the discussion about said person's behaviour or a consensus that their participation at the AN/I thread was "bad enough" to show they need a topic ban. The only evidence is that people who Shinjoya had interacted with made claims that he acted badly. None of those claims were supported by diffs. And Shinjoya's behaviour that I can see at the thread they linked doesn't meet the standard of "bad enough" I'd like to see for an indef. And in response to Rosguill, imposing as a community authorized decision doesn't make sense as the community didn't support to ban Shinjoya on the basis of what he said at the t-ban proposal but on the basis that they're a pov-pusher. I think it's important that we reopen this and examine this specific user's contributions in detail before giving them a t-ban from an area they've edited in since 2018 [28]. Even though AN/I isn't a legal system it's unfair to give someone a t-ban when they haven't been given the opportunity to see & refute the evidence against them (no diffs) and I think we can do better than that. Especially when the consensus to tban Shinjoya was pretty weak. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Chess:

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

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

1. [29]: Blanking out a 1992 University of California source and a 2014 Oxford University source that discusses alcoholism in the Rajput community. He could have moved it to another parallel section but he chose to blank out the hard work of other editors. He has tried to remove this couple of years back and did it again in 2021.

2. [30] Removal of a sentence mentioning Shudra from the start of the section as well as other edits(cluster of castes - please see 3) that were explained to him by admin.

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

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

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [31] [32]

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [33] reverted by admin here [34]

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times. [35]

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

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

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. [36]

5.Another removal of another well sourced section. [37] Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

6. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times. [38] [39]]

7. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

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

a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added "quotation needed tag" [40] and then removes the sources content a few days later.[41]. Note that the quotations are available.

b. Heba rightly reverts all removals [42] explaining on the talk page [43] she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing". c. Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic. He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page. [44] and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it(their origin) will always be a puzzle etc.".

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

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

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

Also see [45] But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 " It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense."

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. [46]. Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all! Honestly, I find Shinjoya's attitude, counter attacks and edits much more worrisome than Ratnahastin.LukeEmily (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [49] [50]

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [51] reverted by admin here [52]

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times. [53]

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

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. [54]

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

5.Another removal of another well sourced section. [55] Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

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

6. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times. [56] [57]]

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

7. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

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

a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added "quotation needed tag" [58] and then removes the sources content a few days later.[59]. Note that the quotations are available.

Heba rightly reverts all removals [60] explaining on the talk page [61] she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing".

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

c. Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic.He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page. [62] and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it(their origin) will always be a puzzle etc.".

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

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

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

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

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

Also see [63] But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense.

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. [64]. Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all! Honestly, I find Shinjoya's attitude, counter attacks and edits much more worrisome than Ratnahastin.

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

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

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

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

• @LukeEmily: I'm starting to think there's more to this than there first appears. Phrases like "Khatri are an advanced and literate caste unlike the Rajputs" are concerning. Are you trying to say that all Rajputs are currently unadvanced and illiterate? That's a rather broad statement that encompasses many groups of people. Shinjoya needs to ditch the "clusters of castes" dispute; it's clear consensus is that the Rajputs are a cluster of castes and constantly trying to overturn that consensus is going to be seen as disruptive. But other points are legitimate and don't seem to be clearly POV-pushing. The fifth diff you mentioned at [65] appears to be based on a request from an IP editor. He replied to that, said he agreed, waited a while for anyone else to comment, and then removed the section. Then you reverted and a discussion was had on the talk page. Shinjoya appeared to have a valid argument; they examined several reliable sources and only one source mentioned the Maratha was responsible for these riots. [66] In cases as hotly contested as caste-based riots asking for more than one reliable source is likely a good idea. And if this detail is so important that the Maratha was responsible, why don't more sources discuss it?
• For your fourth diff [67], I think it's debatable whether or not including that particular incident is WP:UNDUE . There have likely been thousands of inter-caste incidents in the Indian subcontinent's history. The sources that covered the incident were all news sources from the same few days in 2017 when the incident occured, except for the EPW source which is claimed to be from 2015 which is logically impossible given the event happened in 2017. I think there's a legitimate NOTNEWS argument to be made here.
• The sixth diff you've provided [68] about the claim that Bhonsles originated from the Kanbi and Marathas is also interesting. Shinjoya removed the sentence because "the source fails to give any conclusion about the original caste of clan". Reading the excerpt of the source provided, the source says that "the Bhonsles are thought to have originated among the large, amorphous populations of non-Muslim Deccani tiller-plainsmen who had come to be known by the names Kanbi and Maratha" (emphasis mine). The source then goes on to explain that they weren't "formally castelike in the modern sense". The sources doesn't seem to make a firm conclusion here that the Bhonsles originated from these specific castes, rather that the Bhonsles originated from the group of people that later turned into those castes. While Shinjoya should have rephrased, he raises an interesting point that was not addressed by the people that reverted him. It's also interesting that the mass reversion edit summaries state that Shinjoya should discuss their edits on the talk page prior to making them. [69] Shinjoya actually brought up the specific Bhonsle issue on the talk page after the reversion [70] but you didn't bother to address that, instead saying "I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month."
• For your 7th issue, the quotation needed tag was validly placed. There was no quote from the source in question included in the reference. [71] You claim that quotations are available, so why not include one to address the issue? You also say Heba provided the quote that Shinjoya said was missing. [72] Actually looking at the diffs, Shinjoya was requesting a quote from the Jaffrelot source (the only one in the lede sentence at the time). The quote Heba provided is from a different source written by Stewart Gordon that wasn't inline at in the lede sentence at the time Shinjoya requested the quote. [73] Now, cutting out the lede is a stupid way to resolve this. But there is a valid point here; the Gordon source should have been referenced in the lede sentence. It's weird to call this POV-pushing and rather misleading to say that the quote was included.
• Also on the seventh issue, you appear to be misconstruing the point Shinjoya was making. Shinjoya wasn't saying that Gordon was unreliable nor did Shinjoya argue against the content of the book. Shinjoya was making the argument that a) the Gordon book is the only citation for the lede sentence's claims and the article gave it UNDUE weight and b) the Gordon source says that the Maratha is a "category of caste".[74] Note the quotation explicitly calls the Maratha a "category of caste". The source doesn't claim that the different groups of people have been amalgamated into a single caste known as the "Maratha". This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not POV-pushing. I would say that you might actually be the person doing original research here, given that you continued to claim that "Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time." when that doesn't actually appear to be supported by the source. I'll also note that Heba actually accused Shinjoya of vandalism during this discussion because Shinjoya didn't use the template "need quotation to verify", despite Shinjoya clearly using that template and waiting before making their change. [75]
• On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [76], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [77] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.
• On the ninth issue I don't even understand what the issue is. Shinjoya is saying that the first time the word "Marathe" as a term of self-identification was used was in the thirteenth century. [78] This could be interpreted as implying that "Maratha" as a caste existed in the thirteenth century. Sure, whatever, that's a real stretch. It certainly isn't pov-pushing it's a possibly ambiguous edit that you could've easily clarified by adding something in the first part of the section that "Maratha" as a caste didn't emerge until whatever year. The other diff [79] I can't actually understand what your issue is.
• Your claims are weak and were actually falsified at one point. Shinjoya needs to stop trying to claim that the Rajput are a singular caste and their general editing leaves something to be desire. But a lot of the other editors here aren't angels either and none of the diffs you've presented actually show Shinjoya behaving disruptively. I think taking you at your word in the original ANI discussion was an error on the part of Rosguill given that you've just shown here that you're willing to fabricate events that never occurred. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

LukeEmily Discussing whether or not Khatri are superior to Rajputs in terms of "advancement" or literacy is out of scope here. The specific way you phrased it makes it sound like you were stereotyping Rajputs. I'm glad you said that that wasn't your intention, but you did generalize the Rajputs as a whole as not being literate and spoke negatively about them in your comment. That wasn't necessary to address the point Shinjoya was making and I'm glad you recognized that it wasn't. I think there was a lack of communication in the dispute up above. Looking at the diffs, it looks like in the first instance the language source was to a different volume and page of the work that you've referenced here and might not support the language issue (couldn't check it out). Looking into the second diff, the page number you provided appears to be the Google Books pagenumber. I was able to easily check it out, see [80] for anyone else, but at the same time I noticed "Khatris in Delhi" appears on Google Books page number 1724. [81] Looking further, it looks like right before those diffs you posted you said "Khatri, as far as I know is an educated/advanced caste unlike the Rajputs." [82] in a talk page discussion as a reply to Shinjoya using an example of some communities possibly putting the name "Rajput" after their name as a reason why other communities might put the word "Khatri" after their name. This could be easily interpreted as an insult as it implies that communities in India wouldn't want to be associated with the term "Rajput" as they're not "educated/advanced". I think there's a chance this might've pissed Shinjoya off, leading them to remove Marathi from the languages part of the infobox (maybe justified) thinking that you added it, along with the short sentence that you actually just added given that they're both cited to the same collection of books but differ in volume and page number. Then during the second removal he might've flipped to the wrong page, thought "this guy is obviously acting in bad faith" and did the revert. Probably why he's saying you fabricated that now. This wasn't an appropriate action on Shinjoya's part. He was wrong and should have gotten warned for that and I'd appreciate it if Shinjoya would acknowledge that they were wrong in that dispute and retract the claim of fabricating quotes (i.e. apologize). But at the same time would you be willing to acknowledge that the comment you made about Rajputs not being educated/advanced wasn't appropriate either? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Comment by chess: On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [106], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [107] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.- [comment by Chess] Response by LE: Sigh. So WRONG. Chess,no, *YOU* are calling people names with incorrect evidence. The diff is [83] and not the one you assumed. I specifically said "Indian Soldiers* This is a 2018 parade of the Republic day of India showing Indian soldiers. It has nothing to do with the photo of the soldier that you are discussing. Please can you not jump to conclusions and not using words like bs on ANI and calling people names like liars based on false evidence?CC:Rosguill? This alone convinces me that Chess's analysis and conclusion is so wrong. Chess, you did not ask for clarification before calling me names and now I have just proven that you falsely called me a liar on ANI. I am sure you are aware that unlike Rajput empire where most of the warriors/rulers were Rajput, the Maratha empire had several castes participating on the battlefield and in administration . The Peshwas were of the Brahmin caste. Soon I will post a point by point response to your other good-faith but IMO incorrect conclusions. Will the Indian government name an army section based on a single caste or an empire? Is it possible none of those soldiers are Maratha? Yes, it is possible. Maybe they are all Brahmins. Maybe they are all Muslims or all Christians or (more likely) a mix of all people of all religions who want to serve their country. Why are they relevant to a caste? Best Wishes,LukeEmily (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me take them one by one.

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

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

Here in 2018: [84] Here your summary was: Undid revision 866500039 by MarkH1995 (talk) the said section isn't about any domestic abuse. The cited refs are based on commentaries made centuries ago and hence obsolete in context of diet. How can they be used to state that most Rajputs of today eat non-veg, smoke beetle leaves and consume alcohol?

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

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

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

[85]

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

Your removal was re-added again by Heba here [86]

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

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

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

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

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

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

LE RESPONSE: Has this not been explained many times already? You removed Gordon's text here :[87] . The quote is nothing to do with Jaffrelot but is Gordon's[88]. Moreover, the lede section and the Kunbi, Shepherd etc was well backed by the origin and Varna section. There does not need to be any citation in the lede although it was there as clear as day.

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

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

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

LE RESPONSE:You *DID* remove a comment mentioning alcoholism by Harlan - not only the content but also the source with the quote - not once but twice! Here in 2018: [89] Here your summary was: "Undid revision 866500039 by MarkH1995 (talk) the said section isn't about any domestic abuse. The cited refs are based on commentaries made centuries ago and hence obsolete in context of diet. How can they be used to state that most Rajputs of today eat non-veg, smoke beetle leaves and consume alcohol?

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

Again in 2021, you removed that University of California Press here: [90] Again you were reverted. The quote and source you removed was Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition."" Your removal was re-added again by Heba here [91] Did you remove the quote and the source by Lindsey Harlon on alcoholism or not? After your edit, it was gone from wikipedia until it was re-added by others.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from Gordon: Shinjoya says:You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation. LE RESPONSE: Has this not been explained many times already? You removed Gordon's text here :[92] . The quote is nothing to do with Jaffrelot but is Gordon's[93]. Moreover, the lede section and the Kunbi, Shepherd etc was well backed by the origin and Varna section. There does not need to be any citation in the lede although it was there as clear as day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off wiki coordination to whitewash Rajput caste related articles: As LE pointed out, i m bringing this issue here. There has been numerous attempt by Rajput caste people to glorify the community on wikipedia by forming facebook and twitter handles and groups in past. One such example is this [94], where they are explicitly pointing out the name of mine along with these editors. On my talk page, you will find complaint from various caste people like Yadav, Kayastha and others as i reverted their edits, when they tried to remove negative things about their community. This is similar to the harassment faced by Sitush, who has been editing in this area for decades. When Ratnahastin joined wikipedia, he opened a sockpuppet investigation against me and if someone go through that, they will be amazed to see that , he had a lot of knowledge about my contribution on various wiki projects, even he was trying to bring out my location to the public domain. Similarly, people like Chariotrider555 and LukeEmily were targeted by opening either SPI or any other complaint. Shinjoya later joined Ratnahastin and started removing negative things on malicious grounds. Later he came into conflict with Fowler&Fowler, who is a very experienced editor over his non neutral edits on Rajput. I would like to say, once the ban is lifted you will witness similar disruptive edits on Rajput pages, which are stable and were stable before these editors joined wikipedia. Shinjoya donot have problem with various other images which i added to wiki, his only interest is Rajput related pages and it is interesting to notice that people who are commenting in his support were also in conflict with many editors due to Rajput related pages only. (I am pointing towards Sajaypal007 and Ranadhira. I have edited various caste related pages and it is very rare occurrence that me, Chariotrider555, Fowler&Fowler Sitush and even LE came into contact. My engagement with LE is only due to the Rajput pages, otherwise he is interested in Maharashtra related articles and i edit Bihar related articles. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSE: In general, I do believe that there is a pattern of removing negative content. I have no objection if he adds positive content to balance anything he feels is negative but it needs to be WP:RS. WP:PUFFERY should not be achieved by wiping out negative sections that have good academic citations. If his intentions were in good faith, why is it that so much negative content was removed? Why was not a large amount of positive content removed? About pictures, would it be right to show a picture of British soldiers in 2021 to represent catholics in the UK? I have no objection with adding large amount of positive content on any page as long as it is sourced by a WP:RS. In fact, I had added a section on Hospitality of Rajputs ( a very positive trait) until Paul Carpenter removed it later. See [95]. Since "friendliness" is too subjective and no one else objected, I did not add it back after he removed it. To add to what Heba was discussing, I can also point you to this edit by a Rajput editor: [96]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• These edit summaries are not only misleading but also extremely hostile, and also shows obsession of LukeEmily against Shinjoya to get him banned any how with mostly falsified out of context and misrepresented diffs as evaluated by Chess against the editors they dont agree on about content, its clear that they think wikipedia is a WP: BATTLEGROUND, admins who are telling Shinjoya to wait 6month before Appealing should first go through the entire ANI thread and note that admin judgements are not final why should someone serve the punishment for some disruptive comments in proposal which was never about them?  i request the banning admin to humbly lift the ban from Shinjoya, as the proposal was never about them and there was no consensus for his ban nor there was any diffs or evidence for it like I humbly accepted my Topic ban on the ANI. RatnaHastin^talk 10:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I was pinged in one of the above comments, and I haven't read anything here other than that comment. Also, leaving behind a few recent discussions with Shinjoya at Talk:Rajput (see [97], [98], & [99]) and at Talk:Saina Nehwal, I am unfamiliar with their editing history. Having said that, while checking Ratnahastin's edits during the relevant ANI discussion, I noticed some poor edits of Shinjoya at a page, as both of them were editing that in tandem (see [100]). I also noticed their odd edits on a couple of my watchlisted articles a few days ago. So I will mention those edits as well. But leaving behind these few articles, I am unfamiliar with their edits in general. If they will explain the following edits properly, then I probably won't look at their general editing pattern.

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

a) [101]: Why did you cite a UGC (which is some NGO's site) for the caste claim of a 19th-century personality?

b) [102]: This is a mirror of an unsourced version of Wikipedia and it clearly attributes the content to Wikipedia: [103]. Its publisher states that they copy from Wikipedia: "And we go even further: with the Wikipedia-texts at free disposal we create books on interesting topics."[104]

c) You already know that caste requires self-identification in BLPs. But that seems to be missing in your following edits: [105], [106], & [107].

d) Here you again cited an unreliable UGC – its author (Lekshmi Priya S.) "specializes in cracking terribly sad jokes".[108]

e) Here you cited another unreliable UGC.

f) Here you again cited a UGC.

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

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

h) Some days back, I noticed your this edit at one of my watchlisted articles. You removed an academic source (of Oxford University Press) which is compiled by a team of "historical linguists, medieval historians, lexicographers,"[109] among others and edited by the likes of Patrick Hanks & Richard Coates. It seems to be cited at 1000-plus articles on this project and is one of the most updated/reliable sources available for this purpose. In fact, I reverted your same edit in 2019. So, was it appropriate to remove that source without discussing at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN?

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

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

a) [110]: Why did you cite a UGC (which is some NGO's site) for the caste claim of a 19th-century personality?

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

(previous comment by Shinjoya)

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

:b) [111]: This is a mirror of an unsourced version of Wikipedia and it clearly attributes the content to Wikipedia: [112]. Its publisher states that they copy from Wikipedia: "And we go even further: with the Wikipedia-texts at free disposal we create books on interesting topics."[113]

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

c) You already know that caste requires self-identification in BLPs. But that seems to be missing in your following edits: [114], [115], & [116].

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

d) Here you again cited an unreliable UGC – its author (Lekshmi Priya S.) "specializes in cracking terribly sad jokes".[117]

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

e) Here you cited another unreliable UGC.

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

f) Here you again cited a UGC.

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

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

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

:h) Some days back, I noticed your this edit at one of my watchlisted articles. You removed an academic source (of Oxford University Press) which is compiled by a team of "historical linguists, medieval historians, lexicographers,"[118] among others and edited by the likes of Patrick Hanks & Richard Coates. It seems to be cited at 1000-plus articles on this project and is one of the most updated/reliable sources available for this purpose. In fact, I reverted your same edit in 2019. So, was it appropriate to remove that source without discussing at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS: You were more or less only editing caste-related articles when you started editing this project and you were editing List of Rajputs in the last week of May 2019: [119]. After that list got extended protected on 9 June 2019, you made hundreds of copyedits to a few non-caste articles between 10 June 2019 and 22 June 2019, in which you mainly added piped links, which in turn made you extended confirmed user: [120]. Shortly after that you took a wiki break and you are mostly editing caste-related articles since you resumed editing. What I want to say is that caste-related articles (esp. Rajput-related articles) are more or less your sole focus here. But they also happen to be one of the most contentious areas of this project. So it would be better to get experience by editing other areas for some months. Otherwise, there is a good chance of you getting topic-banned under discretionary sanctions at this point in time. This is just my personal advice and I won't be !voting here. In fact, unless I get misrepresented in this thread or someone asks for my response, I probably won't comment in this thread either. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

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

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

Revdel request received

I've received a request by e-mail from an editor who accidentally edited an article when logged out. They would like their IP address suppressed from the edit history. Is this something we can do for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep: Cases where it is acceptable are those [...] where the user accidentally posted while being "logged out" and the aim is protection of privacy at the request of the user. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, now enacted. Just wanted to be sure it was OK. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Oversight policy also allows for suppression of IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. Your best bet would be contacting the Oversight team, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone speedily close a discussion please?

Resolved

Ruedi33a (talk · contribs) has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Template:Campaign Austria 1809 proposing that a number of templates they have created (which are duplicate templates designed to bypass a feature preventing navboxes showing on mobile devices, more information on this is available if really needed) be merged into Template:Infobox military conflict. The problem with that discussion is that all the templates are currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#Template:Peninsular War 1810 1811 mobile (which the editor is more than aware of), where the general consensus is for deleting all of them. Since we can't have two separate discussions about the same set of templates, could someone please speedily close the June 22 discussion please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Done by SN54129 — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming Apple's iCloud Private Relay (sort-of VPN)

Figured this is of general interest to admins: Apple is going to be implementing a feature called "Private Relay" for folks who pay for the "iCloud Plus" service. In short, it's not a VPN, but as far as admins are concerned it basically is a VPN - it will route Safari traffic through CDN providers, hiding the source IP. Per this, CloudFlare is apparently one of the services; other articles indicate Akamai and Fastly are also providers. It also notes that the service won't be available in countries with anti-encryption laws.

Now for the question part: CDN providers are currently blockable on sight with {{webhostblock}}, as webservers normally have no business editing Wikipedia, and with this service coming online they'll also be fair game as anonymizing proxies. What I'm unsure of is whether we should hardblock or softblock these. On the one hand, standard procedure at WP:WPOP is to hardblock VPN services. On the other, if we hardblock these services, anyone with this service using Safari is going to need IBPE in order to edit, though I have no idea how many people that would actually effect. Either way, we'll probably want a specific block notice for these in the same vein as the t-mobile block message, since the average user won't know why the heck they're blocked as a "webhost". GeneralNotability (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I would say hardblock them as effectively "VPN endpoints". People can always turn the service off to edit, and anyone using such services to avoid (e.g.) censorship probably has a case to get IPBE regardless. Entirely agree either way about the specific block notice, and I can have a crack at putting something together once we know more about the specifics. firefly ( t · c ) 15:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ditto personally. I share the same thoughts as firefly. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just installed the beta in order to see the user experience for Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the editor experience.

At this point in the beta the setting is system-wide, rather than by domain. It is also pretty deep in the settings. This may change in the course of the beta. I think many editors will have difficulty finding the setting, or even knowing the setting is there. I expect some large subset will not want to disable the the feature system-wide.

Time will tell what impact that will have on editor participation. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Philoserf, oh dear - I had assumed (hoped?) that it would be a per-site setting or at least something easily configurable. I imagine there are various other services that won't work well with this 'private relay' setup, so hopefully Apple will make it easier to either turn off globally or exempt specific sites. firefly ( t · c ) 06:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe a hard block on the Apple relay IP would prevent use of that IP to create accounts or to edit either as an IP or as a logged-in account. I would say definitely a hard block is needed. But, what is the IP to block, and will it shift, and will it be the same worldwide? From developer.apple transcript, Wikipedia would need to "block the hostname of the iCloud Private Relay proxy server". The user would then be prompted that Private Relay is blocked and could "choose to either disable Private Relay for that network or switch networks". So, if we can block the IP/IPs, we don't have to provide a custom message because Safari will do that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, if I understand that correctly, that's client-side (so for, say, an office IT administrator to block use of Private Relay on the office's network). We're dealing with the server-side, and so clients won't get that notification (I assume the warning you mentioned triggers if the iDevice can't see the Apple relay server at all). As for the IPs, there's a frickin' lot of them, since they're basically spreading the exit across CDNs, and CDNs have a lot of IPs and hosts since their raison d'etre is to have a bunch of spread-out webservers. We do, however, know at least some of the providers, and since they're reasonably non-sketchy, it's not hard to look up the ranges used by those providers and block them. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting RfC closure review at Talk:Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I sat out this round and express no opinion on the close but just some history: it was the lack of a lead image on that article that prompted the RFC that led to the prior lead image being selected [121] (which this RFC just changed). So going back to no image would be a huge step backwards IMO. The reason for having a lead image, or one reason anyway, is that various "preview" functions will take the first image and treat it as the lead image. In the case of this article, it was an image of the female reproductive system. Levivich 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with these sorts of RfCs is that there's so many options available that it makes judging consensus rather difficult, and that it's ultimately a vote of community preference, not really an application of policy. I think the close was well reasoned. My preference would be to overturn because of the lack of application, but I think that's because my preference probably would have been no image at all if not an anatomical diagram, something along the lines of what's on the Pioneer Plaque, even if that has its own issues. One way to resolve this though would be to respect the results of this RfC and have a follow-up RfC with two options: B and C, where B is specifically defined as a "no image" and not a "none of these" (it's not entirely clear what every !voter thought of B). SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I explained in detail why this argument was silly at the time; the RFC's results plainly favor an image by an overwhelming margin, and the image it favors is C. There is no reasonable way to read the results that would give B a numerical majority; and the arguments for B were uniformly weak - the vague and handwavy appeals to the "spirit" of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY are not remotely supported by the text of the relevant guideline or by current practice, so the close was entirely correct to ignore them. If you honestly think it's possible to obtain a consensus to switch to having no image (which would be a clear and fairly extreme change from a long-lasting status quo, and would therefore obviously require an unambiguous consensus), feel free to start another RFC, but I think it is obvious that such an RFC would have no chance of success whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to overturn. The rationale leaves something to be desired, but the ultimate outcome and general reasoning is correct. A significant minority of the community does seem to believe that "woman" is a difficult concept to depict in a single image so the closer's statement that Representing a woman, however, is easy dismisses an important aspect of the discussion and community sentiment. Similarly, I think the closer's interpretation of MOS:LEADIMAGE is incomplete. That guideline says explicitly that Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. According to wider consensus, no image is a completely valid outcome of this discussion, and a viable one given the minority view that there is no easy representation of the topic and the closer's own analysis that any choice is, editors have agreed, going to be contentious. Now, with all that said, I agree with the closer that there is a consensus to use an image of some kind, and given that consensus one of the images discussed should prevail over no image. The reasoning for C is good enough, and supported by various analyses by participants. Meanwhile none of my critiques are worth overturning the close---they're more notes for next time---so chalk me up as an endorse. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with possible violation

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

Editors involved:

@Mhhossein: pinged

@Vice regent: pinged

@Stefka Bulgaria: pinged

Idealigic: me

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

I tried not to bring this drama to AN, but seeing that VR and Mhhossein are forum shopping about this (without pinging me or Stefka)[122][123], maybe it is time to sort it out.

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

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

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

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

First Vice regent said they were “merely restoring the longstanding version”[124], then they said they restored it based on “WP:Silent consensus”[125], and then they said stonewalling was the problem[126].

The evidence clearly indicates that VR did not revert to the longstanding text, and also that there were discussions in the talk page (with sources) about the use of “Iran vs IRI” and “Saddam vs Iraq” (terminology used in VR’s challenged edits [127] [128] ).

So it wasn’t me or Stefka Bulgaria who broke the article’s CRP restrictions, it was VR, and Mhhossein’s bad faith report trying to twist this around seems battleground and tendentious (misconduct that Mhhossein has been warned about in the past [129] [130] [131][132]). Idealigic (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Blank-and-redirect as back door deletion?

I've recently come across a couple of cases where somebody has boldly blank-and-redirected an article then immediately nominated the redirect target for AfD. When the result of the AfD is that the target is deleted, the redirect and its history as a former article will be deleted with it (under WP:G8 and automatically with WP:XFDC).

I don't think any of specific instances I've seen were done in bad faith. But I'm worried that this practise could easily be abused to delete articles with no discussion and essentially no oversight. People usually don't consider incoming redirects in AfD discussions and I don't think most admins (if they use XFDCloser) would even notice that they're deleting a page with a substantial history. Has this been discussed before? – Joe (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends on why it happens. Is the redirected page basically an A10 (a duplicate of the target) but a reasonable search target? Then it makes sense to redirect it, no matter what you plan with the target. Is the redirected page recently created (e.g. in reaction to a ProD of the target page) as a possible way to circumvent the deletion of the target? Again, in such a case redirecting and AfD seems reasonable. In both cases, it may be best to disclose these actions at the AFD though. There probably are other scenatios where the blank-redirect-AfD is perfectly acceptable. Only if the redirect makes no sense or seems done to get an article deleted which would otherwise probably survive or at least desreves a discussion on its own merits should any action be taken (reverting, talking, perhaps more if this doesn't help), but a blanket "this is bad" (or "this is good") is not really possible for this scenario. Fram (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I can't get away without an example. What prompted this was Național 24 Plus (a TV channel) and Centrul Național Media (the company that operates it). The channel was redirected to the company (a reasonable choice) but then the article on the company was deleted after a sparsely attended AfD. Ordinarily that would mean the former article on the channel was deleted as well, but I happened to notice that large number of incoming links and reverted the BLAR instead. Neither were recently created nor, in my opinion, so bad as to be PRODdable, and my concern is that in cases like this everybody at the AfD is assessing the notability of the redirect target (the company), not the former article (the channel). Courtesy @Compassionate727: although honestly there's no criticism intended here – it's just an example of a pattern I've seen a few times before and which I think could be a problem. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I also don't want to seem like I'm criticising the example here since I don't think that was bad faith, but generally, the optics of this practice don't look good to me at all. A blank and redirect is fine, an AfD is fine, but if you're going to redirect to an article you send to AfD, I think that's a problem - they should both be sent to AfD. Fortunately if it's noticed the redirect can just be reverted in these instances. SportingFlyer T·C 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No offense taken. To be honest, I wasn't thinking all that much about the potential ramifications of this. I did notability assessments of Național 24 Plus and one other article (which I can't see now because it was deleted, and whose name I don't remember), concluded neither was notable, and so boldly redirected them to their parent; my understanding is that when the likely outcome of an AfD is to redirect, users are encouraged to boldly redirect the page and only take it to AfD if the redirect is contested. Then I looked at Centrul Național Media again and concluded it probably wasn't notable either, and without an obvious redirect target, took it to AfD. I don't really remember what I was thinking about the redirects at the time (that was a couple of weeks ago), but I think maybe I assumed that if the parent organization didn't survive a deletion discussion, it's channels wouldn't either. (It occurs to me now that this isn't necessarily true, although maybe it often is? Someone with more AfD experience would have to say.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of a policy problem here, more one of practice. XFDC and Twinkle can be made to delete all redirects, and it is easy not to check them all. Perhaps the tools could be made to fail with an error message on redirects with substantial history so they are manually checked for such issues? —Kusma (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Nicholas_Wade#Wikilink_for_lab_leak_hypothesis

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

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

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

Voluntary recusal

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

---

I am voluntarily recusing myself from editing topics related to anti-Semitism and US politics for a period of one year. You should feel very free to ban/block me if I violate this and to checkuser me to verify. Several editors have objected to my editing of these topics. This isn't really a battle I want to fight, I'd rather focus on other areas of Wikipedia than risk feeling overwhelmed and ostracized by a formal procedure to the point where I need to move away from the project. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Prururu Urung

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

---

Hello, I am an administrator at the Indonesian Wikipedia. Could you kindly ban User:Prururu Urung permanently and delete all his drafts? This person has been permanently banned in the Indonesian Wikipedia for spreading hoaxes. I see that he has done the same here, proof: [133], [134], [135]. There is no such thing as "Old Indonesian language" or "Kerapang script". Thank you. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Danu Widjajanto, you'll need to notify the user of this discussion first. Sandstein 20:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh well I’ve done my duty to warn, it’s not my problem if this vandal continues his destructive action in the English Wikipedia. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've notified. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Danu Widjajanto, we appreciate the notification, but here we also require the person in question be notified. I see you've made many edits here and are both an admin and a 'crat on idwiki. That should mean you understand that different wikis have different rules. Here we notify people who are being discussed at behavior boards. I'm not sure why you'd be unwilling to take that minor extra step. —valereee (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As I’ve said, I’ve done my duty to warn that this user has falsified statistics and published blatant hoaxes on fictitious “old Indonesian language” and “Kerapang script”, and for this reason he has been blocked in the Indonesian Wikipedia. It’s up to your discretion afterwards. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Aight, well, thanks for that. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user

I am encountering several issues with this disruptive IP....86.175.217.223 . I have asked them to assume good faith and they continue to make assumptions of me owning an article where I reverted edits. I asked them to reach a consensus on the talk page, but instead, they continue to drift off making the discussion off-topic. They are not willing to discuss anything related to article content and it becomes very hard to collaborate with them. I am trying to reach a consensus with the community but they are interpreting the process. I left them a warning on their talk page and they also removed that. see this and this. Their IP is dynamic. Fizconiz (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Actors/Actress Lead, I agree that this IP is out of line, and seems to be WP:HOUNDING Fizconiz. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fizconiz im allowed to delete in my talk page. I am sorry if i went overboard but IJBall i am upset because, this Fizconiz is not letting anyone edit Shrenu Parikh's page and is reverting every edit. He is not even willing to understand anything. I am sorry and i wont do this again. He had attacked my and threatened me as well on the talk page of Parikh after i made some edits which were not desruption or vandalism which he said they were.

The threat you are pointing to appears to be from my comment in which I said I will report you for engaging in edit-wars and not discussing content. That is not a threat or an attack of any kind. But, if you want to hold on to that grudge that it was an attack, you can report me to ANI. I told you before, that's what happens. You need to understand that Wikipedia has some foundations and boundaries for us contributors. Just like how you oppose changes because you feel that something doesn't belong, I too feel the same opposite. They are definitely WP:HOUNDING. They went on to WikiProject aimed at bringing in annoyance, rather than participate in the discussion. They don't ever address the concern but cause disruption to the collaborative project. Their actions are also starting to appear WP:NOTHERE when they refuse to discuss. It's becoming disruptive. They clearly don't know what's the purpose to revert edits. Fizconiz (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fizconiz but its quite annoying when I was only making the page better you kept reverting for no reason. You need start to listen to others which you did not in Parikh's talk page discussion and only expected people to only listen to what you wanted. That's why. See whenever i talk about you not willing to understand you keep quiet.

Because he is idiot and don't have brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:6C13:A910:2D02:7544:94D8:F8F0 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That says it all, really. This IP is now blocked for 72 h. But there's not much we can do about dynamic IPs, unless they're on a narrow range. Sandstein 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL. Made it easier. This is 100% a case of Meat Puppety. Poor game. IP 86.. should also be blocked IMO, engaged in meat puppetry. Same type of English writing. Fizconiz (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for deleting one of my subpages

• User:Wario-Man/Sandbox

It was my secondary sandbox and I don't use it anymore. Please delete it. Thanks. Wario-Man ^talk 03:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, please use {{Db-u1}} to request deletion of your user pages. Thanks, FASTILY 04:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone redirected the article about "Runnin' (BGYO and Keiko Necesario song)" without any explanation.

Hello admins, I just want to address my concern about the article for "Runnin' (BGYO and Keiko Necesario song)", I just found out that the article has been redirected to the artist's main page. As of now, I cannot access the article about the song, because there is no explanation why the article has been moved. Please help me on this matter. Thank you Troy26Castillo (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, @HueMan1: deleted the whole article saying it is not notable. Then @Richhoncho: redirected it because @HueMan1: emptied the whole article. Troy26Castillo (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: Instead of accusing me of disruptive editing, read WP:NSONGS. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: First, I am not accusing you. Second, the records of edits in the article, says it all.Troy26Castillo (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: My bad, I misread your message. But why do you have to take this issue here? Can't you just talk to me directly? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

And why are you saying that I didn't say anything about it? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for restoration of access to account

Hey there! If it's not too much of a burden, I'd love if my alternate account "EpicPupper2" (SUL, on wiki) could have its password recovered if possible. I don't want to keep someone busy in reading a long post, so I'll try to keep my background concise. I used a password manager for a 99 digit random password for my alternate account password, and I no longer have access to that password manager account. I have verified that EpicPupper2 is my alternate account here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EpicPupper/sandbox2&diff=prev&oldid=1024606800&diffm... . Thanks so much for considering my request! To summarize, I'd love if my account could be recovered through a password reset, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no email associated with my alternate account (If there is actually an email associated with it, then please tell me and archive this request). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicPupper (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no technical way for a password to be recovered if you've lost it and there is no email associated with the account, I'm afraid. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Oh, that is unfortunate. Thanks for the reply. I didn't really use my alternate account anyways; I guess I'll just create a new account and ask for the username to be usurped. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} 01:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

EpicPupper: I can move the account out of the way so you can re-create with the same name, if that helps. –xeno^talk 01:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: Thanks, I've already created an account at User:EpicPupper2 (recovered), and have a request right now at WP:USURP. It would be much appreciated if you could usurp the original username :) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} _{(please use {{ping}} on reply)} 01:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

HiLo48 has engaged in serious incivility, name-calling and baseless personal insults on the Dark Emu (book) page, which looks like part of a broader pattern of serious incivility. For non-Australian editors I want to make it clear that Dark Emu is a prominent work of Indigenous history that has been the subject of a lot of discussion and controversy, and that the subject matter should be handled with the utmost sensitivity. In early 2021 anthropologist Dr Ian Keen published a journal article titled Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture.[136] In June 2021, Melbourne University Press published a full-length monograph responding to Pascoe's work by Professor Peter Sutton and Dr Kerryn Walshe[137] called Farmers or Hunter-gatherers?: The Dark Emu Debate.[138] Both these sources have been highly critical of Pascoe's book and Sutton and Walshe's book in particular has generated a new round of media discussion. Accordingly, I added two succinct sentences to the header addressing the controversy and the academic responses.[139] In the interests of consensus-building and seeking a wide range of input I started a simultaneous discussion on the talk page.[140] Subsequently, additional material was added to the body of the article by Cavalryman.[141]

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

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

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

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

At least four other editors weighed in on the new material in the talk page, and none besides HiLo48 objected to the material that had been added. I made a simple and justified request for HiLo48 to strike through their comments and apologise on the talk page, which I gave multiple times.[142][143][144] HiLo would not issue an apology or strikethrough despite continuing to post in the same thread.[145][146][147] The material added by myself and Cavalryman was subsequently re-added by Skyring.[148]

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

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

HiLo48 has been on Wiki for more than seven years and really can't use ignorance of policy as an excuse. They have been a very frequent commenter on the Dark Emu page and need to treat other editors with appropriate respect. They've been called to ANI many times for perceived incivility.[149][150][151][152] Indeed, Hilo has been called to WP:ANI for alleged incivility on the page for the author of Dark Emu itself.[153] These are serious and personal insults that they levelled, which they've refused to substantiate, apologise for or back down from and I believe sanctions are warranted as a result. Noteduck (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• User_talk:El_C#Dark_Emu_and_Bruce_Pascoe: you called it, Doug. El_C 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well this is one of the reasons I usually avoid topic areas like this, I get accused of racism [154] for neutrally quoting an Aboriginal human rights activist (with perfectly acceptable sourcing) [155]. My first edit with this article was on 13 June when I posted a notice on the TP [156] about the publication of Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, three days later I realised nothing had been added to the article so I incorporated it myself [157], my only other contribution to the article was a full week after that [158]. This is my first substantive interaction with HiLo, and the first time I have been accused of racism on Wikipedia, a brief glance at the editor’s history makes me suspect that is no coincidence. I am unsure what to suggest, perhaps HiLo48 could impose a voluntary TBAN upon themselves from the article for a month or so. Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
• Regardless of the ANI stuff regarding the reporter, reading through the talk page and article edit summaries, it seems clear to me that HiLo48 is not engaging productively. I wouldn't go so far as to call them serious incivility or personal attacks, but the behavior is not benign either. It looks like pretty typical POV-pushing through stonewalling discussion. I don't really have an opinion on how to remedy it though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Reading through the talk page, I see some aggressive behavior on the part of HiLo48 (this, for example, is uncalled for) but, like Wugapodes, don't think it rises to a serious level of incivility. Bearing in mind that HiLo48 is not edit warring (quite the contrary, one edit between January 22nd and today) I don't see any cause for action here. Any of the editors on the other side of HiLo48's opinions can seek dispute resolution, and that's, perhaps, the right course of action going forward. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• RegentsPark — Wug·a·po·des​ I wouldn't launch such a complaint flippantly. I think accusing Cavalryman and myself of being "desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people" [sic] on the Dark Emu page for adding small chunks of material based on academic opinion is pretty hostile and personal. We've both welcomed engagement and discussion, and approached the topic with appropriate sensitivity. It's by far the most offensive insult I've ever received while editing, and given HiLo's total lack of remorse, or even engagement with this complaint, and extensive history of similar accusations in the WP:AN archives I think something should be done. Perhaps a topic ban? I've been on Wiki long enough to not be discouraged from editing by personal attacks, but I'm concerned for newbie editors who might have to deal with this kind of hostility Noteduck (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree something should be done, don't get me wrong, I just don't have good ideas on what it should be. While that statement is certainly out of line, a topic ban for what so far seems like an isolated incident is too heavy handed. While I'm sure the incivility was upsetting for you, my goal is to de-escalate conflict and prevent future problems. Throwing the book at someone for a few harsh words is more likely to further inflame the situation in my experience. I'd rather wait for more input from uninvolved editors before making a decision since, like RP, we might be able to resolve the issues without having to ban anyone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I'm not going to comment on the underlying dispute, but if HiLo referring to "bad faith changes" is a personal attack, what about two users (including OP) accusing him of POV railroading [159] [160] and another saying he is using "scorched-earth tactics" [161] in the same discussion? -- Calidum 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

References

BLP revdel requested

[162] (edit summary) And IMO it doesn't reflect particularly well on Wikipedia for this to be at the top of page history. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done and words of advice given to the offending editor. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Two troublesome IP ranges

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

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

Strange email received, might be worth someone's followup

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

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

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

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

This came with a reply address that I will send to [email protected], but will not post here. - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

wikies.wiki

• wikies.wiki: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

wikies.wiki is a new Wikipedia clone which has prompted a complaint to WP:VRT & been used as a circular reference. Just a FYI note. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)