• Roman Shukhevych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm kind of at a loss of how to proceed. Perhaps there is a better forum for this? I suppose this is a breakdown of the BRD cycle.

I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [5], [6], [7] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[8] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [9] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[10] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [11] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [12] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [13] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [14] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [15], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

In conclusion, I don't know how to engage with this user and need some help figuring out how to engage. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.

he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.

It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .

It's the opponent who returns [16] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.

On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [17][18][19] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.

In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.

Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.

I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[20] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.

I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.

ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.

Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.

All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping to keep this open awhile longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support making the block permanent unless they return to address the above allegations Andre🚐 05:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The pblock is already indef until they address them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s possible it’s more of an extreme pro-Ukrainian POV rather than antisemitic/Nazi POV? One can only hope they don’t appreciate what they’re doing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Why would an "antisemitic POV" argue against the censorship of sources criticizing "Gaza Ministry of Health" numbers Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#c-Manyareasexpert-20240311111300-Selfstudier-20240311110700 . Or expressing an opinion that Palestine-sourced numbers should be attributed Talk:Gaza war/Archive 34#c-Manyareasexpert-20231206003600-Crampcomes-20231205200100 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if it is "extreme pro-Ukrainian POV", you might still be looking at a topic ban, whether that’s from Jewish history or even Ukraine-related articles. Please address comments admins are about make Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument that you can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticize Palestinian perspectives is laughably bad, and itself evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am gobsmacked at this response to my concerns about Holocaust revisionism. You aren't antisemitic because you took a pro-Israel point of view in a content dispute? In addition to not being related to my concern at all, this reeks of a battleground mindset. isa.p (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don’t address the concerns, the indefinite article-space ban will probably stay in place. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Giving this one final ping to keep it open another 72 hours, since MAE has apparently gone on unannounced Wikibreak. If they return after this rolls off ANI, the pblock will remain until they address the concerns that led to this, and their vanishing immediately afterwards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're past three days on the warning above and are trying to shift the conversation elsewhere; please comment here rather than forcing a forum shop in a clear last-ditch attempt to evade scrutiny. Nathannah • 📮 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said: MAE, you need to respond here to the allegations raised above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
  First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
  Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
  With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
  I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
  With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
  MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [21] [22] [23] [24] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
  @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
  @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.

  Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [30] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [31] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([32]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([33]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [34] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.

  Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.

  No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).

  With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.

  What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  concern with is a combative attitude
  I heard that. I would appreciate some examples of that, and how the communication could be done better. I need to learn a better more diplomatic approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Manyareasexpert You should consider some of the issues people have raised, such as: the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent", acknowledge that you brought up issues unrelated to the issues at hand, making dealing with the present issues raised more difficult and confusing, and acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence.

  Some behavior of other parties is also not great, however it's important not to get into the mindset of letting that justify substandard behavior in yourself. In general, if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation.

  There's also been a fair bit of miscommunication going on, more than people may realize (this is partially related to your level of ability in english). So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it.

  I hope you appreciate this advice. Like, I said, I think outlining where the way you've done things hasn't been great, and how you can do better in the future, would be a good idea. Tristario (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent"
  Thank you, I appreciate the feedback and will not use these

  acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence
  That would confirm I went "lurking" with some evil intentions to introduce disruptive edits into Wiki articles, which is not the case. Very serious accusations of "evil behavior", supported by the community, really curb the motivation for volunteer work.

  if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation
  Thank you for the advice. Will do that, and will look for the 3rd party feedback more often.

  So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it
  Thank you, will look for the 3rd party feedback more often. I will also look for a mentor to work contested edits and discussions with them and to help my discussion be more diplomatic online. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Re vanishing, see WP:ANIFLU, it’s pretty common for people to avoid editing Wikipedia when there’s an ANI case open against them, hoping it passes and gets archived Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like my responses here are working against me. So the case could be very well concluded without them.

  And even with the case archived, would you be called an atrocities supporter, get this designation supported by the community, and return back to the topic? I don't know where would I get such a motivation. The correct approach is to step out if your edits are not appreciated, regardless if you are thinking you are right. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.

  I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.

  A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:

  However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.

  What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.

  Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.

  Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is valid discussion for a talk page and editors should be allowed to discuss it, without accusations of "Holocaust revisionism". I've already agreed with the questioned content removed.

  Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism?
  No, I asked [35] to check if the article contend corresponds to sources provided. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was).
  

  It's not just the Roman Shukhevych page. On a lot of articles on Ukrainian neo-Nazis (sorry, ultranationalist, far-right people and groups aligned with Nazi Germany or linked to Nazi ideology), you are there questioning sources or introducing sources that whitewash their Nazi connections:

• Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B. On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert and then question the reliability of Le Monde. Another editor questions your motivations: if your claim is that Stepan Bandera was not Nazi collaborator, it is hardly tenable, as it was discussed here zillions of times.
• Here you introduce a source that argues that "Slava Ukraini" is not a neo-Nazi salute "imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity" while at the same time arguing to remove statements that connect the salute with its fascist roots.
• Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party).
• Here you remove a Newsweek source titled "Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes" citing WP:NEWSWEEK as a reason to remove it, ignoring that it actually says "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
• Here you argue for removing Nazi Germany as an ally of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
• Here you start a discussion on the reliability of sources regarding the "controversies" of the 3rd Assault Brigade and when editors try to meet you half-way and address your concerns all you can say is "Perhaps...".

And on and on...

Your defense against allegations against you is to dig up previous disputes I and others have had with other editors and suggest that we're the problem and that we simply throw accusations around without good reason. This leads me to believe that you actually see nothing wrong with your behaviour and think that everyone else is the problem.

Based on the evidence I laid out above, I think you are here on Wikipedia to whitewash far-right, ultranationalist, fascist (take your pick) people and groups, to remove information that links them to Nazi Germany and (neo-)Nazi ideology. For that reason you should receive a TBAN from any area where you might continue these efforts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B
... and then I add that ... being well informed about the violence, was however "unable or unwilling to instruct Ukrainian nationalist military troops (as Nachtigall, Roland and UPA) to protect vulnerable minorities under their control". As German historian Olaf Glöckner writes, Bandera "failed to manage this problem (ethnic and anti-Semitic hatred) inside his forces... [36] sourced to academic book.

On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Maryna Shevtsova not an expert .

and then question the reliability of Le Monde
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Le Monde an unreliable source .

Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party)
... and then I replace sources containing no such designation with the actual academic source [37] containing such designation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ... one of edits I would like to bring attention to is [38] , where the editor removes content referenced with UN, EU Council, ECHR reports, academic books, academic articles, instead adding WP:TASS, unknown "civic-nation.org" , WP:RIANOVOSTI and such, under the description of "sockpuppet account". How can I politely note that such an edit is not an improvement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that as MAE has returned and is engaging with the issue, I have lifted the pblock from articlespace. I'd suggest they hold off on editing the topics suggested in the tban discussion below until it is resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for some weeks now, and the current one vs. the world contest of wills does not seem to me to be accomplishing much at this juncture. There seems to be clear (indeed, pretty uniform, outside of ManyAreasExpert themselves) consensus that there are colourable concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism.

These issues may very well have been resolvable short of a sanction, with proper discussion and engagement with community concerns, but I believe there is also an extremely clear consensus that MAE has themself consistently thwarted those avenues for resolution through an WP:IDHT attitude towards the concerns raised, compounded by efforts to evade scrutiny through abuse of process. Therefore, to bring this discussion around towards some sort of useful outcome rather than the unfocused castigation it is presently trending towards, I propose the following sanction:

ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history, broadly construed

SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per consensus by all respondents up until this point, up to and including Kowal2701's !vote, the original proposal has been amended to refine its focus. Additions appear in green. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We've seen similar problems from ManyAreasExpert before and their responses here make it seem likely we will have similar problems in the future unless action is taken. A topic ban on these topics seems a reasonable preventative measure. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism
  Editors should consider that most of my edits (Stepan Bandera [39] [40] [41] [42] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others , Azov Brigade [43] [44] [45] ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAE, for purposes of explaining the thinking behind this proposal, I'll just assume that you're correct about the assertion that most of your edits in this area are regarded as non-controversial and non-problematic by other editors of the related articles. I don't know that that is actually true, and I'm pretty sure the respondents here would not agree, but for the sake of argument let's take that truism. I believe that even if that concession were granted, consensus would still be that your tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits constitutes such a source of disruption and drain on community time and manpower (much of it from how you approach the criticisms raised and those who raise them) that allowing you to contribute in this area would still be a clear net negative. I don't think these issues can just be set aside because you are convinced your overall performance average is decent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation, which is actually quite friendly.
tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits
Had to look it up, it means "fierce fighting". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MAE; I'm very gratified to hear that the observation was taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN - holocaust denial and revisionism is a huge red flag for community, and the lack of real apology and willingness to address shortcomings in this thread sealed the deal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN although I'm not entirely sure about the proposed scope. "Modern European political organizations" is vague, with differing definitions of when modernity starts (and/or ends). Most of the problems on display also seem to narrowly concern Ukrainian history, or more broadly Eastern European history, rather than "European political organizations" writ large. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the battleground attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict expressed in this thread, and would thus want to consider a Jewish history scope as part of the proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered multiple variants of that last entry, as narrow as "Modern far-right European political organizations" and as broad as "modern political organizations". I believe the "broadly construed" probably removes any real concerns about the "when does the modern era start?" insofar as any broad definition of the modern era includes the entire period in which the Nazi party was created and rose to prominence (the 1920s and 30s) and thereafter. But I admit that leaves reasonable concerns about the scope. Having seen a lot of TBAN discussions, including those arising from editors playing at the edges of their ban, I felt it was best to prevent temptation by circumscribing all topic matter that might be reasonably connected to direct influence by Nazi ideology, and went as broad as I could without completely shutting MAE out of socio-political topics, which would be too broad in my opinion.

All that said, I have absolutely no issues with anyone re-defining the focus of the proposal if there is even basic consensus for it. It should be changed sooner, rather than later, if it is to be changed, so as not to frustrate any eventual closure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN with the wording of ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed per Rosguill. @Rosguill: does the clarification regarding the history topic work for you? {{ping|Snow Rise| @Simonm223: @Bluethricecreamman: does this tweak look alright to you?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snow Rise:. Curse you typo'd pings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    works for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes this is fine as a refinement of the proposed ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I was uninvolved in the previous discussions, but as other editors have pointed out, restricting this to Eastern European political organizations post-1941 misses a big chunk of potentially problematic history. In the discussions mentioned above a prominent role is played by debates rergarding the Nazi ties of the OUN. One of our sources for that article, Per Anders Rudling's "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications", describes the group thus: Founded in 1929, the OUN was the largest and most important Ukrainian far-right organization. Explicitly totalitarian, the movement embraced the Führerprinzip, a cult of political violence, racism, and an aggressive anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of Ukrainian statehood at any price, and utilized assassination as legitimate means to this end. A typical fascist movement, the OUN cultivated close relations with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Falange, and the Croatian Ustaše. A footnote adds that Melnyk assured, in a May 2, 1939 letter to Joachim von Ribbentrop that his organization shared the Weltanschaaung [sic] of the National Socialists and Fascists, and offered to help in the ‘reorganization’ of Eastern Europe. In other words, not only did this organisation exist before 1941, but so did its racism and its ties (political and/or ideological) to Nazism, which are the core issue. With this in mind, the proposed cut-off year sounds both artificial and inadequate. Furthermore, from a more practical standpoint, this excessive tailoring of the TBAN could easily lead to future arguments over what exactly falls into the ban or how broad "broadly construed" really is, leading to more heat when what is intended is to lower the temperature, if only slightly, of a perennially hot topic. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if it is appropriate for me to weigh in on potential sanctions, if it's not I'll strike this. But, I agree with this. I don't think the cut off year is clarifying, and I am not sure if OUN would qualify under the TBAN proposed. isa.p (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I also don't think the 'post-1941' was the best amendment to the wording (without meaning to criticize, I'd speculate that it was proposed and gained consensus because this date is central to a number of previous CTOP designations connected to global political history, and I think the familiarity brought it into the formula). That said, between the fact that the 'post-1941' is attached only to the one noun phrase of the proposed TBAN, and another noun listed is 'Nazism' as a proscribed topic without any qualifiers (so Nazism of any era or locality), enhanced by the "broadly construed", I think we're alright. If the proposal passes and MAE attempts to skirt the edges by contributing to articles about pre-1941 organizations with even tenuous links to Nazism, I do not believe the community would give a free pass on try to leverage technicalities to keep engaged on these topics. Rather I think the response, considering the tone of the consensus already established here, would be quite severe. Perhaps I should have pushed back a little stronger against the 1941 date on the day of the proposal, but we're at a point now where we're right on the bubble for whether the proposal will pass as is. Rewording at this point would probably result in this discussion being archived without action. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay that makes sense. Under that logic and those assumptions, I agree, the current proposal has my support. No point in prolonging this. isa.p (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is more to do with Ukrainian history and I am not sure the proposed scope is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that works, although there is a far amount of redundancy among those topics. "Jewish history and Nazism" nominally covers all of it, although I know that sometimes we include extra prescriptions in order to preempt lawyering over gray areas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a workable solution, though it is worth noting that Nazi ideology was influencing central and eastern European groups (in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, for example) well before 1941. Still, those topics are probably covered by the rest of the wording? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Eastern European political organizations post-1941
  That means TB on Russia, Ukraine and related political parties and so on. A state is a political organization as well, right? Would editors please be so kind and post some disruptive diffs in the area so we can see the specifics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBan with Bushranger's edits. I agree there's some redundancy in the proposed TBan range, but, other than for esthetics, I don't see any reason to fix that, and fixing while preventing loopholes may make the definition of the ban even longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN as Bushranger's proposal. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN Reading this whole thread it seems clear that MAE's perspective on Ukrainian nationalism and the Nazis is, at best, heavily skewed, and that they are unable or unwilling to change that. Therefore a ban from editing on the topic seems necessary.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping to avoid archiving, and request a close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leechjoel9 has been consistently monitoring my edits and reverting whatever edits I've made on the Eritrea article [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] since September 2024, a brief look at his edit history all but confirms it. Now that he noticed I planned to retire he seems to have decided to strike, and deleted a large chunk of my work from various Eritrean related pages. Most notably, he consistently accuses me of being a sockpuppet, I believe this is out of revenge for a previous dispute we had in September 2023 which led to both of us getting blocked (me for 42 hours and him for around a month if I recall), during this period he has opened several SP investigations to get me banned [53] [54]. I think that he is too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think his history of blocks and behavior above show that he is not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, he needs to be prevented from constantly deleting large sections of my work for no apparent reason. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits on the grounds that you're a sockpuppet is obviously out of line. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Socialwave597, has Leechjoel9 gone on a similar reverting spree of your edits before? I didn't notice it in a quick skim. I don't mean edit wars in general, but the kind of thing that appears to be happening now, where after a time a bunch of your edits are all reverted at once. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering He went on a similar revert rampage as early as May 2024[55][56]. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leechjoel9 please explain your conduct. Gommeh _(T/C) 19:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Socialwave597, while @Leechjoel9 has much to answer to, why are you calling their edits "vandalism"? Special:Diff/1287044596 Vandalism is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Content disputes are definitely not vandalism. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe Apologies for that, and you are correct. Definitely should not have added that to my edit summary. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering @Rsjaffe @GommehGaming101, LeechJoel9 has once again reverted all of my edits! [57] [58] [59] Socialwave597 (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked @Leechjoel9 from articles for personal attacks (calling you a sockpuppet) and invited them to participate here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialwave597 have been involved in editing the same articles and been reported as a SP which was filed by me. Similar editing styles by several accounts and content removal/edits have been made to several of the articles, in particular Medri Bahri article. However the investigation didn’t resulted in ban. I will proceed with filing a new detailed claim. Untilit have been concluded I’ll refrain from allegation this user, I also meant that is user is a potential SP not a confirmed one, that was a typo. I’ll stick to directing the user to the talk page of the articles to gain consensus for their edit and a block is unnecessary for now. Leechjoel9 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and your investigation was dismissed over a year and a half ago. But feel free to open up a new CU then. Socialwave597 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the block to be 36 hours now that you are participating in this discussion. You know that personal attacks are not allowed and you know that your sockpuppetry allegations were twice dismissed yet you continue them. Further attacks may result in longer blocks.

Any reversals of @Socialwave597's edits must be based on policy, not on your sockpuppetry suspicions. Non-policy-based reversions may also result in consequences for your editing privileges. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leechjoel9, I'm not the slightest bit convinced by I also meant that is user is a potential SP not a confirmed one, that was a typo. You wrote "SP edit" in your edit summaries three times in your past 50 edits. These three edits were on three different days. You have twice used the word "sock" in your last 50 edit summaries, also on two separate days. At no point - not even once in those last 50 edits - have you said "potential SP". That's not to mention that reverting edits simply because you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet is not acceptable. -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is not a confirmed SP and I will be cautious on how I express and type from now. I have started new topics in both articles to receive input regarding the issues we are disagreeing on and highlighted that consensus should be reached before eliminating or changing vital history. We’ll see how that goe. .Thanks for now Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been edit warring on Turkish people article, previously on Turkey. See another ANI the user opened, but others suggested a boomerang.

• 1st edit: claims to put WP:RS (no pages, etc.) undue weight, removing other sources.
• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• warned the user (also look at the other users putting similar warning)
• 3rd revert
• then deletes the talkpage, as if no one will notice
• didn't end. putting a warning on my page after reverting 3 times

I tried to explain the user on Talk:Turkish_people, but user insists that Turkish people is not an ethnicity / genetics based, while the article uses the worth ethnic like 100 times, and there is a whole genetic section. This is blatant edit warring POV pushing. Not to mention that the article mentions literally 0 thing about Christian or Jewish "Turkish people". Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you put an edit warring template on their talk page when they had reverted 2 times and you had reverted three times? And then you complain that they blank their talk page (which is perfectly allowed) and put an edit warring template on your talk page?

As for your "explanation": "No, it is important to note which sect of Islam. Secondly Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish. " Er, what? Fram (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, Jews in Turkey numbers around 20 thousand, Christians maybe 100 thousand. Jews are Sephardic, while Christians (there may be some Turks) but are generally of non-Turkish origin. The article is about ethnic Turks, it's an ethnicity article, not nationality. This user doesn't understand and is deliberately POV pushing. Replaced "RS" has not even pages, plus the user removes other sources in a sneaky way as if no one is going to notice. Beshogur (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Article 66 of the constitution for 'Turkishness', which is also clarified in the article. I did not remove the references 'in a sneaky way', I've replaced them with Oxford, which complies with WP:RS. The content stays the same. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about article 66. Turkish people article is about Turkish ethnicity, not nationality. Wikipedia isn't based on constitutions or laws. Yes it is mentioned here once, which is normal. You claim that Turkish ethnicity doesn't even exist, which is a nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sects, according to OP, putting the information of 100 thousand Christians and 20 thousand Jews, who aren't even of Turkish ethnicity rather Turkish citizens, are more important than denothing Sunni Islam or Alevism (which has millions of followers). Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that. I didn't denote them there because they have no Turkey spesific articles such as Jafari Islam in Turkey, they're already covered by the main article of Islam in Turkey. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is getting crazy. There are no Jafari Turks either. Jafaris are of Azerbaijani origin. (Azerbaijanis in Turkey). Turkish Muslims are either Sunni Muslim or Alevi. (exception for Iraqi Turkmen that are considered in Azerbaijani group sometimes). Beshogur (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof that there isn't a single Jafari of Turkish origin? Any proof that there isn't a single Christian of Turkish origin? Any proof that there isn't a single Jew of Turkish origin? (don't tell it to Tuncay Güney though) KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of what? Also first time hearing that person, but clicking his article says he's a Dönmeh. Is this your best example? This is getting nowhere btw. Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my best example, rather a pun. Well said, let's wait for admin input. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the one who actually contested with the 3RR to begin with. I've explained everything on the article's talkpage. Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews are very influential on the country's history and therefore, they do deserve to be mentioned in the infobox. "The article mentions literally 0 thing about Christian or Jewish" - until - we put some information about them, which we clearly can. They are probably motivated by nationalist ideas, given their attitude and contribs backlog. KarsVegas36 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

until - we put some information about them no one thought to put information here in 20 years? Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews are they Turkish or Turkish citizens? Stop confusing both. They are probably motivated by nationalist ideas, given their attitude and contribs backlog Great personal attacks, while you're the one POV pushing here. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a time-out limit to put information in the articles? Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews articles are there anyways, right?

And no, there isn't any personal attacks whatsoever. No need for agitation, it's just that I am struggling to understand your actions and that's why I used 'probably'. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Turkish Christians article doesn't exist, and talks about Christians in Turkey, not Turkish Christians. Same of History of the Jews in Turkey not Turkish Jews. Turkish citizen Jews are of Sephardic origin, not Turkic. This is straight up creating imaginary stuff. Beshogur (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what you can't do is put that information in without a reliable source, which you don't have at the moment. This source is utterly unverifiable without references or page numbers, which you say it "doesn't have yet". Surely there must be an alternative source for what is a quite basic piece of demographic data? Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, even if we can verify, verifiability doesn't mean inclusion. Undue. Yet we don't even know what the source says. It's so shady. Not to mention removing other sources. No one thought of mentioning ethnic Turks who are either Christian or Jewish in the article, but OP did in 20 years of wikiepdia history. It's also a fact that Turkish people are either Sunni Muslim or Alevi traditions (not mentioning irreligion, etc. of course). OP claims there is no Turkish ethnicity, there are Jewish/Christian Turks, there are Jafari Turks. So I don't even stand this. Beshogur (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not 'remove' soruces. I replaced them with Oxford, which is much more reliable. The content is still the same.

Also, exactly. Turkishness isn't ethnoreligious. There are even Pagan Turks. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I'm beginning to worry that there is a language or CIR issue here. The Oxford source, as I've said above, is not verifiable because it is a work in progress and doesn't have page numbers. It perhaps would be useful for KarsVegas36 to quote the section that source the claims they've been adding. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we're adding pagan too? The article is about Turkish ethnicity, Turkish is an ethnicity. Who talks about "ethnoreligious". And ethnic groups have a certain religious tradition. So Muslim Tatars are also Russians (who are only Orthodox)? Where is the quote and page btw? Beshogur (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not adding Pagans. I am just contesting your view of Muslim-only Turkishness for the sake of this argument. Just stating the fact that Turks can be of any religion. KarsVegas36 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any people can of any religion. But you still don't get the point here. Beshogur (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur, can you point to any RFC which stipulates that Turkish people is about ethnically Turkic people and not the people of Turkey? Excluding people who aren't ethnically Turkic (however that's defined) puts this article in contrast with some others such as British people, French people, or Americans (the redirect target of American people), while other articles embrace both ethnicity and nationality. NebY (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the whole lede
• the infobox (numbers of Turks, not Kurds etc.)
• history
• traditional minority abroad
• genetics (Central Asia is taken as a reference always, and only ethnic Turks)

I know that Brits, French, Americans are not ethnic groups. But this article is generally focused on ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, the article was broader and included a section on the genetic diversity of the people of Turkey. Was the switch to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? NebY (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Cinnioğlu's work isn't seen as reliable anymore. It is obsolete and solely based on haplogroups and it wasn't even based on ethnic Turks. Recent genetic section is more reliable and based on recent studies. Beshogur (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili: can tell more maybe he's more busy with that. Beshogur (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we used to include material that "wasn't even based on ethnic Turks" because our Turkish people article wasn't only about "ethnic Turks". You're accusing an editor of POV pushing. Denying that Turkish citizens are Turkish people if they're not ethnic Turks is a prima facie breach of WP:NPOV. It's a particularly sensitive matter in the context of Turkey's history (e.g. Armenian genocide, Greek genocide) and present-day Turkey (e.g. Kurds in Turkey, Circassians in Turkey), as well as reminding us of nationalist efforts elsewhere to deny that people of the Turkish diaspora can be German or French people (e.g. Turks in Germany#Attacks against the Turkish community in Germany). Was switching the article to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? NebY (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did we come to genocides from this? So we should return to poorly sourced revision of 10 years ago which mentions antropology! Beshogur (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur:, answer the question: Was switching the article to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? Talk page consensus of what? There was nothing like Turkish people article based on nationality. this is the revision he provided. Also 99% of the article aren't even my additions. Beshogur (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all consistent: British people is unsurprising in that format, English people and Welsh people appears to be ethnicity-focused. There's probably a lot of discussion that could be had about how titular nation-state ethnicities should be covered, and how particular articles should be titled, and to what extent this should/could be standardised, but AN/I is a poor forum for this. The whole topic intersects with multiple WP:CTOPs, so the discussion should be moved somewhere where it might hopefully get a wide participation, and perhaps more admin eyes are needed on related articles. CMD (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to you but no one considers Kurds, Circiassians, and other minorities as Turkish here. It would be absurd put them here in the same article (which was never the case) I don't know where did the Example text come from suddenly. Turkish people isn't supposed to mean a nationality here, but ethnicity. The OP who added Judaism and Christianity to the infobox can't still prove that traditionally Turkish Jews or Turkish Christians exists. If we look at Religion in Turkey, you see that Jews are generally Sephardic, Christians are Greek, Assyrian, etc. Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't. The number would total like 100 and something thousands, not more. Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "here", but whatever it's supposed to mean people use "Turkish" to denote nationality all the time. It's a very common usage, and also one that will likely be a common intuition for many English speakers. Neither is the tension between ethnic and national identity unique to Turkey, I might add. CMD (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about ethnic tension, but rather ethnicities itself. I know that in biographies Kurd from Turkey is called Turkish, a Turk in Greece is called Greek, but this doesn't make both of them ethnic Turkish and Greek. OP claims there is no Turkish ethnicity that's based on common origin or genetics, everyone living in Turkey holding Turkish passport are Turks. Beshogur (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked if the OP is claiming that (aren't you the OP here?), but it's really unrelated to what I said. I'm surprised to get this sort of response to what I thought was a somewhat obvious linguistic point. CMD (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are, in fact, the OP here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the article Turkish people is about ethnicity or nationality—and I think it should be the latter, per COMMONNAME and the article's having apparently formerly had that focus—Wikipedians cannot simply decide to ignore the existence of non-Muslim Turks; Beshogur not only suggests their numbers are too small to merit mention in the article but states they are not Turks by the ethnic definition that Beshogur wants the article to use: putting the information of 100 thousand Christians and 20 thousand Jews, who aren't even of Turkish ethnicity rather Turkish citizens; The fact that Turkish Christians article doesn't exist, and talks about Christians in Turkey, not Turkish Christians. Same of History of the Jews in Turkey not Turkish Jews. Turkish citizen Jews are of Sephardic origin, not Turkic. This is straight up creating imaginary stuff. Both Beshogur and KarsVegas36 have been edit warring, but KarsVegas36 is on the side of the angels in pushing back against this exclusionary bias. However, KarsVegas36 should have edited the Religion section of the article, not just the infobox (and moved the existing sources from the infobox into the new paragraph(s) in that section; I'd also place the Oxford citations there, that is one ridiculously over-ref'd infobox). The infobox is supposed to be a quick tabular overview of the actual article. Black Kite, I disagree that that source is inadmissable. We reference ebooks all the time now, most of which don't have page numbers, and the individual chapters are being published online in advance of print publication; however, I do think references should be to specific chapters (and/or specifically to the online summary or the introduction). The POV-pushing is Beshogur's, from where I sit, but that section of article text, and possibly others, need urgent work even if the article remains about Turkish ethnicity. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yngvadottir: Wikipedians cannot simply decide to ignore the existence of non-Muslim Turks I don't say non-Muslim Turks don't exist, I say, Turks are traditionally either Sunni or Alevi Muslims, like Greeks are being Orthodox Christian (there are also hundreds of thousand Greek Muslims of literal Hellenic origin). However, this user's claim is that Jewish and Christian citizens of Turkey are also Turks, but they are not. They are minority. "Minority". The user even confuses ethnic Azerbaijanis in Turkey (saying that Jafari Muslim Turks exist too), but that's not true again. Of course there may be convert to Christianity, etc. but the numbers might be counted with hand. There may be more English converts to Islam in England than there are minorities of Christian and Jewish origins in Turkey. So it is undue weight, and POV pushing. The Oxford citation has not even a page, and the user didn't reply regarding this. So that's shady as well. FYI the biggest numbers for Christians in Turkey is around 300,000 while ethnic Turks are around 60,000,000. Adding Kurdish to languages section makes more sense than adding Christianity or Judaism. Because Kurds are Turks too right and having at least 15 million population? Both doesn't makes sense. Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "this user's claim is that Jewish and Christian citizens of Turkey are also Turks, but they are not. They are minority. "Minority"." Shouldn't we topic ban Beshogur from anything to do with race, ethnicity, and religion by now? The constant repetition of the only true Turks are Muslims, if you aren't a Muslim you aren't a Turk ("Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't.") is not the kind of editor we need on such topics. Fram (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean? Do you get this from what I say? I mean ethnic Turks. See Religion in Turkey. It is clear that Jewish citizens of Turkey are of Sephardic and Ashkenazi origins, Christians are of mainly Greek, Assyrian, Armenian origins. Am I too hard to understand? I get slammed not calling non-Turkish minority of Turkey as Turks. Of course they are citizens of Turkey. What? Beshogur (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the scope of Turkish people article should include both ethnic background and citizenship aspects, which needs to covered in the lead, body and the infobox. It should not be restricted to solely an ethnic background or solely a citizenship aspect. I am not sure ANI is the place for article content debate though. I also need to consult more sources how it is covered when I have time.
• I believe it is incorrect to say the article had a wider scope that was shifted. Looking at the ten years ago link provided above, the article also had a narrow scope. The easiest way to tell this is the numbers in the infobox. Under "Regions with significant populations" for Turkey, the number given for Turks probably corresponds to about 70 to 75% of the population of Turkey at the time. It's not an amount that is more than 95% of the population of Turkey, which would cover all Turkish citizens. For Turkish people article, under Turkey, I think the infobox should cover both "by ethnic background" and "by citizenship" numbers. But this is a debate that should be done at the talk page of the article. For example, when I tried to do a similar change in Turkey [60], this was reverted. This needs to be talked in the talk page.
• I also believe some people do not fully understand the debate here. For example, some Christians in Turkey are defined as "minority" under Treaty of Lausanne. The World Factbook and other sources also use wording such as "other minorities" [61]. In some cases, it might be problematic to deny how certain people identify themselves. For example, European Court of Human Rights ruled against Greece for not recognizing names such as "House of Turkish Youth in Xanthi" [62]. I believe there seems to be a language confusion above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram: wants to topic ban me because I don't deny their existence lol. It is supposed to be otherwise, right? The issue here is, I am trying to tell people that Jewish/Christian minority of Turkey are not of Turkish ethnicity. At least vast majority. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand there may be a language issue here. I am very surprised how quickly a topic ban proposal was suggested. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Open discrimination often rapidly leads to topic bans. Fram (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but you still don't get it. I recognize them not discriminate. I didn't say anything about Turkish citizenship. Saying that they're Turkish is supposed to be assimilationist. And trust me I don't care about anyone's religion. Just trying to give people here correct information. Beshogur (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Saying that they're Turkish is supposed to be assimilationist. "??? They were Turkish before their conversion. Denying them that ethnicity now because they e.g. converted to Christianity is forcibly removing them from a group they already belonged to. I don't make them assimilate in any way, they were already Turkish before. Fram (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, I mean the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek minorities, not converts. Why do you take everything wrong? Every nation has converts. Should we starting to put "minority: Muslim" straight to every ethnic group's infobox we find because it's probably the most growing religion right now? Beshogur (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is evidence for it? Sure, why not? Fram (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty sure there are hundreds of thousands Greek Muslims. And it is well documented. You can start with Greeks article. Good luck. Beshogur (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At least for the 10,000+ Protestant Christians this is clearly not true[63]: "nearly 10,000 Protestants, almost all of whom have a Turkish Muslim background." This despite the severe discrimination Christians face in the country in general[64][65]. The number of Christians in Turkey has dwindled from 20% of the population to 0.2% of the population, but that doesn't mean that the remaining ones (or the new converts) aren't Turkish or that we should erase them completely here. Fram (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a misunderstanding. You say it youself. Muslim background, which means conversion. The numbers are nothing compared to if we say there are 60 million Turks (I don't say they're all Muslim, non religious ones were traditionally Muslims, not Christian or Jewish, which is basically non existent). Adding "minority: Christianity/Judaism" is redunant. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I understand you perfectly. That's why I want you topic banned. Fram (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain? Beshogur (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are constantly shifting the goalposts and dismissing any Indications about Christian ethnic Turkish people (I know less about the Jews, so I don't comment one way or the other). Above, you claimed e.g. "Of course there may be convert to Christianity, etc. but the numbers might be counted with hand." Here as well, you somehow dismiss my statement with "You say it youself. Muslim background, which means conversion. " So if you're a convert, you're no longer Turkish? Should we no longer consider Remco Evenepoel as a Fleming because he converted to Islam? Fram (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at my comment above. Jews in Turkey are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, not Turkic origin. That's what I mean. As I said, every ethnic groups has converts. Yet I don't see "minority: Islam" on Flemish people's infobox. That's the whole issue. Beshogur (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said, shifting goalposts and giving evasive answers. I post about Protestant Christians, you dismiss them. I reply, stating explicitly that I'm not talking about the Jewish people in Turkey because I don't know enough to comment, and your reply is about the Jewish people. That's no way to have a serious discussion. Do you agree that e.g. the 10,000 or so Protestants who are converted Turkish Muslims are still ethnically Turkish, or not? Fram (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Evasive answer? Is this supposed to be a court? Yes they are and 10,000 isn't enough to put to the infobox. That's it. I don't get your goal here. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Evasiveness has nothing to do with being a court or not, no idea why you bring this up. I'm glad you are now finally moving away from your discriminatory comments like "Christian or Jewish "Turkish people"." (with the scare quotes), "Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish.", "This is straight up creating imaginary stuff.", "Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't." Fram (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I always use quoations. No particular reason. Again, I am talking about minorities inhabiting Turkey, not converts. Regarding This is straight up creating imaginary stuff it was about Jews being Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly there is no difference in English or Turkish about Turkish ethnicity and citizenship like "русский" and "российский". I don't know why you have such hard understanding on this topic. It is clear what I mean. And this is my last answer to you. Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that multiple long-standing editors have not pointed this out, but this is a content dispute, and ANI is not the place to discuss changes in articles or what editors think an article represents. Both sides have reverted 3 times, which should have been the focus here, but relevant discussions have already started, so I think there's no need to build up tension. Aintabli (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this edit linked above, I see multiple issues:

• No page numbers, chapters, or quotes provided.
• The infobox says: Turkey 60,000,000 to 65,000,000. This can be considered ethnic background number. The citizenship number should be close to 85 million.
• If the Oxford source talks about Christian and Jewish citizens in Turkey without mentioning their Turkish ethnic background, it is a WP:SYNTH (WP:NOR is a core policy) to use this source in the current format of infoxbox in Turkish people. As I mentioned above, we should discuss updating the infobox with both citizenship and ethnic background numbers first, before doing edits such as the one done by KarsVegas36. I can only speculate here since no quotes from The Oxford Handbook of Religion in Turkey were provided. Bogazicili (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Aintabli, this is not a content dispute. Being a minority, even a small minority, does not mean non-existence. Having converted from Islam does not mean non-existence. Beshogur is not merely making an UNDUE argument, they are going beyond it to argue the article should not mention Christian or Jewish Turkish people at all because they are either not Turkic (in Beshogur's view) or converts: Jews in Turkey are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, not Turkic origin.; [...] Muslim background, which means conversion. The numbers are nothing compared to if we say there are 60 million Turks. (I don't say they're all Muslim, non religious ones were traditionally Muslims, not Christian or Jewish, which is basically non existent). Wikipedians don't get to decide whose religion is legitimate; and Wikipedia should follow sources in weighting its coverage of minorities. KarsVegas36 erred in not being BOLDer and writing the missing chunk of the Religion section; and yes, it would be advisable to put quotes from the Oxford source in the citations on minority religions, since getting access to the chapters requires some hoop-jumping. But the primary locus of the dispute is between following reliable scholarly sources and relying on an editor's own definition of membership in the Turkish people (and an apparent refusal to acknowledge the validity of conversion). That's behavioural. (And demanding discussion before the article may be changed smacks of OWN.) Beshogur has made some unacceptably biased assertions here. This needs to be a boomerang. (As a point of information, Beshogur, you're the O.P. It means "original poster" and you started the section.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I get the blame because other user can't prove its thing? How did you come to conclusion that I don't recognize conversions? I say there are converts of every nation of every religion. It's pretty much redundant on the infobox. That's it all about. Just googled According to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR), Turkey is home to around 14,300 Jews. Majority of the Jewish population is of Sephardic origin. I am getting bashed because not calling them Turks. I don't talk about Turkish citizenship here. The Turkish people article is about ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having converted from Islam does not mean non-existence. I don’t think Beshogur denied conversions. The initial locus of the dispute was whether to include non-converts who are not of Turkish origin such as Armenians, Greeks, etc., at least that’s what I understood. Aintabli (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant there that the Turks today who turned non-religious didn't come from Judaism or Christianity, I mean they were traditionally either Sunni or Alevi Muslims, not Christian or Jewish. I didn't talk there about converts to Christianity from Islam. Except for Gagauz (since they're a different people), there were no Turkophone Christian group in Anatolia except Karamanlides, though Greeks dispute their origins. I am really getting bashed because I'm literally opposite of racist and against assimilation. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, most Turks arent even Turks, since they're largely Anatoliane (aka Greeks) who converted to Islam and adopted the Turkish language. 90.242.197.171 (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source: quora. Beshogur (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

45.49.236.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the LTA previously described in these reports:

Their behavior is identical to that briefly summarized in the Feb 2025 report. The last several blocks have been performed by User:Star Mississippi, who I hope doesn't mind that I ping them immediately on each sighting now. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to stay away for long: 76.33.223.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also them from the beginning of this month. They exhibit a very frustrating insistence on wasting others' time. Remsense ‥ 论 05:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 45 for a week, 76 is stale as there haven't been any edits for two weeks. For everyone else, having looked at this history, this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU rather than a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I initially thought so too, but see: [66][67] Remsense ‥ 论 08:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That just still screams WP:COMPETENCE more than anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely appreciate the pushback regarding the dynamic, which my perspective had hardened on. In any case, they are not available for me to communicate with unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence of edits[68][69][70][71] shortly preceding this brow-raising "Fixed." edit[72] leads me to personally believe there may be something slightly more than cir. (Just want this on the record if this discussion is referred back to again in the future, no further action needed or requested at this time.) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned it in a report yet—I don't want the perception that I see their disruption as deliberate or bad-faith specifically because the bias expressed is transparently a rightist one. (I have diffs aplenty if others are skeptical.) That's not the case obviously, but I try to avoid arguing in those terms if I don't have to. Remsense ‥ 论 08:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's much to go on there. By contrast, I am the fifth highest contributor to our article on Jacob Rees-Mogg, despite personally thinking the man is an odious reptile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've also not taken the time to superfluously capitalize the word "white" in "white supremacist" after having made such contributions. Not much to go on sure, but worth keeping an eye on. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is merely that, having looked at thousands of their edits, the ones that remove maintenance tags or material all seem totally arbitrary—it's not really my place to judge the character of what motivates those edits, all I care to see are that there are fairly rigid patterns concerning what is removed or retained. I couldn't care less, I just wish I had miraculous insight on how to even start getting mutual understanding established between myself and editors such as these. I often feel like I'm the problem (and sometimes I am, naturally). Remsense ‥ 论 10:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never mind being pinged @Remsense, and thanks @Ritchie333 for handling while I was offline. Star Mississippi 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply