User talk:Obi2canibe

Home

Talk

Email

Contributions

Articles

Stats

Images

Commons

I will usually reply on this page to messages posted here. Please add this page to your watchlist so that you know when I have replied.
I make it a practice to add to my watchlist all talk pages that I post to — if I have posted on your talk page feel free to reply there.

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Obi2canibe. Thank you for your work on Coalition for the Republic. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

ARBIPA topic alert

Hidden false warning

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ratnahastin (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Vile personal attacks

Not only you have personally attacked me and falsified my editing history,[1] you are also casting WP:ASPERSIONS by targeting editors by speculating their nationalities and calling them meatpuppets without any evidence.

You should remove that part from your comment on the AfD on Tamil genocide or you will end up at WP:ANI. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: of an ethno-national nature (WP:CT/SL). Please be aware that any further attacks, especially of that nature (Indian friends, etc.), will result in sanctions of especial severity, up to and including an indefinite suspension from editing. Below is an alert concerning this particular contentious topic, so please ensure you review it closely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 01:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Obi2canibe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do have evidence of the meatpuppetery at the AfD but haven't been given a chance to present it before being blocked.

I have edited hundreds of articles related to Sri Lankan Tamils over the last 15 years. I have never known so many accounts of Indian origin to interact with a Sri Lankan Tamil article as is happening in this AfD. Currently, seven accounts of Indian origin have participated in the AfD:

• Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• CharlesWain (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Orientls (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Lorstaking (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Pravega (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Azuredivay (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

All seven are voting to delete the article and are using the same non-policy based reasoning for deleting the article: Orientls ("no such genocide against the Tamils"); Lorstaking ("No Tamil genocide ever happened"); Pravega ("No genocide against the Tamils"); Ratnahastin ("Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide""); Azuredivay ("nobody recognises this non-existing "genocide"").

Prior to taking part in the AfD, the seven accounts have had no interaction with the article up for deletion and little or no interaction any other Sri Lankan Tamil related article. The Tamil genocide does not relate to India - the genocide is alleged to have been perpetrated by Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka against Tamils from Sri Lanka. It should not be of such great interest to so many Indian origin accounts.

A look at the interaction of the accounts shows that they edit similar articles:

• Ratnahastin and CharlesWain
• Ratnahastin and Orientls
• Ratnahastin and Lorstaking
• Ratnahastin and Pravega
• Ratnahastin and Raymond3023
• Ratnahastin and Azuredivay

I have experience of spotting signs of meatpuppetery and sockpuppetery and have reported a number accounts with evidence to WP:SPI. Based on the above evidence I am convinced that there is off-wiki co-ordination by the accounts in relation to the AfD.

In relation to me categorising the accounts as "Indian" at the AfD, it was not meant to be an insult or a personal attack or xenophobic but merely to point the connection between the accounts for the reasons set out above. If there had been any other commonalities between the accounts I would have pointed that out too. Similarly, the term "friends" was meant to signify the off-wiki connection between the accounts, nothing else. I am not Indian/Pakistani/Afghan. I have never edited topics coming under the jurisdiction of WP:CT/IPA. I have no issue with Indian editors or Indian people in general.

I am not someone who castes aspersions as claimed by the account that reported me to ANI. My record speaks for itself. My comment on the AfD was given in good faith - based on my experience and knowledge I genuinely believe there is meatpuppetery involved in the highly unusual activity at the AfD by Indian origin accounts. Thank you. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Introduction to contentious topics

Hidden WP:CT/SL notice

You have recently edited a page related to Sri Lanka, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. El_C 01:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)