Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Japanese Bias Editor Problem

Hello, I like to report my recent edits on Moro people, Liver (Food), Free China (Second Sino Japanese War) and Japanese migration to Indonesia has been recently reverted with a user I have trouble with for a while, NmWTfs85lXusaybq.

His reason for reverting is nonsense with the most common used reason, Neutral Point of View violation. He had use that reason as his justification of reverting.

However, my edits have never violate the NPOV. My edits on the liver (food) article covered all the historical parts where different people had eat human liver, so it makes no sense to say I am not neutral. I have covered religion and both side in wars eating livers

Not only that, my edits has follow the source carefully, I am just adding the information indicated by the source. Not to mention the references are reliable and active to Wikipedia standard. His accusation on those edits like failed verification and NPOV fails.

Not to mention, he usually strike at my edit whenever I edit Japanese related topic, I believe he is a Japanese nationalist who dislike my edits which include either war crimes or getting defeated. I am tired at the fact that my edits are harassed whenever I edit a Japanese related info.

I hope I can finish the problem soon.

Yaujj13 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If any of your edits have been reverted the first thing to do is to start a conversation on the article talk page, which you do not seem to have done, and then if you don't achieve consensus to follow the steps at WP:DR. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's have a look at how Yaujj13 issued the ANI notice on my talk page: I really don't like ever since you reverted the edits, looking at your talk page, you are really just an asshole. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem is more likely to be not enough of this editor's massive unattributed cuts-and-pastes from other articles getting reverted than too many. —Cryptic 13:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Let us also look at this editor's removal of a warning from their talkpage compared with the ANI notice that they delivered to the same editor (linked above). I don't think the OP is a net positive at all here. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yaujj13's edits to Liver (food) are a shocking example of undue weight. Devoting such massive attention to cannibalism in an article that should be about routine culinary practices in various cultures worldwide is a disservice to our readers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I decided to merge the content into here Human_cannibalism#Livers. I think it needs to be reviewed a lot and I would like @NmWTfs85lXusaybq to look over it and adjust the POV issues. But I do appreciate the work OP put into the section even if it was in the completely wrong article. What are your thoughts on its new home? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, that is clearly a better location. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I did just now substantially reduce the content on the Japanese soldiers and Moro Muslims. I think it's notable, but in the end it is just one guy who isn't exactly an unbiased source that said this, so that was undue weight within the section, and had some biased language like "slaughtered" Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm OK with your solution and will keep a close eye on their editing behavior. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My cut and paste is not from other Wikipedia pages but rather from my own edits. I usually do my edit in one day, so I write my own edits privately. And then copy and paste to the wiki pages I am editing.

For the talk page, sorry about that. I will fix my mistake.

And for the cuss words, I just feel frustrated at this point. Yaujj13 (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yaujj13 While I did have a bit of a scuffle with @NmWTfs85lXusaybq I can confidently say he is good faith and competent.

Now to cover your edits. I will link them Liver I am unsure whether it is relevant, it has a lot of Wikipedia:Citation overkill for example

• During slaughter of Madurese settlers in the Indonesian ruled part of Borneo island, Dayaks and Malay Indonesians consumed livers of Madurese.

Definitely relatively emotionally charged language. I wouldn't have removed the entire section but I would have tagged the article as overly detailed

Here the edit was reverted due to failed verification. Which is a good reason to revert an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moro_people&diff=1187106286&oldid=1186717380. imo a citation needed can just be left for a while in case an editor misplaced a source or remembered something from a college lecture or something like that, but a failed verification is just leaving misinformation on wikipedia.

For Japanese migration to Indonesia I think it was a bit harder to tell what was changed. You were Wikipedia:Edit warring which is against protocol here and should have brought it to the dispute resolution noticeboard or talk page

Here's the Free China part but I don't know enough about this to comment. My knowledge of this area is limited.

Overall I think you are escalating these disputes too much and should just try to talk things out with @NmWTfs85lXusaybq since he is pretty reasonable when you try to talk to him as demonstrated here Talk:Saiō Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying too soon. I need a clear mind in writing this. I am going to present all my arguments spoken in this reply here as I didn't want to write separate arguments for each replies.

First, the failed verification claim in the Moro page is false. I have check in my edits that the links given works and match the source, you could try to read the source to verify my claim. One of the reason I believe he is just making false claim to justify his revert.

Second, he is also got in trouble with many users which just surprise me seeing in his talk page. He also hounded user Beyond My Ken in the Moro Rebellion edit back in April 2023. There is also the fact that he sent false warnings to his talk page as well. He also sent me one of those false warnings as well.

Third, I still stand my claim that NmW is pro Japan vandal. Using the evidence of his edits in Anti-Catholicism and Jambi Sultanate.

As usual, my edit in both articles are reverted under bogus claim. Here are the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Catholicism&diff=prev&oldid=1168770563

Talk:Jambi Sultanate

He accused me for pro China POV in Jambi Sultanate which the edits I made have none of this claim, not to mention the sources are written from Western universities and considered reliable.

This can be proven as my anti Catholicism edit is return by Simonm223.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Catholicism&diff=prev&oldid=1171656739

This shows his NPOV claim is nothing but an excuse to revert edits that defame Japan in his view. I am mostly adding information according to the reliable citation. Yaujj13 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's also have a look at their latest canvassing on LilAhok's talk page. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

He is actually a separate matter. I just need a third party to review my edits. I also warn him of your activities, all of this had nothing to do with the ANI we are having. Otherwise, I would have inform him about it which I didn't.

The only editor I am wary is you because it doesn't take much to know that you are harassing me whenever I made an edit over anything Japanese related. Yaujj13 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

When on earth will you reflect on yourself? There have been several sysops here shocked by your mass copy-pasting and POV edits of WP:UNDUE. Isn't it enough? The only reason you left the canvassing message to LilAhok is that "I think you are just a PRC nationalist and putting your own POV in the Japanese war crimes page", as you stated here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok then, why did you continue to stalk Beyond My Ken edits and harass him back at April until a sypsop, Johnuniq stop you to prevent edit warring which you claim its not.

Then why did you delete information in the Moro rebellion which appears negative for both US and Japan which relate to the first question (harassing Beyond My Ken to accept your edits)?

You also edit topic in your Chinese Wikipedia account on Taiwan, Hong Kong and any topic related to the PRC.

You also didn't explain why my edits on the Moro people considered failed verification or why my edits on Japanese migration to Indonesia is considered NPOV.

Also stop switching the subject and answer this question, why my Moro people edit failed verfication?

They think you are decent because they didn't know the history of your edit warring back in April 2023 on the Moro rebellion.

I also never engage any edit warring with other people like Qiushufang because he warn me over a genuine mistake and has no agenda over the Sangley Massacre edit. Not with you as you had been persistent in reverting my edits and definitely have an agenda.

Also stop lying that you watch my edits from now. You watched my edits since this year and hounded me whenever I started editing any topic that connects with the Japanese. People find it hard to track your contributions when you have a bot script to do minor edits to cover up your more controversial edits.

You never explained your reverts over the talk page until I forced you to in the Jambi Sultanate talk page. I don't have a bot script to hide my real edits. Yaujj13 (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is one long WP:NPA violation. I strongly suggest you drop the subject, Yaujj. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell me something, in the Jambi Sultanate talk page I edit months ago: Talk:Jambi Sultanate.

Is him calling me a Han chuanavist, Chinese nationalist and me using Fandom/Wikia to imply I am stupid consider a NPA?

He accused me of Chinese bias without assuming good faith (as I stated before, the edits I done there are neutral and done by Western scholars). And I already assume good faith for him months ago.

He also insulted me for my edit contribution in Wikia/Fandom. Not only that it is off topic, the argument is not valid at all. Wikipedia and Fandom policies are similar if not near identical.

User talk:Drmies/Archive 144#Wikihounding

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NmWTfs85lXusaybq&diff=prev&oldid=1151142165 Yaujj13 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yaujj13 please just drop this. you're just harassing a user. This looks really bad on you and I think you should cut your losses here while you still can, and not get blowback for it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This topic is unrelated to me. However, regarding opinions on harassment, in August, Yaujj13 posted on en.wikipedia.org and zh.wikipedia.org, specifically Special:diff/1170949834 and zh:Special:diff/78609398. Starting from November on zh.wikipedia.org, there have been several sockpuppet accounts like Special:CentralAuth/勾揚協成, Special:CentralAuth/ICT987, Special:CentralAuth/藍靖, Special:CentralAuth/Peter25kc, and Special:CentralAuth/杜娀郎, using Sockpuppet investigations to harass me, similar to Yaujj13. I acknowledge that the listed accounts are not Yaujj13, but Yaujj13's past actions have indeed caused me prolonged distress, adding to the challenges of harassment across different wikis. Rastinition (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not the only person who report a sockpuppet case on you, someone else did it first and you didn't claim you were being harassed.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/Rastinition/存檔 Yaujj13 (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue. Your creation of a Sockpuppet investigations for editing disputes has caused me distress. If it had only happened on en.wikipedia.org, I might not consider it harassment.

However, after en.wikipedia.org closed the case due to insufficient evidence, showing no relevance, you initiated a Sockpuppet investigations on zh.wikipedia.org. I believe this is intentional and harassing, as you were aware of the insufficient evidence from the en.wikipedia.org closure report. You chose to continue the same behavior on zh.wikipedia.org despite the lack of evidence.

Before your activity on zh.wikipedia.org, such Sockpuppet investigations were not used frequently to harass me (the last IP sock activity was 14 months ago). After your activity, more than 5 sock puppet accounts have used Sockpuppet investigations to harass me in November and December. The issue has escalated to the point where the page has been placed under protection for a period of one month.(See Protection log of zh.wikipedia.org)

It's hard for me to believe there's no cause and effect here. Rastinition (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Fandom policies are similar if not near identical.
@Yaujj13, It is correct that fandom is not a reliable source; see WP:FANDOM. Wikipedia is also not a reliable source; see WP:CIRCULAR. CodeTalker (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have evidence you were insulted, post the diffs.

That link to the warning from Johnuniq... what relevance does that have here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are not even reading at all. You just prefer your own bias, but I will entertain you.

Here is the difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jambi_Sultanate&diff=prev&oldid=1149933721

Also I didn't say I use Fandom as a source (besides there is nothing to reference from and all the citations I have are not Fandom at all). I said the Wikipedia and Fandom policies for editors are the similar which is true.

When he said about the Fandom part, he just insulted and discredit me to believe his edits. He saw my user page to validate his insults. Yaujj13 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I should note that NmW do hound me according to the Harrasment policy:

Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding

"Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks,"

NmW indirectly confirms that he is stalking me by listing the articles back in the Jambi Sultanate talk page: "Peranakans, Chinese Filipino, Tausug people, Chinese Indonesians etc.

Even if we ignored his Japanese POV or his edits reasons are 'valid', he still harass and hounding me for months over other edits and in the talk page, cause distress with his insults. Yaujj13 (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Cukrakalnis' further attempts to obscure the history of Lithuanian collaboration during WWII

On October 7 of this year, I created a report ([1]) about @Cukrakalnis' improper editing and discussion style on WP:ARE. One of the main complaints was the removal or concealment of the history of Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Mainly through manipulating of the categories. The discussion ended with a "final warning" for Cukrakalnis. It seems that after a short break, C has returned to his practices. Recently C:

• in Juozas Ambrazevičius (diff) removed Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany and replaced it with Category:Lithuanian resistance members. Also in the lead changed was a war criminal responsible for the murder of Jews and Lithuanian literary historian to was a Lithuanian politician, literary scholar, pedagogue and member of anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Resistance in Lithuania during World War II. Currently article has no mention of Ambrazevičius pro-Nazi activities
• in Petras Polekauskas (diff) he removed categories Category:Nazi war criminals and Category:Nazis who committed suicide in the United States, under the pretext given in summary Not a member of the Nazi Party, even if we agree that he wasn't a "Nazi war criminal" he certainly was a war criminal, so removing him from this category tree is improper.

As I mentioned in my first submission, I believe that TBAN should be considered on topics related to ~WW2 collaboration in Lithuania.Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Juozas Ambrazevičius, there were no sources about him being what he was accused of being on that Wiki article: war criminal responsible for the murder of Jews. The claim without any source was added on 26 November 2023 by a user with less than 40 edits. When I looked deeper, I found on the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia that not only was he not a war criminal, but he was actually a member of the anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Resistance in Lithuania during World War II as he was a contributor to the underground anti-Nazi press. Clearly, the text and the categories had to be changed because they were historically inaccurate.

Regarding Petras Polekauskas, he was not an official of the Nazi party so I was right to remove those categories. Your logic is faulty, because if he can be added to the category tree of Category:Nazi war criminals despite not being a Nazi, then he might as well be added to Category:Female war criminals‎ despite not being a female. What Marcelus is saying is nonsense. By the way, that individual is still in the Category:Lithuanian mass murderers so I'm not obscuring any history.

BTW, the "final warning" did not concern the quality of my edits but about personally directed comments (User_talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/October#AE_result).

This is not the first report made by Marcelus about me or vice versa. Other users have already noticed the numerous disagreements between Marcelus and me - see User:Prodraxis' (they had a different user name when submitting it) report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other from April 2023.

It's probably also relevant that Marcelus is reporting me only a few days after his successful appeal (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon)) of his 0RR that he got after edit-warring with me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

VLT also mentions that Juozas Ambrazevičius was a member of the collaborationist Lithuanian Activist Front. The very government he headed was involved in creating anti-Semitic laws and policies. But you don't mention these things, and remove the category about collaboration. If you believe that Petras Polekauskas was not a Nazi (although this is not a requirement to be in this category) then you should move him to parent Category:War criminals. And not completely remove him from this tree. Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lithuanian Activist Front is not called collaborationist by either the ULE or in the Wiki article's lede - that is your OR. Even in the one sentence in the Wiki article where LAF directly is accused of collaboration, citations are lacking. The LAF was pretty quickly banned by the occupying Nazi authorities, its original leader was stopped by Nazi occupiers from entering Lithuania and the German government was trying its best to stop it from pursuing its goal of an independent Lithuanian state. Juozas Ambrazevičius was only an acting substitute head for ProGov whose functioning was stopped by the Nazis. You have not given any evidence about the ProGov creating anti-Semitic laws and policies, but that's a content issue to be looked at elsewhere and the administrators' noticeboard is no place for something that belongs on an article's talk page.

There was a reliable source naming Ambrazevičius as part of the anti-Nazi resistance, so I went along with the sources, as we are supposed to on Wikipedia. So, I added him to a category where his presence is supported by a reliable source and removed the person from a category for which there was no source supporting that.

You could have suggested to me about moving the person to the Category:War criminals on Talk:Petras Polekauskas. I already did that in this edit [2]. It's not a matter of belief that he was not a Nazi. It's a fact that he was not.

I have limited time on my hands and already contribute less to Wikipedia than I would like to - I have already a backlog of articles I want to create. Am I to blame for not adding something to a Wikipedia article? I have absolutely no obligation to write anything on Wikipedia, this is something I do by my own desire.

BTW, this noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You are stating an untruth: many sources describe the LAF directly as a collaborationist organization, and you know these sources because you have used them. Saulius Sužiedėlis in article Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions calls it that, you used this source Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. Your series of edits on this subject clearly indicates a one-sided, selective, use of sources to hide the history of Lithuanian collaboration in WW2. In view of this, I believe that you should not be free to edit articles on this topic. Marcelus (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree JM (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

While this noticeboard is not the place for content discussions, inasmuch as the removal of content is being mentioned as part of a conduct issue, I'd like to point out that a quick Google search for Juozas Ambrazevičius brings up results mentioning him as "Nazi leader", "puppet prime minister installed in Lithuania during the Nazi occupation", "Mr Ambrazevicius [...] has been linked to the establishment of the Kovna ghetto to imprison Kaunas’s Jews, and to the setting up of a concentration camp" (The Jewish Chronicle); "Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis, who served as prime minister of the Lithuanian provisional government, established in Kaunas shortly after the Nazi invasion, and who enthusiastically supported the Third Reich and the systematic annihilation of Lithuanian Jewry" (Simon Wiesenthal Centre); "pro-Nazi leader", "Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis’ government helped German troops send 30,000 Jews to their deaths during WWII" (Times of Israel); "there is no doubt the LPG and Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis actively took part in creating a government policy of anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews" (Jewish Community of Lithuania); "The Provisional Government was unquestionably inspired and headed by the Lithuanian Activist Front, whose anti-Semitic and authoritarian program is well-documented. The Government’s rhetoric, actions and cooperation with German authorities, inescapably compromise its legitimacy and moral status. As acting prime minister, Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis cannot avoid responsibility for its activities. Documents of the time show that the Provisional Government led by Ambrazavicius-Brazaitis did not distance itself from the pro-Nazi policies actively supported by Kazys Skirpa’s Lithuanian Activist Front. Moreover, the Provisional Government declared its willingness to contribute to the organization of Europe on “New Foundations” as formulated by Nazi Germany" (open letter published on The Baltic Times). Not all of these sources would be acceptable for the article (one or two should be considered primary), but I think it's far from ideal for an editor to simply remove references to collaborationism and responsibility in the Holocaust from an article on an individual that is described in those terms by multiple English-language RS that are easily accessible.

No less worrying is the fact that we're witnessing the millionth round of Marcelus vs Cukrakalnis/Cukrakalnis vs Marcelus. It is evident that you cannot work together, and that your interests overlap. I had previously suggested a 2-way IBAN but I can see you guys finding a way to make each other's lives miserable even if that were to be introduced. At this rate you're both going to end up getting blocked, sooner rather than later. Ostalgia (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what would be the reason for my block. From the beginning I have been trying to do what I am doing now: remove hoaxes and attempts to distort historical truth. You can trace my edits, I avoid contact with C. In fact, I only react to his edits on the topic of collaborations, because I think they are damaging. Marcelus (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I was also confused by the idea of banning both of you for this. All I've seen is this one ANI section, and from that I get that Cukrakalnis is obscuring Lithuanian Nazism and you are trying to prevent that from happening. It wouldn't be your fault that the other person keeps doing that. JM (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023 You should see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other to understand more about the situation and why there should be an IBAN between Marcelus and me - something I had suggested already in September 2022 here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it.

Juozas Ambrazevičius was by no means representative of Lithuanian Nazism but was instead a Christian Democrat. There was a Lithuanian party in 1941 that was the closest that any Lithuanian political party ever got to the Nazi Party, and that party actually tried to do a Gestapo-supported coup against the Ambrazevičius-led Provisional Goverment of Lithuania in July 1941. It is certainly a fact that Ambrazevičius contributed to underground anti-Nazi press. Clearly, he can rightfully be called a member of the anti-Nazi resistance. From my view, all I did was remove an erroneous and unsourced claim about Ambrazevičius being a war criminal when he wasn't and removing an inadequate category about him being a collaborator because of his involvement in anti-Nazi activities, meaning he was not collaborator. Regardless, content disputes about WWII do not belong here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus, in this case (in other cases it's you that has fallen foul of wiki policies) I am agreeing with you in that the content removal, at least in the case of Ambrazevičius, is questionable to say the least. However, I think these issues could've been resolved via talk page, but that requires an assumption of good faith - a ship that has long sailed for the both of you. When any dispute immediately escalates to the noticeboards, then that in itself becomes problematic (especially since you both work on a niche area). I am not advocating for banning either of you, nor would I want it to be the end result, but I feel at some point that's what's going to happen if no modus vivendi can be found. Ostalgia (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well any discussion with C usually let's to nowhere if no other parties are involved. If that was a different topic I would let it slide, because it's tiresome for me to, but presenting Nazi collaborator as "resistance fighter" is a bit much. Marcelus (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

All I did was remove an unsourced claim about Juozas Ambrazevičius being a war criminal when he wasn't and removed a category contradicting something I had found in a reliable source. Removing categories about Nazis from Petras Polekauskas when he wasn't even a member of that party was also completely justified. Polekauskas is in the Category:War criminals now, so Marcelus' complaint about removing him from the category tree is moot anyways.

Whoever is reading this, this content dispute is not the core of the issue. Let these quotes speak for themselves:

You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus. ([3] on 19:02, 22 December 2021 ~ Marcelus writing to me)

Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. ([4] on 21:30, 22 December 2021 ~ Marcelus writing to me)

This has been going on for too long already. There has been already more than two years of this with no end in sight. Just end this please with a no-fault two-way WP:IBAN that has been overdue for too long already. This is tiresome for both me and Marcelus. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting how you insist on two-way WP:IBAN Marcelus (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Because that's the only solution there is (which I had already realised in September 2022 and asked here). I am certain that a TBAN will not resolve us two not getting along and will only be kicking the can down the road, thus your suggestion is clearly not a solution. If you get your way and the TBAN you want to be imposed on me, considering our track record and practical experience, it's only a question of time at this point before another issue arises between us (as has been the case for more than the last two years). Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I get along with anyone just fine, including you. What troubles me is your clear inability to stay impartial when it come to history of collaboration in Lithuania, your edits are clearly attempts to hide it. With IBAN, I would not be able to report or fix edits made by you in this topic, which seems to be your goal. I am not interested in your edits in other topics, as they are outside my field of interest or I do not have the knowledge to verify their quality. Marcelus (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There is more than enough proving otherwise. Here are some of the reports involving Marcelus and me on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Poles in Lithuania (March 2022) [Marcelus reports Cukrakalnis]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#User:Itzhak Rosenberg/User:Cukrakalnis activity (8 July 2022) [M. reports C.]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it (July 2022) [C. reports M.]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive455#User:Cukrakalnis and User:Marcelus reported by User:Szmenderowiecki (Result: Both users pblocked for two weeks) (July 2022) [Both C. and M. reported by uninvolved user]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Disruptive editing by Marcelus (January 2023) [C. reports M.]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive464#User:Marcelus reported by User:Cukrakalnis (Result: Both pblocked) (February 2023) [C. reports M.]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other (April 2023) [Both C. and M. reported by uninvolved user]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Marcelus 1RR violation (October 2023) [M. reported by uninvolved user]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#Cukrakalnis (October 2023) [M. reports C.]

This report right here in which we are currently editing (December 2023) [M. reports C.]

Marcelus has reported me to this and other noticeboards for at least four times now in less than 3 years. That does not sound to me like what he said: I get along with anyone just fine, including you.

Other links proving that the contact isn't going smoothly between Marcelus and me for a long time are the quotes from December 2021 that I mentioned above as well as these cases:

User talk:Marcelus/Archive 1#Death of Antanas Vivulskis (June 2022)

User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2022/June#Jan Kazimierz Wilczyński (June 2022)

User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2022/July#Rename maps (3 July 2022)

Collaboration in WW2 is not the main issue here, Marcelus has disagreed with me about everything ranging from:

• 15th-century Lithuanian princes Talk:Ivan Olshansky (March 2022)
• 19th-century Lithuanian generals Talk:Romuald Giedroyć (October 2021)
• Talk:Poles in Lithuania (March - April 2022)
• 1944 Talk:Glinciszki massacre (February 2023)
• 1990s Talk:Polish autonomy in the Vilnius Region (March 2023).
• and much more

A TBAN of me editing about Lithuania in WWII will not solve anything because it will not stop disputes between me and Marcelus. As Ostalgia has already stated: It is evident that you cannot work together, and that your interests overlap. An IBAN is the best solution here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If a restriction, be it a two-way IBAN or anything else, causes information about the Nazi/collaborationist pasts of Ambrazevičius and Polekauskas to be scrubbed from their articles, said restriction would be extremely damaging to this website. Any admin considering an interaction ban between these users should give a lot of consideration to that possible outcome. City of Silver 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If it helps in any way, I can impose a voluntary restriction on myself not to initiate discussions with or about C on all topics except Lithuanian collaboration. In fact, I have already been applying it for almost a year. I have no conviction that his edits in other areas are of adequate quality, but I believe that by virtue of the topic they are much less damaging. Marcelus (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver 1) Nothing from Polekauskas' article's main body was scrubbed. The only change was me removing inapplicable categories. Not all war criminals are Nazis and Polekauskas was not a member of the Nazi party. Instead of Petras Polekauskas being in Category:Nazi war criminals, he's now in Category:War criminals ([5]).

2) The only thing I removed from Juozas Ambrazevičius' article's main body was an unsourced claim about him being a war criminal [6] and added an infobox. No sources calling him a war criminal exist at all, yet he's unjustly accused of that on the current Wikipedia article no matter that. Based on a reliable source calling him a member of the anti-Nazi resistance, I changed the category from collaborator to anti-Nazi resistance member because there was reliable material supporting that.

Either way, content disputes should be addressed elsewhere than this noticeboard.

None of my edits led to information about the Nazi/collaborationist pasts of Ambrazevičius and Polekauskas to be scrubbed from their articles, that is simply not true. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: Juozas Ambrazevičius was not only not a collaborator, but among the most important leaders of the Lithuanian resistance during World War II as he headed the anti-Nazi Lithuanian Front, which succesfully sabotaged the creation of a Lithuanian Waffen-SS, among other things. Juozas Ambrazevičius was most certainly not a collaborator but in fact a leader of the anti-Nazi resistance in Lithuania during WWII. This man most certainly does not belong in the category of collaborators. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Juozas Ambrazevičius was a member of the LAF and the Provisional Government - openly collaborative organizations. The LF is simply a continuation of the LAF formed after the Germans refused to recreate an independent Lithuania, practicing "passive resistance" against German occupation. You mention that they blocked the formation of the Lithuanian Waffen-SS, but fail to mention that they formed the Litauische Sonderverbände alongside Germany. The fact that someone undertook "passive resistance" against the Germans later does not invalidate the fact that he had previously collaborated. That's what's disturbing about your edits, that you try to leave out these dark sides.

In 2012, many prominent Lithuanian intellectuals protested his glorification. Let me quote: As acting prime minister, Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis cannot avoid responsibility for its activities. Documents of the time show that the Provisional Government led by Ambrazavicius-Brazaitis did not distance itself from the pro-Nazi policies actively supported by Kazys Skirpa’s Lithuanian Activist Front. Moreover, the Provisional Government declared its willingness to contribute to the organization of Europe on “New Foundations”as formulated by Nazi Germany. It is worth recalling that the Provisional Government identified as “enemies” even some members of Lithuania’s intelligentsia, for example, some of the faculty of Vytautas Magnus University. A government which consigned an entire class of its citizenry to discrimination and persecution, and then subsequently failed to defend it from mass killings conducted by an occupying power and those collaborating with it, cannot properly claim to be defending freedom. ([7]) Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have just realised that your view is that even the leaders of the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance, let alone its members, were all Nazi collaborators. With such a distorted view, no wonder you think that anything I write about Lithuania in WW2 is obscuring the history of Lithuanian collaboration during WWII. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Seconding City of Silver's concern that we not allow an IBAN to be used in a way that would allow Nazi whitewashing to proceed unobstructed. It does not seem like the right response to this situation, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And given that various other related topics (especially the intersection of Poland and the Nazis) are subject to ArbCom CTOP provisions, maybe the ultimate solution here is a WP:ARCA request for a scope expansion to include Lithuania, or even include all of Eastern Europe, as they relate to the Nazis. This seems to be a situation of "We put a stop to whitewashing and related disruption about the Nazis in one country, so the PoV pushers have simply jumped ship to a neighboring country instead."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent post, @SMcCandlish. A similar trend, starting in the 2010s, could be seen in the German wiki, where it was quite cumbersome to disprove/undo such disruptions, especially since there were not enough active (and knowledgable) wiki editors/authors who could brush off the POV pushers in that particular section of (Eastern Europe's) WWII collaboration history, despite the availablity of proper German source material and publications. Some of the articles were butchered and morphed into stubs, others barely left the stub range. A lot of the arguments stem from the fact that most of the members of the LAF's Berlin branch (the LAF was formed in Berlin in 1940) consisted of Lithuanian immigrants and former Lithuanian diplomats whose political orientations had morphed from a left-leaning orientation into an anti-communist or even plain Nazi-aligned right-wing view of things, which included the wish that a strong Hitler-esque Lithuanian leader should take power, while the majority of the LAF members in Lithuanian cities kept their leftist orientation. Due to the lack of communication between those two groups, there was no ideological dialogue/discussion. The Lithuanian exile government (which fled to Germany in 1940) was informed about the German plans to invade the USSR before the invasion started. In Lithuania, underground units of the LAF collaborated with the German Abwehr, they also cooperated/coordinated with other German intelligence branches and they carried out sabotage missions for the Germans.

While it's true that the SS was rather unsuccessful in Lithuania with its attempts to find a sufficient amount of Lithuanian volunteers for their regional Waffen-SS units (only every 5th candidate agreed to go to the medical inspections) and while this is often emphasized by POV pushers, the SS still formed and deployed a number of Lithuanian paramilitary auxiliary units and police battalions, though, where some of them helped to carry out the Holocaust (being attached to the Einsatzgruppen). 12 Lithuanian police battalions (485 men) commanded by Major Antanas Impulevicius left a bloody trail in Belarus, where they burned down several dozen villages. If I am not mistaken, the "Research Center of genocide and resistance" in Vilnius agrees that his units killed more than 20,000 civilians in Belarus. The duties of the auxiliary units and police units ranged from police and security duties to actual participation in mass executions. After the Germans had pushed back the Soviets, returning (and formerly exiled) Lithuanian police officers took over key positions in the Lithuanian Sicherheitspolizei (security police), which became an integral part of the German extermination machinery in Lithuania. One should mention that there was passive and even active resistance and willingness to actively help/hide jews, as well, the Jewish Museum in Vilnius lists almost 1,000 saviors who protected and saved Jewish victims. GeeGee (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have more knowledge about the topic than many here, but you do make mistakes nonetheless. I am certain that there was no Lithuanian government-in-exile, although I know there was a lot of discussion about creating that in 1940. There was no Lithuanian Waffen-SS unit, but I am aware of individual Lithuanians serving in the Latvian Waffen-SS. I'm not sure what you mean by the SS "still formed" in Lithuania, because the closest that got it was the Schutzmannschaft (auxiliary police), but I've never seen them ever be considered as SS units in any academic literature I have ever read so far. Also, there weren't twelve separate battalions led by Impulevičius, but he led only the 12th Battalion. I am also grateful that you do not deny the existence of passive resistance in Lithuania like the accuser Marcelus seemingly does. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the post on my tablet which gives me a hard time to zoom in (to catch typos or omissions) when I enter text, so I had to deal with ultra small fonts. It should say "The 12th Lithiuanian Police Battalion", of course, since 12 Bns with 485 men (which I indicated in my reply) would just resemble skeleton units, means just 12 Bn HQs and a number of NCOs (= ~40 men) per Bn without any line units, which wasn't the case, obviously.

According to document finds in the German Federal Military Archive (BA MA : RH19/III) in the 2000s, the SS tried to form a (possibly regimental-sized) Lithuanian SS unit ("legion") in February 1944, for which 3,500 men (volunteers) had completed the medical inspections and had been rated to be fit for service (in the Waffen-SS). The documents also indicated, that those volunteers were reassigned to Wehrmacht replacment Bns (to receive infantry training and to be sent to Wehrmacht field units) instead, as the plan to raise a Lithuanian SS unit was dropped.

In turn, the Schutzmannschaften, initially formed and employed by local Wehrmachtsbefehlshaber (plural) (= WBF, commanders of the Wehrmacht's individual territorial military district administrations) as auxiliary police, were taken over, expanded and then integrated in the SS' and Ordnungspolizei's command structure by Himmler himself, making the Schutzmannschaften an integral part of the German police (OrPo) and security police (SiPo) regime in the occupied Eastern European countries. Since the Schutzmannschaften were integrated in/attached to the Ordnungspolizei/Sicherheitspolizei, they were subordinated to Himmler (via the Hauptamt of the Ordnungspolizei/General Daluege). The Hauptamt Ordnungspolizei was one of eleven SS-Hauptämter that were directly subordinated to Himmler. So, while the German Ordnungspolizei and its auxiliary units in the occupied countries weren't Waffen-SS units (and not even part of the "Allgemeine" SS = General SS) technically/officially, they were both fully controlled by the SS command structure, means by the Commander of the Ordnungspolizei General Daluege and his superior SS-Reichsführer Himmler. Himmler/the SS (via Daluege) formed and expanded a number of police Bns in Lithuania.

The Schutzmannschaften's uniform policy evolved from civilian clothing with armbands (1941) to a mix of captured Soviet and Baltic military and police uniforms and armbands with "Im Dienste der Deutschen Polizei" (=serving the German police) or "Im Dienste der Sicherheitspolizei" (=serving the security police) lettering in late 1941, to old black SS uniforms (discarded by the SS) in 1942. In April 1943, most fully established units were issued new uniforms, which were German Ordnungspolizei uniforms with localized changes (eg. different uniform collars in Ukraine and Belarus, etc.).

While there were Lithuanians who had joined the Waffen-SS ranks individually, the vast majority of Lithuanian volunteers (and draftees later on) was incorporated into the ranks of the Wehrmacht. GeeGee (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• If Cukrakalnis had edited like this at the articles of Polish historical figures whose biographies are more or less analogous to Ambrazevičius's and Polekauskas's, they'd have been pretty quickly ushered off that topic area and possibly the whole project. (If C doesn't respond to this by yet again making the extremely disputable claim that these men weren't collaborators, it'll only because they realized that this very sentence you're reading right now is me trying to bait them into proving me right.) Accordingly, I'd support such an amendment request from User:SMcCandlish. I know this site tends not to favor preventative sanctions so I'd also support, as a second preference, a request for an amendment that simply adds Lithuania to the ArbCom decision that designated antisemitism in Poland a contentious topic.

Two things. One, the expert-level insidiousness over at German Wikipedia that User:GeeGee highlighted here is awfully foreboding. Two, we now have clear proof that the sort of editing that was stopped by making antisemitism in Poland a CTOP will be transferred by bad actors to very similar articles that aren't "in Poland," so to speak. These two things convinced me that SMcCandlish's request, even though an amendment changing the CTOP designation from "antisemitism in Poland" to "antisemitism in Eastern Europe" would be a massive scope increase, isn't particularly controversial and ought to be granted before we're back here with the same problem regarding articles about collaborators from Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc. City of Silver 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bizzare that antisemitism itself apparently isn't a CTOP JM (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that amendment, too. City of Silver 22:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Or even racism and prejudice against particular ethnicities; we also have "race and intelligence" and some other relevant areas as CTOPs. However, the size of the scope expansion would be a stumbling block, so just asking for an expansion to cover Lithuania (and then later some other country, as necessary) is probably the better strategy, until the scope has basically grown to cover most of Eastern Europe. I will say, though, that to get even that done, the evidence is going to have to be based on en.wikipedia diffs of disruptive activity, not arguments about what really happened in the 1940s or about what's going on at other wikis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Good luck passing that, it would make a lot of editors very angry. 2603:7000:CF0:9E10:DC49:8543:2157:D09E (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a request to add Lithuania to the scope. It seems like the best way of highlighting that some sources try to downplay Nazi collaboration, without the (presumably) more demanding requirements of expanding the scope to all of Eastern Europe. TROPtastic (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not convinced there is Nazi whitewashing going on here. I've been trying hard to stay out of this, but here it is again.

Marcelus simply cannot leave Cukrakalnis alone, and has an extremely strong internalized historical narrative that Poles are not antisemites/collaborators, it's those other people, the Lithuanians in this case. He will not listen any other historical narrative or look at any other than his own preferred sources. The last time I tried, he dismissed them as "French stuff", presumably because that is where I have worked, but Hoffman is an American political scientist, assuming nationality actually matters, which I question. I don't know the citizenships of the other authors I cited, because I personally don't consider that a criterion. I am not necessarily advocating the correctness of Cukrakalnis' historical narrative either, mind you; I haven't investigated it. I have tried to work on other parts of World War II where I don't have as steep a learning curve.

Cukrakalnis has really taken a lot more abuse than he should have had to, however. Is he not entitled to a civil working environment like everyone else? I don't think I know about all of it, either, because I am not specifically tracking it. I got involved in a similar post at AE and challenged Marcelus to provide even one source that said Cukrakalnis was wrong on the facts, and he did not. Is that a sign of a problem with his facts or simply his usual IDHT? You decide. He has skated a few times now, possibly once because I said I needed his help cleaning up Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, definitely twice or possibly more because he agreed to be mentored by @Piotrus:. The problem there is that Marcelus is absolutely convinced of the correctness of his facts and doesn't consult Piotrus. So that's not working.

I am I guess somewhat involved: I know all three of these editors from the article I mentioned above. I asked to be left out of this forever war because I find it distressing, but in the AE case HJ Mitchell sanctioned CukraKalnis, who is in my opinion a victim of hounding. It wasn't necessarily a *bad* decision, since Cukrakalnis lost his temper first, but every time I see this stuff on the noticeboards and look into it, the pattern is always that Cukrakalnis was minding his business in Lithuania and Marcelus came in waving Polish sources outraged about Nazi something something. And every time I try to discern the problem by attempting to restate it, he is always all you know nothing Jon Snow, because this is Poland. Which is exactly the sort of toxicity that got us the Holocaust in Poland case. Things are better in that topic area now that GizzyCatBella, who was notorious for this, has been indeffed, and I would be prepared --indeed have tried -- to let this go on behalf of someone who did indeed help make the article I was working on at least somewhat better.

But he keeps bringing wikiproceedings against an equally knowledgeable and far more collegial editor on the basis of facts that he cannot or will not explain. He just knows things, but this is wikipedia and we don't say that Trump won the last election because an editor just knows that.

Marcelus should have an i-ban against interacting with Cukrakalnis at a minimum and has absolutely no business in any article that involves Lithuania in World War II. I have hesitated to recommend a topic ban before this because it is so closely linked to Poland, but it isn't as though people haven't tried to talk to him, and the last time I tried he told me rather emphatically that he didn't want me to explain anything to him. Piotrus may have had a little more luck but sounded discouraged the last time we talked about this. I pinged him above, let's see what he says before we do anything.Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I know this might seem like it runs afoul of the non-content-disputes-at-ANI rule but go with me on this. @Elinruby: were Petras Polekauskas and Juozas Ambrazevičius Nazis and/or Nazi collaborators? I know you said you ''haven't investigated" Cukrakalnis's stance on this but I promise, whatever your answer to this question, it'll give your message here more clarity. City of Silver 00:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A little more context, not specifically about this dispute, but necessary background: Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is one of those mentioned by Jan Grabowski, who was completely correct in what he said about the Poland section.

I managed to get that corrected by the time of the Arbcom case but was twice reverted and much vilified as I made that happen. I believe Arbcom erred in limiting the scope of the case to Poland, because among other big howling problems with the article's balance was a massive insertion of completely unsourced, and, I found, utterly unsourceable material, into sections about other countries. I could find only one reference for a certain "collaborationist" unit, which said it only ever existed on paper, for example. The references in the Jewish collaboration section failed verification across the board.

I read articles in the "Collaborators" category looking for material about countries that had only very superficial coverage, and found that approximately a third of my sample were about service members who had been tried for collaboration and acquitted. Maybe that is enough to give the flavor of the topic area. At some point one or more editors was very invested in applying a Nazi label to anything remotely connected, and removing it from others, "because the lead of the article", like that is a good reason. I will answer any questions, but meanwhile urge admins not to be too quick to call an editor antisemitic for correcting actual mischaracterizations. Quite a bit more went on in Ukraine in World War II than Stefan Bandera, to give another example, but you would never know it from some of our articles.

(ec) @City of Silver: ask Piotrus He has been exposed to the Polish version of history also, but is an honest academic who is capable of examining his beliefs. I would have to look them up and really did not have the time to do as much writing as I have just done == I have vastly overdue RL problems biting my ankles but was afraid this would come to what I am pretty sure would be the wrong outcome before I cam back. If this is still open when I so I will give you my take. Marcelus' seems to be that if someone had any interaction with the Germans, voluntarily or not, then they are a "collaborationist". (Scare quotes because I believe that's a misuse of the word, but that's a side issue.) Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Let me be clear that I'm umimpressed with Marcelus's behavior, both in this thread and overall regarding this matter, and I won't be surprised if when the dust from this settles they get sanctioned too. The concern I'm trying to address, and it's the one that got this thread started and has been brought up over and over in it, is the possibility that accurate information was removed from those two articles because it reflects badly on those articles' subjects. This message that Ostalgia left a few days ago convinced me that that's what happened. If I'm wrong, so be it! I'll say so and take my lumps. But if I'm right, the answer to your question, "Is he not entitled to a civil working environment like everyone else", is absolutely no, they deserve nothing of the sort. City of Silver 01:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that you think it's self-evident, but seriously? I really can't be sure from these articles. Discussion here seems to have proceeded with that as a given, but it really isn't demonstrated in these articles unless, perhaps, you speak Lithuanian, but to do the machine translate thing I'd need to be less tired and on an OS supported by the Google Translate interface. Lithuanian is acceptable, though English is better, just not helpful at the moment.

Let's put it this way: If Polekauskas gave his trainee unit an order to massacre civilians, then he is a war criminal. Cukrakalnis, who may have heard of him before yesterday, seems to think that he is. If he spent significant time in the German military before those events, especially doing in the SS doing deportations or the like, sure, I would support Nazi, and that would make him a collaborator also. Ambrazevičius is harder. A lot depends on whether they went in expecting to be liberated from the Soviets, and the way to determine that is whether we can cite that to a respectable source. But hat was the case in quite a few other countries also; Burma comes to mind and also Ukraine and several of the principalities of what is now Yugoslavia. The LAF possibly might also be Nazis, collaborators or war criminals regardless, depending on how much authority they had and what they did with it. It seems likely that at a minimum they were bureaucratic collaborators like the government of Belgium. At the time you were pretty much either in the resistance or a collaborator, at least in the business sense. Here is a guy who was both Joseph Joanovici. Marcelus posted a bunch of accusations below that I felt the need to respond to, or I would have expanded on this by now, but I would be happy to do that later on, at my talk page or yours.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Already in September 1941, Juozas Brazaitis attempted to collect signatures of eminent persons in protest of the killings of Jews. Brazaitis later became the central figure in the Catholic anti-Nazi resistance. ~ "Democracy, Culture, Catholicism: Voices from Four Continents" by Michael J. Schuck, John Crowley-Buck (2015)

Accusing an anti-Nazi resistance leader of being a collaborator seems absurd to me. But that is precisely what Marcelus is doing. In a more well-known country, people would recognize how wrong this is, but because of how niche WW2 Lithuania is, people easily believe inaccuracies. I'm able to write more elsewhere to clarify things and I'll refrain from writing another text wall here in this discussion.

Regarding Petras Polekauskas, my edits were that he should be categorized as Category:War criminals instead of Category:Nazi war criminals and remove Category:Nazis who committed suicide in the United States, because he wasn't a Nazi Party member. The question of whether he was or wasn't a collaborator wasn't raised. Either way, being a Nazi is not a necessary precondition for collaboration and not all collaborators are Nazis. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(one foot out the door) I am in favor of accuracy. I would prefer to comment on as few editors as possible in this thread but if wikipedia editors want to call people Nazis, then the sources should reflect that. Calling someone a collaborator when a court has found them not guilty of that is a misreading of DUE and CONTEXTMATTERS, If the thread is open when I come back I will make my best attempt at a thoughtful answer to your question. It will be at least six or seven hours and maybe a full day. Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope it's ok to insert a short note/example here: @Elinruby There are a few Dutch Nazi collaborators who were trialed and convicted in the Netherlands after the war, but who then fled to West Germany and were either trialed and acquitted or even never trialed in Germany. Quite a few German Nazis and civilian collaborators (various nationalities, including Germans) were trialed and found not guilty in German courts, as there were still Nazi judges or even cliques in the German judiciary, but trialed and/or found guilty decades later. Until the late 60s (or even later), many trials in West Germany failed or produced acquittals. One of the reasons was based in the political decision (early 1950s) that many of the Nazi judges had to be kept in the workforce, in order to avoid the collapse of the German judicial system (but in some cases also because of their strong anti-communist stances). With the developing Cold War, the new gov. focused on fighting communism and handling the Cold War. During the Allied denazification (until 1949), 2.5 million Germans were classified, 54% of them were classified as sympathizers/followers, but only 1.4% of them ended up to be classified as "main offenders" or "offenders", often due to the lack of incriminating documents/witnesses, or because the governments needed their expertise (eg. in newly formed army or intelligence branches). So, an acquittal does not mean that someone wasn't an offender or collaborator, respectively, it also does not mean, that an early supporter/collaborator could not have morphed into someone who actively opposed a given regime (or the other way around). GeeGee (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the comment is referring to regarding the courts and their sentences for collaboration. As far as Ambrazevičius is concerned, the view that he was cleared by the U.S. court is false. His case was simply closed due to his death, without any concrete decisions having been made. Besides, relying on court rulings should not be decisive for us. These courts often issued verdicts under the influence of current politics: clearing Nazi collaborators who chose to cooperate with the regime, or accusing political opponents of the regime who had nothing to do with collaboration. The decisive for us are, of course, secondary RS. Marcelus (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Once again you are directing completely unfounded accusations in my direction, wanting to show me in the worst possible light. I've already let it go by the wayside several times, but I'm not going to tolerate it any longer, as it damages my good name and reputation. In view of this, I ask that you respond:

• Can you provide any examples that I have extremely strong internalized historical narrative that Poles are not antisemites/collaborators? Please provide specific examples of my statements, edits in this spirit, etc. I find this allegation completely unfounded
• I got involved in a similar post at AE and challenged Marcelus to provide even one source that said Cukrakalnis was wrong on the facts, and he did not; this is completely untrue. My literal response to you from the last AE: Let me quote a Lithuanian researcher Justina Smalkyté: The Local Force (Litauische Sonderverbände, Vietine ̇rinktine)̇ , set up in the spring of 1944 by the Nazis, was another collaborationist military formation with a distinctively Lithuanian character, which, unlike the auxiliary police battalions, did not participate in the mass murder of Jews. You insist on using the distinction that one researcher has proposed for Vichy, and completely ignore the nomenclature used by researchers dealing with Lithuanian collaboration. And not Polish researchers, which is what a lot of people strenuously try to impute to me, that I represent "official Polish historiography," in fact I very rarely reach for Polish researchers. (link) I hope you simply forgot about this comment of mine or missed it, and not simply want to mislead those reading this.
• the pattern is always that Cukrakalnis was minding his business in Lithuania and Marcelus came in waving Polish sources outraged about Nazi something something; please name those "Polish sources" that I waved in this or any previous instances. Each time, I reach for the widest possible range of sources, not excluding, in fact, reaching primarily for texts by Lithuanian historians, on topics concerning Lithuania.
• But he keeps bringing wikiproceedings against an equally knowledgeable and far more collegial editor on the basis of facts that he cannot or will not explain; another baseless claim, in this very discussion I explained and provided sources why I think Cukrakalnis changes were disruptive.

If you are unable to substantiate any of these above accusations with diffs I will consider it an attempt at casting aspersion on your part on me. Let me just remind you, that contrary to what you claim I know all three of these editors from the article I mentioned above. I asked to be left out of this forever war because I find it distressing in fact you have been blocked from editing that page for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: Contentious topic restriction, per ANI discussions"([8]). You also received two logged warnings before for personal attacks and casting aspersion. Something very similiar to what you are doing now towards me.Marcelus (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice wall of text, guy. That is not what I was talking about. City of Silver asked me if these guys were Nazis AND/or collaborators. I was writing a background with some examples when they asked thatand after the edit conflict I pointed them to the background section as I ran out the door.

I think I have addressed all of the places where you said I was misrepresenting you or didn't understand the history, but if not if not let me know. Piotrus' post reminds me -- I am not sure whether I got around to telling you that a translation with the credit properly given on the talk page is not plagiarism, but if not that is another piece of ABF you are wrong about also.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

translation with the credit properly given on the talk page is not plagiarism, can you qoute appropiate policy or guideline? Marcelus (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll reply briefly, since I am somewhat busy. First, it is true that mediation is not working as Marcelus is not asking me for advice (but arguably neither is Cukrakalnis, who IMHO needs a mentor as well, and perhaps even more, considering their block history - and IIRC didn't they had another account before?). Second, I am not familiar much with most of the current disputes between Marcelus and Cukrakalnis, but I am reasonably familiar with the general topic area (Polish-Lithuanian WWII relations and histories of both countries in WWII), and I am also familiar with the respective historigraphies. Further, I am familiar with Wikipedia history here, which in the past has seen what I'd consider significant POV pushing from both sides, and yes, with Lithuanian narrative related to minimizing the scope of collaboration with the Nazis (similar to the better known Ukrainian stance; similar issues also exist in the Polish historiography...). From my limited interactions with Cukrakalnis I got the impression that they are partial towards the nationalist Lithuanian historiography (which I think is also more or less the mainstream Lithuanian historiography, like Ukrainian but unlike Polish, where I think there is more of a debate between two sides). Anyway, I agree with those who say that an interaction ban or sanction on Marcelus could result in promoting of non-neutral version of history (which some refer to above as "Nazi whitewashing", although that term is soemwhat loaded, to say the least). However, I have not conducted a review of Cukrakalnis' editing to have an opinion right now on whether any sanction is warranted. Whether this is handled by ANI, AE or bumped to ArbCom, I do think something needs to be done, as those two editors keep locking horns. Perhaps topic banning them both from Lithuanian history would solve this for now in terms of giving us peace and quiet, but I am not sure if it would be fair to either party, as it is possible one editor here is trying to make content more neutral, and another, less. But again, I have not reviewed this in detail, and my views might be colored by my past experienced and background (disclaimer: I am Polish). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't address you first on this issue. My understanding of mentorship was that it mainly concerns the issue of reverts, avoiding edit wars. Since I explicitly rejected the possibility of making reverts in this case, and instead reporting on the appropriate noticeboard, due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, I felt that mentorship was not necessary in this. Marcelus (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus It's good you are staying away from reverts and in tha dimension, I guess the mentorship is working, if it reminds you about not reverting. But I would generally also advice you to ask me before posting any complaint at an admin board, or commenting on another editor (here, Cukrakalnis). It is generlly better to focus on creating content and doing stuff that does not involve commenting on others, even if their editing is less than ideal. If you ask me for advice, I may be able to look into this and offer a somewhat more detached perspective, although as I also said, I am sadly busy these days. Anyway, for now, I'd suggest looking into WP:RFC. If you and Cukrakalnis cannot agree on something, before taking one another to AN(I) or such, how about trying to get more comments from neutral parties through that system? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that we are not dealing with a content dispute, but it is about the harmful conduct of Cukrakalnis, so the RFC would not help much. The situation is similar with @Elinruby, who threw accusations in my direction without any evidence or basis. I'm waiting a few more days, if they can't back them up then I'll also report their behavior to ANI with a request for sanctions. Marcelus (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a content dispute that should not even be on this noticeboard and Marcelus has not proven that my conduct is in any way harmful. Marcelus' statement constitutes a Wikipedia:PERSONALATTACK, because he just accused me in his comment without providing any evidence in the form of diffs and links. Just another piece of evidence for an IBAN between us.

I was following Wikipedia policy by removing an unsourced accusation that Brazevičius-Brazaitis was a war criminal when no source nor content in the article supported that. In Petras Polekauskas, I changed Category:Nazi war criminals to Category:War criminals, because nothing in the article called the man a Nazi.

Is me following Wikipedia:Verifiability and removing unsourced material & categories somehow me trying to "obscure the history of Lithuanian collaboration during WWII"? Clearly not. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You are again saying untruths. Diffs are in my initial comment, they show what you removed, I won't repeat myself here. I don't know who are you trying to fool, your actions confirm only that there are serious problems with your conduct, both in the content area and on the talk pages and noticeboards. Marcelus (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again you are directing completely unfounded accusations in my direction, wanting to show me in the worst possible light, which damages my good name and reputation. What I said is true and you did not prove that my conduct was harmful nor that my statements were "untruths". Repeating such groundless statements seems to me to be a case of Wikipedia:PERSONALATTACK and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions towards me.

Removing unsourced and inaccurate material, which is what we are supposed to do according to Wikipedia guidelines, is not harmful. That is what I did. Removing an accusation that Juozas Ambrazevičius was a war criminal when nothing in the article supported that - that was the correct action. Removing categories about Nazis from Petras Polekauskas, where he is not called a Nazi not even once in the article - that was the correct action. You are making a WP:STRAWMAN by accusing me of groundless things - and that action meets the description of WP:BULLY. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We are here because Marcelus has an issue with Cukrakalnis removing war criminal responsible for the murder of Jews as a characterizatotion from the lede of an article where the claim is not only uncited but appears nowhere in the body. (is there a way to check whether we know the IP who put the uncited text there November 28?}

• Yet you are lecturing me about RS as a result of misunderstanding something I said to someone else, while accusing me of mischaracterizing your editing. Let me spell it out: The articles just don't say almost anything of the kind. The removal was completely in line with policy and the article as it now stands. If you feel this strongly that he was a war criminal, then provide some sources that support adding that, or just add the text and source yourself.
  • By the way, that talk page hasn't been edited in eight years. I get that usually there is only Cukrakalnis, but have you considers DRN or NPOV or RSN?
• Speaking of a source, it seems that Petras Polekauskas was the commander of the 258th Lithuanian Police Battalion, the subject of the AE case I described above, brought to AE by you because you wanted the infobox to say that the unit's allegiance was to Germany.
  • I asked you to source this and you did not.
  • 258th Lithuanian Police Battalion still does not have a source for this, or any new sources either for that matter.
  • Talk:Petras Pauskas has not been edited in a couple of months
• This personification of deja vu all over again comes not even two weeks after you were warned about RECIDIVISM in the close of your November 28th appeal, WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356#Marcelus_0RR_appeal_(now_restored_more_times_than_the_House_of_Bourbon)
  • I still don't understand why this is so important to you. The 258th existed for three months.
• I wasn't going to mention the above bit of irony, since I think we aren't supposed to bludgeon people with their block logs, and yours would fell an elephant. You really want to cast aspersions about mine? But since you bring up sanctions in your screed above...I can't even find the one care where you talked yourself into your first 0RR
  • I mention that sanction simply because actually, I agree that in that case that user was badgering you. I got the interaction ban (not warning) because the editor told an admin that I was stalking and harassing them, and the admin didn't bother to check ah interaction report, because of course anyone defending you must in fact really be hounding people.
  • You really should include that part if you are going to keep bringing this up. I pinged you from her page and you thanked me for saying something, sp presumably you know this, and if not, you do know it now. It's on the admin's talk page, go look. I'll get to the other stuff you were trying to deflect with below, because really, block logs are not the point here, yours or mine.
• Yet you are convinced enough of the correctness of your thinking to put up a huge blockquote of a passing mention of "auxiliary police battalions", apparently that long to also support "collaborationist". Try again. A source with at least a paragraph or two about this specific unit.
  • I don't "insist" that you are wrong to use that word. I said parenthetically that I thought you were misusing the word, and moved on. Speaking of misrepresentation. It is, as I said above, a side issue.
  • But since you've doubled down on this, no. No, it is not "used in Lithuanian sources". I mean, good job finding one that does, because I have actually done several literature searches since then specifically on this point, and I know how hard you would have had to look. I did find one other useage about China once, where it was more or less used correct in a metaphorical sense, but mmmyeah, these facts just don't match even if you cite that the unit did collaborate.
• I am unconvinced, but a source would go a long way towards convincing me that they did. I'm under the impression that they didn't exist as a unit long enough to get out of training, though. I mean, a source. It's not an unreasonable request.
  • Nobody, neither I nor Cukrakalnis, is saying that none of the police unite were involved in the killing; I said that the last time we had one of these happy lrttle chats. The 12th and 13th battalions were for sure, I gather. Assuming that this is your basis for the Nazi label you are trying to apply to its commander. Just source it. Let's see. what else?
• "forever war" was a reference to you and Cukrakalnis on noticeboards. We never did have an edit war at Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The page block you mentioned? With the baffling rationale? **Tuff to say, but that admin later indeffed herself, so who knows.
  • The original complaint was that I was talking on the talk page and asking the opinions of other editors. Isn't wikipedia fun?
  • What he told her was that I "making everything about him". It did yes, become about him when he interrupted dicussions tp object to talk on the talk page for the umpteenth time, which we'd been ignoring for months, shrug...
  • Apparently she thought I was preventing him from editing, but that editor doesn't edit. Tumbleweeds over there ever since.
  • I had previously gotten a logged warning for trying to report the same editor for the same behaviour, although I did go about that the wrong way wrong at that time, so that one makes a lot more sense. I guess there is a limited menu of block rationales on the software? And "annoying" is not an option?
• that allegation you feel is unfounded? Hey, given the above I am sympathetic. What *is* your basis for a thinking you are right about these pages?
• I have not investigated why these pages are the way the are, but *somebody* needs to fix them. Many many sources exist in English, despite the claims of the parties. I am going to add the list I compiled last night to the bibliography; nowhere near exhaustive, but maybe it will help with that.
  • Provisional Government of Lithuania is apparently the basis for calling Juozas Ambrazevičius a collaborator, although you can't tell that from our article about him. It is a sea of citation needed.
  • The sparse English-language sources don't begin to approach the standard I am used to, something to keep in mind for those who want to add Lithuanania to the Arbcom decision.
  • I support this proposal, by the way, because it would cut down on all the unsourced "whitewashing Nazis" stuff that goes on. Do Ukraine also please,because it needs it even worse, and people are gettimg killed there over this.

Actually I guess the proposal was anti-semitism. I am not against that necessarily, though I am unsure about the logistics of that. I think it should be Naziism.

• please name those "Polish sources" that I waved in this or any previous instances. Each time, I reach for the widest possible range of sources, not excluding, in fact, reaching primarily for texts by Lithuanian historians, on topics concerning Lithuania. -- Actually I was being polite. I am not seeing evidence of sources, except for for the one that isn't RS on the off-topic rant about collaborationist. You claim you provide sources, but you don't. Oh and I found another, probably primary or if not kinda sketchy and maybe not RS. That open letter did happen though I think, so all you need there is a better source

It's late, I am tired. If I missed one of the aspersions about the aspersions you think I am casting Marcelus, please ping me and I will address tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just me, but in my opinion your statement is completely incomprehensible. It looks more like something like a stream of consciousness than an answer to fairly simple questions.

From what I am able to understand, you are incapable of supporting with any examples or diffs any of the accusations made against me. What's more, you yourself undermine them, admitting that I use sources and not exclusively Polish ones. But of course suddenly "facts just don't match even if you cite that the unit did collaborate".

From what I am able to understand. You are making new allegations such as you wanted the infobox to say that the unit's allegiance was to Germany. I asked you to source this and you did not. This is patently untrue as anyone who reads the discussion page of the Talk:258th Lithuanian Police Battalion article will know. There you can find my comments in which I cite sources supporting the proposed changes.

What's more, in this discussion you deleted my comments ([9], [10]). Which in itself is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Moreover, you did this knowing that I have 0RR, so it is legitimate to assume that you did this to incite me to break the restrictions imposed on me.

In view of all the above facts, I ask you to voluntarily stop interacting with me, engaging in discussion started by me etc. Your attitude towards me, the way you address me (even in this discussion "Nice wall of text, guy"), the number of untruths you spread towards about me I consider at this point a form of bullying and harassment.

If you do not declare such a will I will be forced to ask the administrators to impose such a restriction.

I would appreciate other participants in the discussion to take a stand. Marcelus (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - this discussion has reached a point in which its absolute unwieldiness, incoherence and antagonistic character virtually guarantees that no administration will touch it with a 10 foot pole, and even if they do, it's likely that no decision will be taken, because nobody is going to go through the effort of reading through this mess. Whatever merit was to Marcelus's complaint (and I believe there may be some), to Cukrakalnis's attempts to present his case, and to the attempts to amend current regulations on editing in this area, it is all now obscured by a series of ramblings and counter-ramblings. Given the fact that the discussion involves a group of experienced editors, it is particularly unfortunate and disappointing that this has been the outcome. On the very slim chance that an admin does decide to go through the mud looking for the gold nuggets that may or may not be found here, may I propose everyone take a break, calm down, and stop clogging this section? Personal comments and one-on-one discussions can be continued in the talk page(s) of each user (s). Ostalgia (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think the best resolution is the one suggested earlier, to expand CTOP to include Lithuania. Then any further violations can be dealt with swiftly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  For my part, you can consider that the conversation with @Elinruby is over. I don't intend to continue it here or anywhere other than my reporting them for WP:NOPA, WP:BULLY and WP:ASPERSIONS. Certain level was reached. Marcelus (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: I was actually considering a Village Pump post about that, except that I think it should be Eastern Europe, and should specifically mention a boomerang for this kind of baseless complaint. Can we discuss that on your talk page maybe? I said Naziism above but that might be as hard to demonstrate as anti-semitism, come to think of it.
• @Ostalgia: you are at ANI saying there is some basis for a claim of antisemitism. I suggest you provide some evidence or withdraw that
• @Marcelus: Just provide a source and use a talk page when you want someone to make a change. I am ignoring the new raft of misrepresentations and accusations in the interest of focus, but really?

All of this is because you can't or won't provide a source. Calling it "bullying" to ask for a source is just as disingenous as the rest of this thread. Just. Source. Your. Assertions. Elinruby (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby, you don't need to "suggest" anything. Days before you joined the discussion here I had already posted this comment. In fact, this diff (correctly attributed to me) has also been cited in reply to you. I was willing to be sympathetic in spite of your hot tempered outbursts because I knew you had previous history with Marcelus, but you really, really need to step back, calm down, and especially drop the inquisitorial tone when you are the one seemingly not paying attention to the discussion. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers to you. I am not even slightly upset and don't have a history with Marcelus apart from asking HJ Mitchell not to topic ban him.[11] It's true I came into the discussion late, but not all of us hang out on the drama boards, and I am here because a bunch of editors are discussing sanctions for an editor followed policy. It seems you got that far into the thread without noticing that. Now if you want to say I just have a grudge against Marcelus, where is your evidence of that? Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You posted a rambling, hard to follow 10k comment where half the links are red because of typos - you'll excuse me for thinking that you may need to calm down. If you actually paid attention to what I wrote in the comment that prompted you to ping me, you would also have noticed that I pointed out how this mud slinging contest also obscured Cukrakalnis's attempts to defend himself, to which he is entitled, and if you had read what I originally posted, I also a) pointed to the fact of Marcelus and Cukrakalnis being involved in a long-running dispute as being at least as worrying as the issue being reported, b) didn't advocate for sanctions for Cukrakalnis at that point, although I found his behaviour to be sub-par, and c) suggested that this was going to end up with both editors being blocked for their bickering, which I wouldn't like to see. Finally, if I wanted to say that you have a grudge against Marcelus, I would have said that you have a grudge against Marcelus. Instead, what I said is that you have history with Marcelus, because a couple of months ago I participated in a discussion at AE involving these two in which you too participated, and you had direct exchanges with Marcelus. Again, drop the inquisitorial tone, particularly if you're not even going to pay attention to what's being said. At this point your entire contribution has constituted of casting aspersions, asking needlessly aggressive questions, and bludgeoning the discussion while ignoring what is being said. Consider this my final reply to you here, as this contributing to your derailing of whatever was being discussed. You can write on my talk page if you want. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I may do that, because I'd actually like some input from you on the proposal to widen the Arbcom case to WW2 Eastern Europe in general. Since (someone correct me if I am wrong) only Cukrakalnis works on WW2 Lithuania, it would be silly to limit any expansion to that country when other countries also badly need it. Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Serbia come to mind. And while I know that you and I were generally on opposing sides in the war crimes area of the Ukraine war, I think you'll agree that sourcing requirements could only help with the huge amount of misinformation in the topic area.

I have posted a list of suggested sources on the talk pages of each article by the way, if anyone is interested in doing something constructive about these two articles.

Meanwhile you've added a whole other list of aspersions against me for me to ignore. Thanks for that. It started out as not a bad answer then degenerated into a bunch of adjectives. And no doubt any refutation will be as rambling as the aspersions. I don't think I should be quiet, actually. because the last time I did that and just took care of RL, Cukrakalnis got a final warning for expressing his exasperation. I also don't think you should be the one to manage this thread.

I do agree with you that I was quite scathing at the AE case and bitterly disappointed to discover that an editor I respected and whose help I had actually solicited was making accusations he could not or would not substantiate and that this had been going on the whole time I was writing it off as "those guys" who can't agree on the WW2 history up there". But that is not my history with Marcelus anymore than Gitz vs Volunteer Marek is your history with me. I'll note in passing that Marcelus' account of those events differs considerably from mine, and cough contains some errors. But I am over that and quite calm in my assessment that he is not able to be neutral about Lithuania, since here he is again, doubling down on the same thing.

I don't think I did say that you personally accused Cukrakalnis of antisemitism, but the accusations at the top of the thread imply it and the discussion clearly uncritically accepted it. Oh and if somebody wants to discuss my typing at ANI, then maybe they should start a separate case for that. If that's a ridiculous suggestion, then maybe it demonstrates the folly of drawing conclusions from it about my state of mind. FYI I have some ongoing hardware issues that I normally correct for; on rare occasions this fails when I am pushing my physical limitations. I spent too much time on this issue the other night, it's true, but I submit that some of the people in this thread didn't spend anywhere near enough before they came to their conclusions.

Short and sweet here it is: the text Cukrakalnis removed from the lede does not reflect any content in the body of the article.Elinruby (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that Elinruby decided to continue posting here and removed my talk page attempt to get him to rectify, I am forced to post here to clarify that I have not once, ever, edited in the "war crimes area of the Ukraine war", so I cannot conceivably have been on "opposite sides" to Elinruby in any discussion there, I have not edited the page on Bucha either (which he suggests I did), and I have no idea of what is meant by "Gitz vs Volunteer Marek is your history with me". Elinruby is either being blatantly dishonest or, at best, very confused. (Edit: This interaction report shows how divorced from reality Elinruby's claims are) Ostalgia (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Dude. I was at least on topic. I know you are mad I "derailed this thread". If debunking an allegation derails a thread what does that say about the allegation? Not mention the care taken in the thread with remarks about editors? I am not required to obey you. Nor am I required to host bullshit on my talk page no matter how many times you post it there. I told you I would get back to you and I still will, because I said I would, in spite of the way yu are acting.

I've been working on the content issue that Marcelus has had the poor judgment to bring here, and to AE before this, and haven't had time to sift your huge pile of noticeboard posts over a point as silly as whether an ANI post about a topic is in the topic area. I did see that you have your own beef with VM.

But seriously? Why pray tell is it a slur to say you edited in the Russian war crimes area? Assuming it isn't so? I think it is, but why does this matter? My actual point was that surely we can get along anyway and adree that there is a lot of bullshit in the EE topic area, even if we are looking at different bullshit.

You're asking me to apologize for assuming you were capable of a rational and objective discussion on a point of policy even though you were, and still are, making outrageous accusations on the basis of no evidence. I am going to look at the evidence. All of it.[

Meanwhile, the history of the article Marcelus cites as evidence of malfeasance at the top of this post does show some fairly crude POV-pushing both for and against the idea that Lithuanians committed war crimes, although I did not see any recent sign of either him or Cukakralnis, on the surface, doing anything blatantly wrong.

Multiple sources say that 95% of the Jewish population was killed in a period of just a few months, so there are reasons for strong feeling. There is also universal agreement that the provisional government was set up in hopes the Germans would allow them the sort of autonomy afforded to Slovakia. Based on editing experience in the topic area, other countries also initially thought the Germans were freeing them from the Soviets so that makes sense. So :@City of Silver: updating my answer to your question, at a minimum, as the head of a wannabe puppet state he would be part of collaboration on the Belgian/Danish model. The article says in the body that the Germans immediately took jurisdiction over the Jewish and Polish populations, although haven't seen a source for that yet. I have added a couple of sentences about that government to the body now though, but the person who thought it was a good idea to add back to the lead, based on this thread, that he was a war criminal responsible for killing Jews, was wrong on policy at least and maybe on content too. The article didn't say anything about that government at all at the time and the way to fix that is with sources in the body first. I have however managed t explain two of the three different invasions and two of the organizations he headed, and if he voluntarily issued an order that resulted in a war crime I will find it, since apparently nobody else is going to do come to grips with this. It's been going on for a couple of years now. I am not saying he is not a war criminal, mind you. just that having read 12-15 academic sources I haven't found that yet. I am also having difficulty finding a high-quality source that the other guy even existed, or that regiment, but I need to break out the machine translation still. I imagine it may be out there; there are enough bad sources to support something of the kind.

Now I am going to go apologize to someone for taking so long to send that attachment I was going to send them right away just as soon as I turned my computer on.

PS: I would appreciate it if someone gave this thread a more neutral title, since in all of these words no evidence has been provided that this was at any point what he was doing. Then this mess should in my opinion be allowed to die a natural death, if not nuked from orbit for all of its personal aspersions.

PPS: As promised I left my best attempt at a neutral assessment of the article and its content on City of Silver's talk page, if anyone is interested in that Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion is completely unmanageable at this point.

1. Cukrakalnis edits at Juozas Ambrazevičius and Petras Polekauskas as described in the OP are very problematic. When combined with the history from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#Cukrakalnis it is even clearer there is a problem here.
2. The "final warning" in the above is pretty clear and it was given less than 45 days ago.
3. I agree with the position that Cukrakalnis should not be editing in this area and has earned a TBan from Nazism and Eastern Europe. I agree with comments re if this was Poland it would be an open and shut case.
4. I agree with Piotrus's comment on the potentially negative impact of an iban or sanction on Marcelus [12]. I can't see anything they have done that could merit a tban.
5. Strongly support SMcCandlish's suggestion for a scope expansion, particularly to include all of Eastern Europe as they relate to the Nazis.

If it is not possible to resolve this matter here, it should go to Arb for a resolution.  // Timothy :: talk  20:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: You're at least the fourth fifth person in this thread to support a scope expansion of some kind. I hope there's a more appropriate place for that discussion than the end of this mess but no matter what, it ought to happen. What's next? City of Silver 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. I think the Cukrakalnis situation would go to AE if it can't be resolved here and the scope change would be an amendment to the Poland case, but I'm not certain and don't know the process for either. I'm sure at the conclusion an admin with Arb xp can assist.  // Timothy :: talk  21:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Removing an unsourced accusation in the lede that Juozas Ambrazevičius was a war criminal when nothing in the article said that and removing categories about Nazis from Petras Polekauskas, where he's never called a Nazi, were correct actions. Why should I be TBanned for removing unsourced and inaccurate material, which is what we're supposed to do according to Wiki guidelines?

The final warning was unrelated to any content, it was about personally directed comments (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/October#AE result). Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You were warned because of problematic editing in this topic area. This is again about your problematic editing in the same topic area. The previous AE is relevant to this discussion. Your responses show a lack of understanding (willful or otherwise) of the problem, which is a significant issue when editing in a CT area.  // Timothy :: talk  22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's hope we get luckier with this attempt to get something out of this discussion. I tried it last time and all I got was aspersions and further bludgeoning of the thread.

I think Cukrakalnis's removal in the Ambrazevičius article was sub par as there are easily accessible English language sources describing him on such terms - it would've been better to gauge the credibility of the sources and add them than to remove the content. I think some leeway is in order, though, because Cukrakalnis being Lithuanian, his first hits on Google probably get him results in Lithuanian that are far kinder to Ambrazevičius (for the record, I Googled from a Vancouver IP). This being said, I am also not impressed by Cukrakalnis's uncritical trust in his Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia. Nevertheless, I do not think this rises to the level of requiring a TBAN, and we may stand to lose more than we gain from it. I would prefer not to see either Marcelus or Cukrakalnis blocked, as both can be productive, but we probably need to find a creative solution to this situation (maybe mentoring for both users this time, and short leashes?). If we settle on something then we might add a subheading under this mess to discuss/vote on it.

Finally, I do not disagree with the idea of extending restrictions to EEWWII, either, but this is not the venue for that, I'm afraid, nor do I know what the correct venue is. If we could open up a thread somewhere, I would second that, and I would not mind providing evidence to support the need for this expansion. Ostalgia (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you briefly clarify why I should be sanctioned in any way? Marcelus (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier during this discussion, I'm not saying you're committing a violation of any rules here, but during previous disputes with Cukrakalnis you have (as has Cukrakalnis). I think the back-and-forth between you two has become in itself disruptive, as you two edit in a niche area. This conflict results in a lot of editor and admin time being wasted, and that is the encyclopedia's most valuable resource. At some point an administrator might decide that this is more trouble than it's worth. I would not want that to happen. I hope my position is clear. Ostalgia (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What rules did I break during previous discussions? Which of the previous discussion was a waste of time? Marcelus (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding rules being broken: edit warring resulting in a 2 week partial block for both, edit warring resulting in a 1 month partial block for both, breaking 1RR into ban into 0RR + mentoring. As for which discussions were a waste of time, well, the archives speak for themselves. There are about a dozen discussions regarding your disputes with Cukrakalnis across several noticeboards, some of them going on for over a week, becoming massive walls of text involving multiple users, and ultimately resulting in no action because they became too messy for an admin to intervene... just like this one. It should also be noted that not all of these were started by you or by Cukrakalnis - other editors have also expressed their dissatisfaction with this situation. The fact that mirrored blocks already happened twice should be taken as a warning. Ostalgia (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and breaking 1RR doesn't apply to discussion. I don't understand why the sanctions I received in the past for something completely unrelated should affect the current discussion. I completely don't understand why you bring them up and even raise the possibility of sanctioning me as a legitimate end to the discussion. I also do not think that any of the discussions I initiated were a waste of time, they always concerned serious violations of Wikipedia's rules. Marcelus (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute at Fuzzball (string theory)

User:Greg L has done a lot of work on this article over the past 4 months. Some of this was undoubtably necessary: the old version had no inline citations at all. Unfortunately, GregL's updated version is an extremely long and unfocused exposition, mostly consisting of detailed information on related subjects that already have their own articles; it also contains a 'notes' section full of extremely lengthy asides, and embedded images of slinkies, barbecues and CIE colour standards that have no relevance to the article whatsoever. I initially removed a pronunciation guide to "Chandrasekhar" which I felt was cluttering the article; I was immediately reverted by GregL, and when I put my changes back in and explained my reasoning on the talk page, his response was defensive and dismissive. I found this puzzling enough that I reviewed the article and its history and realised that it had become extremely bloated, was not functioning well as an encyclopaedia article and stated on the talk page that I intended to review it to remove the large amount of redundant and off-topic material.

At this point GregL's behaviour became erratic, accusing me of bad faith based on an edit from 13 years ago before blanking the talk page section, restoring it, then blanking it again, and finally rolling the fuzzball article back to its 'old' state as of the beginning of August, before his recent editing efforts. This lasted for nearly two days, when he restored his newer, lengthy version. The comments on these two edits are difficult to square with them being bulk reverts of the page to earlier versions; GregL seems to have admitted that this was a deliberate ploy to get rid of me.

I started trying to edit the long version of the article down into something more closely focused on the article's subject matter, but I gave up on that when I deleted a single irrelevant footnote that knocked off a seventh of the total page length. There just isn't enough connective tissue left around the relevant information. I rolled back to the older, short version of the article, because it's flawed but is at least mostly about fuzzballs; my plan is to edit that version of the article up to standard using appropriate material and citations from GregL's long version.

I made a start on this but GregL continued to accuse me of vandalism, and my edits were then reverted by User:MLee1957, an account which was created 2 days ago, half an hour after GregL's rollback to the older version of the article, and which has done nothing else but get immediately involved in this dispute. It is hard to believe that this is an uninterested third party. GregL, for his part, is claiming that this establishes 'consensus' that my edits are malicious vandalism and that all criticism of his article can be dismissed.

I realise that this has been a fairly rambling recap; what I'd really like is to get a neutral party involved to arbitrate this dispute, because it's clearly not going to get sorted out with a polite conversation on the talk page. Phantom Hoover (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered using WP:DRN? Mach61 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I defaulted to ANI because GregL repeatedly threatened to report me for vandalism here. I didn't know about DRN, but it seems like it's basically opt-in for the parties involved in the dispute, and GregL's behaviour towards me has been well beyond polite disagreement. If he's willing to agree to a dispute resolution process we can take it to DRN, but at this stage he's just stonewalling me by accusing me of vandalism and using meatpuppetry to manufacture consensus in his favour; it's really a situation that needs direct moderation. Phantom Hoover (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've created a new SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greg L. Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Woodroar; it will be nice to clear up uncertainties about sockpuppetry. I’ve never cheated on Wikipedia and detest editors who use sockpuppets, having once been swept up in loads of wikidrama because a male physiology student created a faux female-persona sockpuppet called “Sapphic” that he operated exclusively from his university computer. That all wouldn’t have been discovered except for a keen-eyed admin.

Oh… and that sockpuppet page showed a photo of the “Sapphic” and told of how she loved yoga and pilates. It was clever clever work. Between the puppet master and the sockpuppet, the physiology student had a huge group of us tied up for weeks and weeks. Cheaters create a lot of wikidrama and waste a lot of everyone’s time. Greg L (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The SPI was closed as Unrelated, btw. My apologies to Greg L and MLee1957 for the suspicion. Woodroar (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, like I said to Mach61, Greg L’s extremely hostile response to editing of the article, including weird deceptive editing patterns, baseless accusations of vandalism and apparent meatpuppeting to manufacture a ‘consensus’, seem like intractable behavioural problems from where I’m standing. But I’d be happy to reopen this issue somewhere like DRN that’s more suitable for content disputes, so long as Greg L engages in the process in good faith rather than reverting any changes that remove his content. Otherwise we’ll end up right back here after wasting everyone’s time. Phantom Hoover (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yes and no. It began as a content dispute, true, but Talk:Fuzzball (string theory) shows several behavioral issues in the form of personal attacks and issues with ownership by Greg L. Now some of that is understandable, as he's been expanding the article for several months and it's difficult to see that work reverted. But where Phantom Hoover has brought up legitimate issues, Greg L essentially dismisses them after reverting. At Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)#Pronunciation of Chandrasekhar, Phantom Hoover cites the MOS for using IPA pronunciation while Greg L insists on using his own pronunciation system. At Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)#Vandalism and Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)#Evidence of intent of vandalism, Greg L resorts to personal attacks (calling Phantom Hoover's edits "vandalism") and stonewalling by threatening multiple times to go to ANI. Well, here we are, at ANI.

  The content dispute of this issue should probably move on to WP:3O or WP:DRN or even an WP:RFC, yes. Or perhaps Phantom Hoover and Greg L could have a substantive discussion on the merits of their versions. But that's not going to happen if Greg L runs roughshod over legitimate concerns and resorts to personal attacks and threats. Woodroar (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  He's being bizarre above as well, talking about "cheaters" and "sockpuppets" wasting people's time. JM (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's certainly a content dispute, but I think the concern here is that Greg L is not engaging at all with the content issues raised by other editors. The article he has produced is clearly well outside the norms for a Wikipedia article, containing numerous lengthy hidden comments which he calls "EDITORS NOTES" often signed with his username, instructing other editors to ignore reliable sources in preference to what he has written (1 2) and to leave their idiosyncratic style in place, sometimes in violation of the MOS (2, 1).

  The visible part of the article is, as Phantom Hoover noted, extremely verbose and essay-like, with a Notes section nearly as long as the rest of the article, and PH's edits are clearly an improvement. Greg L's responses to legitimate concerns has been to dismiss them and call other editors' changes "vandalism". Greg L has also bragged about conducting original research by directly contacting Dr. Mathur, both on the talk page and even here in this thread above. Last August when I raised the issue that the article had only two references, Greg L bizarrely responded "But given the abysmal quality of secondary sources on such an abstruse subject, I suggest that you elicit the assistance of an expert in the field to ensure you are properly interpreting what you read… or, failing that, contact Dr. Mathur yourself". (To be fair, he has improved the referencing since then but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of policy.) He has also just in the last couple of days twice tried to shut down discussion of his nonstandard pronunciation guide, by simply removing (not archiving) the section from the talk page, calling it "unproductive" (1 2). CodeTalker (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is ... interesting. Greg L says that Phantom Hoover should settle down and lose interest in vandalism and violations of WP:POINT, while admitting to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point [13]. I'm trying to remember the last time I'd ever seen an editor deliberately change an article to a state they admit to thinking is worse just to win a wiki-dispute, and I can't think of one. There's definitely a conduct issue here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Passerby comment / suggestion. I can't assess the accuracy of Greg L's changes here, but I can say that it does seem pretty clear that it's not really in "Wikipedia style", which aims to be more of an encyclopedic summary than a popular science textbook. If the content is accurate but merely not house style, maybe Greg L's version of the page might be more appropriate for Wikibooks, and be put at Wikibooks:String_Theory/Fuzzballs or the like? Then linked to in External Links with Template:Wikibooks inline. And then Phantom Hoover's less "chatty" version used / kept for the Wikipedia article. Just a thought for a potential compromise. SnowFire (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire: That is a very interesting suggestion, SnowFire; thank you very much for that. I never heard of Wikibooks. Would you mind going to my talk page and educate me about it? You may use the “email this user” feature if you feel more comfortable with that. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess this is resolved then. If it continues, it is likely that Greg L will be subject to a WP:PBAN from the affected article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Response

The petitioner, Phantom Hoover, is not trying to improve the project; just annoy another editor (me) with whom he/she had a minor argument over and is now creating large amounts of wikidrama by deleting month’s-worth of work to exact revenge by reverting an article back to when it was an un-cited stub.

Now the petitioner is slinging as much mud at the wall as he/she can in hopes something will stick. This is a clear-cut case of someone trying to stir the pot and who is willing to ruin the project while doing so.

The kerfuffle started with this simple dispute over providing a parenthetical on pronouncing “Chandrasekhar”.

I’ve toiled for much of the year on the Fuzzball (string theory) article to give the subject matter a sound and encyclopedic treatment, even going so far as to regularly correspond with Dr. Mathur (who wrote the original scientific papers on which the article is based) as well as other Ph.D.s to ensure what is there on the article is correct.

The end result of the above mentioned effort was THIS version of the article, which has 31 carefully done citations and is salted with enjoyable and illuminating illustrations and animations.

What the petitioner did was was to roll the article back to this version from August, which was just a stub, had no citations, and rightfully had a tag flagging the fact that it needed more citations. All the petitioner did was make these minor changes to the lead to make it appear that he was ‘working’ on the article in earnest.

Note that the petitioner has a history (contributions) of only sporadically editing on Wikipedia and when the petitioner finally does edit, they are largely to remove content… not add anything. And the deletions are accompanied by edit comments like “Because it's part of the proof, you dolt.”)

Rolling an article back to when it was an un-cited stub is a clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

As for the other editor who jumped in (User:MLee1957), he/she doubtlessly responded to my request for advise on Talk:Neutron star. MLee1957 chose to respond and the petitioner doesn’t like that MLee1957 had the expected take on the matter (agreeing that the petitioner is editing to be disruptive but advising that the matter doesn't need to go to ANI, here). I did not solicit help from MLee1957 directly and had no choice in who might respond to my request for comment. The fact that he/she has “Lee” in the user name and my name ends with “L” is pure coincidence; my last name is not Lee.

Update I must hand it to Phantom Hoover, he is bold even though there is an ANI open on this. He made a rapid-fire series of edits (∆ edit here), resulting in 53% of the article being deleted (from 107,909 kB to 50,900 kB). Greg L (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(The fact that 53% of the article can be deleted without removing any information about fuzzballs is, in fact, the core problem.) Phantom Hoover (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Given tha the petitioner seldom edits on Wikipedia, and when he/she does so, the edits tend to be nothing but deletions accompanied by uncivil edit comments, and especially given that the current edits on Fuzzball (string theory) are egregious ones where the “edits” amount to merely reverting the article back to a state where it was a poor stub with zero citations and had a “lack of citations” tag a top, I think it reasonable to expect the petitioner to go find something else to do on the project.

Greg L (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Snowball (retract) my proposal. An above proposal from SnowFire, posted at 22:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC), is an interesting suggestion. Greg L (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this resolution. It's clear that Phantom Hoover has expressed legitimate concerns—for example, at Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)#Pronunciation of Chandrasekhar—and you've brushed them off. You boldly expanded the article and Phantom Hoover reverted you, so now you're at the discuss phase of WP:BRD. The onus is on you to build consensus for including the disputed content. Woodroar (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Editing sporadically isn't a crime. Nor is mostly removing text rather than adding it. Rolling back cited content to an uncited stub may be unusual, but it is not automatically vandalism, per the very definition quoted above. Honestly, this proposed "resolution" is giving me "rules for thee but not for me" vibes, which is a shame, because the article needed improvement and if everyone could dial down the emotional temperature a few notches they could probably make that happen. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Boomerang back at Greg L. This proposal seems to be vindictive, rather than in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia. Greg L's own statements betray a desire to cram the article full of whatever he personally feels is relevant, despite reasonable objections from others. The attempt to complain about Phantom Hoover "only" removing content strikes me as an old Inclusionist/Deletionist argument, not suited to modern Wikipedia.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

How would it be a boomerang if Greg isn't the original filer? jp×g🗯️ 19:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t propose a resolution, he did. Phantom Hoover (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Eh, maybe not the best use of Boomerang, but it's a subsection where Greg L is proposing this all go away. I think instead, it reflects poorly on Greg L and enhances the call for sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I'm asking sincerely, @Greg L: in the 17.5 years you've been here, have you really not once encountered WP:AGF? I know it's merely a guideline but anyone who doesn't comply with it is guaranteed to be violating policy. Your message is a textbook failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor, one who is clearly here to try to do good, and it would have a newer user in immediate danger of a block. City of Silver 01:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, City of Silver, yes, I have. Many times. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greg L: So if you knew your message was really, really noncompliant with AGF, why did you write it? City of Silver 03:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Other proposed resolution

I'm not involved in this conflict, but after taking a good look, I can deduce 3 things: This is the first issue Greg L. has had like this, the first time they've had an issue with this user, and the first issue that's brought them here. A lot of firsts, which leads me to believe that we should apply some forgiveness here. Obviously, that's not to say Greg isn't at fault, he definitely isn't acting civil or assuming good faith, but I don't think a major-scale ban is needed.

So, here's what I'm thinking might be the best answer (especially after seeing their try at a proposal)

- 1-week 1-way interaction ban where Greg can't interact with Phantom, but not the other way around. (Reason: Phantom, for the most part, looks to have tried to reason with Greg, but Greg disregarded Phantom when the latter tried to improve the article instead of discussing with them. Because Greg hasn't done this with any other users, the issue might be interacting with Phantom in specific.)

- Stern reminder to Greg to assume good faith. (Reason: Instead of hearing Phantom out with the edits he made with good intent, Greg tried to preserve the article the way he made it, maybe because he assumed bad faith on Phantom and thought Phantom was trying to make the article worse.)

This is my first proposal like this, so it might not be the best for this situation. I just feel like this might work the best. Thoughts ? 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose We use interaction bans only for repeat offenses. No evidence even that Greg L has a chronic behavioral issue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Third proposed resolution

Close the incident and move on, Greg L's retraction of his proposed resolution and his engagement with SnowFire's WikiBooks proposal indicate that he realises there's a consensus against him, and he's stopped edit warring on the fuzzball article. The content dispute is de facto resolved at this point and I think the immediate conduct issues are also likely put to rest. Phantom Hoover (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I did kind of feel like the issue was a little too much for any bans, but Greg's comments/actions just came off as too extreme for a first offense like this, to me. Though if you want to close it (as you are the same person who opened it), I could strike the proposal. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the interaction ban is unnecessary but I can see the point of a formal censure, rather than brushing potential patterns of bad behaviour under the rug. Phantom Hoover (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support No new evidence of disruptive behavior on behalf of Greg L, who has not edited Fuzzball (string theory) since December 2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Swalors

Swalors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) @Swalors has disruptive and edit-warred in articles Gayur-khan and Simsim despite my requests to stop. He has removed WP:COMMONNAME supported by number of WP:RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - here he also added AI image that he presented as the image of Gayur-khan, 6, 7) renamed the article without discussing (1). I recommended the user to use talk page to explain his concerns there but he instead continued on edit warring despite his edits being reverted by me and another user (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). PS: This is my 3rd time making a report, the last 2 times my reports were archived because there wasn't any replies. Admin attention would be greatly appreciated. -- WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Swalors is doing good isn't the point. Their changes have come under question and Swalors has not responded to any concerns. They're aware of these concerns because they've reacted twice to ANI notifications, once by responding "Ha?" and once by just removing the note with no explanation. An indefinite partial block from articlespace is in order, one that should be reversed as soon as this user begins substantially explaining these contentious changes. (Although per this and edit summaries like "Made it much better", it's possible a sidewide indef per WP:CIR is in order.) @Schazjmd and Materialscientist: you've both reverted large edits from this user so this matter could very much benefit from your input. City of Silver 01:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The user replied to the 2nd report of mine with an Chechen/Ingush sentence which translates as "don't cry" instead of addressing my points. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Since creating their account in April, Swalors has had a significant number of their edits directly reverted,[14] and has never engaged on any article or user talk page. I think the combination of contentious edits, long-term edit-warring, and failure to communicate might best be addressed with an article-space block to compel them to engage on article talk pages and get consensus on the article changes that they think are needed. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about why are you lying? Swalors (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I doubt Schazjmd is about to confess to lying and proclaim that this editor has been right and good all along, I think we've seen enough. It took a lot of work on the part of User:WikiEditor1234567123 to get to this point and the best way to acknowledge those good efforts is an indefinite block of Swalors. City of Silver 23:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Strangely enough, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maida of Aukh may be relevant here. The reported editor appears to be adding material related to the non-notable even as folklore "Sado-Orsoy clan". Folly Mox (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Unarchiving this report for the 4th time. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Per CityofSilver and Schazjmd, a block seems warranted here. Given that this appears to be a willful lack of engagement rather than not understanding how to find/use a talk page (taking into account Swalors reply here, and to discussion notices on their talk page), and that this affects a CTOPS area WP:ARBEE, I'm going to go ahead and make impose a sitewide indefinite block, which can be appealed with a successful unblock request demonstrating a clear commitment to engaging in consensus-building discussion. I would also be more amenable to a conditional unblock request that accepts a topic-ban from ethnic minorities in Russia and the former USSR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems they intend to sockpuppet Supreme_Bananas (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Lionel Messi Lover

Lionel Messi Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Lionel Messi Lover has been continuously making unconstructive edits on Bangladesh genocide for almost three weeks now despite attempts to engage him in discussion and warnings on his talk page. In particular, the pattern has been to change the infobox and wordings in the lead to match his POV. When asked to cite a reliable source, he either adds a Wikipedia article as a citation [15], or misrepresents the source [16], or simply adds a non-existing page as a source [17]; some of those edits may even fall under vandalism. This has continued even after conveying the concerns about his edits [18], [19].

It appears the user has a lack of basic understanding on fundamental guidelines like WP:V and WP:OR; the user is also not willing to listen to other editors, suggesting a likely case of WP:CIR.

Going through his talk page, it looks like he has a history of this sort of disruptive edits on different other articles. It should be mentioned that all these articles he has been disrupting fall within WP:ARBIPA. Nomian (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal said the auxiliary forces acted and collaborated to pursue a policy and plan not of their own but of a ‘State or group policy’ and consciously knew and actively associated themselves with that common ‘policy and plan of annihilating the pro-liberation Bengali civilians’.

That's why edit it from Bengali Hindus to Bengalis.

Also 1,111 Bengali Intellectuals were too killed in by Pakistani army but you reverted it saying it unconstructive.

The Bangladeshi Genocide article's neutrality is disputed. Therefore, I'm just helping to improve the page and make it neutral

There is nothing sort of vandalism there. Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No one is willing to take an anonymous wiki editor's word for statements this important, that's why statements have to be verifiable according to the reliable sources in the article. If you are changing statements to say something the sources do not say, that is original research, which is not allowed here. You also cannot cite Wikipedia itself, it is not considered a reliable source for many reasons, including the fact that it would be circular. Remsense留 07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• And the disruptive edits by Linonel Messi Lover continues on the article [20] with misleading edit summaries. He's even unwilling to discuss which makes it harder to fix his conduct. I also agree that this is a WP:CIR issue since Lionel Messi Lover is exhibiting a bit of difficulties in interpreting the English language sources as well as understanding the Wikipedia policies. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  A.Musketeer and Nomian (talk) has been consistently removing and manipulating articles throughout the Bangladesh History Pages. Remsense留 What do you think regarding their actions on this? They have been manipulating, disrupting edits throughout multiple pages, and pushing POVs throughout ALL the pages related to Bangladesh's history. Their contribution page shows that they both have a history of pushing right-wing Indian POVs, even though they both aren't Bangladeshis. Arfaz (chat) | 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and forum shopping by Mikola22

We have an editor who probably meets the definitions of WP:IDONTHEARYOU.

At Talk:Christopher Columbus, they've opened three RFCs, all of which have ended up being closed indicating they were inappropriate (the last one by me). Specifically:

• First RFC, 27 Oct
• 2nd RFC, 31 October
• 3rd RFC, 4 December
• 4th round, not an RFC this time

They've been warned by both other editors and by administrator User:BusterD (who closed the 2nd RFC) to drop the stick. See BusterD's comment on WP:AN about being on the verge of starting an ANI case (see AN). See also the discussion about forum shopping on Mikola22's talk page.

Forum shopping, see WP:ORN, two sections, and WP:FTN, all on the same subject with the same arguments.

Out of morbid curiosity, I looked up their logs. Five previous blocks, an arbcom-ordered topic ban (then violating the topic ban being one of the blocks), and their talk page access was revoked at one point. Perhaps this editor just doesn't get it. Can we get Mikola22 shut down for a while? Tarl N. (discuss) 07:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• On October 31, 2023, I started the RFC with the question whether Columbus was an Italian or Genoese explorer. RFC must be in accordance with the rules and sources. And so it was, because behind the Italian/Genoes there are RS. The information found in the article in the Italian footnote, has no source for confirmation and is very likely OR information. I thought that editors in the RFC would decide on Italian or Genoese information ie according to the sources. However, considering that editors started to give their opinion in the context of "Retain as is", this would mean that information which at that moment exists in the Italian footnote can be legitimized with my RFC. Seeing that and not wanting my RFC to legitimize possible OR information I started a discussion about this issue within RFC[[21]], however none of the editors wanted to discuss this information. After RFC ended I opened a new RFC[[22]] regarding this information. However, no one wanted to discuss that either. After that I put this information on NORN[[23]] and FTN[[24]] for discussion and there none of these editors took part in discussion, it's the same case in the Columbus talk page[[25]]. I started discussion in the article Dante Alighieri where the same information existed in Italian footnote.[[26]] And information was deleted from article as a probable OR, and the NORN discussion on the matter goes in the same direction that is, the conclusion is that it is OR.

As for editor Tarl N, although I opened a question in within RFC about possible disputed information he didn't want to participate in discussion, but at that moment he knows that information which exists is WP:PRIMARY, and that the article itself does not contain source so this information could be not WP:VERIFY. For the same information("the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity") he says that it was added: "in response to the oft-repeated claim that the term "Italian" only existed after Garibaldi".[[27]] So he, as an editor, supports this information without checking the same to see if it is a possible OR, etc., also he keeps it in the article and does not allow to be questioned or discussed. In that context given that he is familiar with this information and with context when it is edited to the article, he as an editor participate in disruptive editing because he is unwilling to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, fails to cite source, cite unencyclopedic source, misrepresents reliable source, manufactures original research, disregard other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits.

Considering that editor Tarl N even though he knew he had to comply with Wikipedia rules and this is clearly indicated to him on the talk page: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Content must be written from a neutral point of view (It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".), Include citations", he does not follow these rules at any moment. In this context I refer to WP:BOOMERANG and I am asking for an appropriate sanction for such behavior, considering that even though he knows that there has been a violation of OR, he still does not want to participate in any discussion, but is exclusively directed at me. Mikola22 (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Topic bans haven't haven't worked in the past. A 3 month block to reflect might be a good step. If that doesn't work then it's probably time to pull the plug. Nemov (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• It's probably not surprising there's a new formal discussion here; User:Mikola22 is running out of forums in which to reasonably discuss this. Responding as an uninvolved administrator to Mikola22's WP:Closure request earlier this week, I closed the second of three RfCs commenced by this user. Within seconds, it was clear my closure was not acceptable; they started a newer RfC which I did not shut down but did disparage as disruptive. I have done nothing to sanction Mikola22. I haven't applied any admin action other than the good faith closure, which I believe is fully inline with my reasonable reading of the policy and the discussions. Content is up to the editors on the pagespace, not an uninvolved admin (unless I choose to involve myself, which I did not). Given the forum shopping Mikola22 has exhibited, it's clear they want this to end in getting their way, and no other outcome. I would support an editing restriction of some kind. Past blocks have not helped this editor understand what we're attempting to do on Wikipedia. It's always a tragedy when an intelligent, well-read wikipedian can't get past social norms. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I just have to point out the fact that you closed the RFC, and information which is OR remained in the Italian footnote. Also most editors in RFC wanted to keep state as it is with the Italian footnote information. In that way the Italian/Genoese thing is not RFC resolved because the OR information cannot be entered into the article by consensus or RFC. As for the statement "it's clear they want this to end in getting their way", I don't know what exactly you mean, detecting OR information or Italian/Genoves regarding Columbus? I can only say that in the area of wikipedia where I am Topic-banned, information about some historical figures must be presented in a historical time context, this I learned first as far as editing is concerned, and why the same is not on this part of wikipedia I really don't know(given that in this case Columbus is labeled as Italian). In addition, it is not clear to me how some OR information can be in an article for about 2 years without so many editors seeing a problem. In any case, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't the place to discuss content, we are here to discuss your behaviour. I quote from WP:IDONTHEARYOU, Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time-wasting [...]. I bring this here because I believe you have fallen into that category, and direct requests and warnings have failed to stop the behaviour. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would echo User:Tarl N.'s statement; this thread is about behavior and not content. BusterD (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly so. The only reason I've not simply blocked this user for disruptive editing is that the editor is surely acting in good faith, has good intent, and is in no way a vandal; however, the lack of understanding (or, perhaps, the lack of acceptance) of Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS policy and processes is resulting in entirely disruptive behavior, and (here's the explicit threat) should it continue will result in an indefinite block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinite p-block from Columbus and the Talk. Mikola, do not take this as allowance to disrupt elsewhere or your block will be wider. Star Mississippi 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Two Comments and a Question

First, good partial block. Some admin action was needed, and this action was minimal. Second, the Original Poster mentioned that the subject editor had been forum shopping at FTN and at NORN as well as starting RFCs that were closed. There was also a proposal at Village Pump , which was not listed.There was also a case at DRN, which was not listed, because the subject editor was not the filing party, because the DRN thread was filed by an editor who disagreed with the subject editor. The subject editor has now been blocked from Christopher Columbus, and should take that as a caution not to edit tendentiously the articles about any other persons born in the Italian region between 476 CE and 1860 CE.

Should there be a guideline that persons for in the Italian region between 476 CE and 1860 CE may be referred to as Italian if reliable sources make that description? Where would be the right forum for discussion about such a guideline? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal Threat by User:Patidar Itihas

User:Patidar Itihas has made a legal threat on the Leuva Patel talk page: [28]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely until the legal threat is retracted and they make an undertaking not to do that again. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears they have doubled down. 123.24.202.200 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

And tripled down it looks like. Talk page access removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

CambialYellowing and Scientology related articles

User:Cambial Yellowing seems to be violating the neutrality of Wikipedia with Scientology related articles. For example, in the article for Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, they repeatedly list “pseudoscience” in the genre section in the info box, even though that is not a genre. Sources about critics deeming it pseudoscientific were mentioned in the article but CambialYellowing seems to revert it despite the reliable sources being provided. 2600:100C:A103:309B:8572:E2E4:8CC1:4024 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to notify me, per the instructions at the top of this page. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I do think it's unnecessary to stuff articles on historical and contemporary hokum to the gills with what amount to redundant disclaimers. I don't think Wikipedia needs to stretch the confines of concepts such as "literary genre" in order to express the adequate skepticism of Scientology. Remsense留 06:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned

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

---

I write out of deep concern about the Marla Maples and Lara Trump pages. Both pages were very recently hit with very egregious and offensive vandalism. The subjects of both pages are BLPs and are connected to Donald Trump who is no doubt controversial. Both pages are indefinitely PC protected, but that clearly didn't work in this case. Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with the contentious topics policy on here, but it seems to be more should be done. Can someone help? Maybe make the protection longer or something? Jordan Crandell (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion on my talk page is relevant, though I'm not sure why the user felt the need to create this account and then create their user and talk page so they wouldn't be red before asking me about this. - Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Another dumb AfD scam

Whatever the heck this is:

I received an email from someone who claims to be a Wikipedia "admin". The email ends with "[email protected]". It stated that a page that features my work is flagged for deletion by another admin, and unless I pay editing fees, it will be deleted and banned permanently.

The email says, "Our backhand system is running out of space due to receiving 10,000 entries per day, so we all administrator’s started conducting a AFD (Article for Deletion) section survey, reaching out to those whose Wikipedia page is nominated for deletion by the Wiki moderators, and if the page owner is willing to improve the page we assist accordingly and if not Interested we move forward and submit the final repost to moderators and they delete the page and clear our records." The poor English in the email already tells me that this guy might not be an actual Wikipedia admin. There is a discussion around the deletion of the page. The deletion was by suggested by a user called "Vinnyb1322". This guy's account is brand new! I can see from his user log that after he created the account, he immediately flagged the article for deletion within a few minutes. He has never contributed to Wikipedia before, and only created the account to flag the page for deletion. The guy who sent me the email is not Vinnyb1322. When I asked him about a proof that he is an actual Wiki admin, he sent me a link to "his Wikipedia profile", which shows that he has been an admin for 17 years. The last activity of this admin was from August 2023. So, he hasn't been active for a while. He suggested connecting me to an editor (yet another admin), who can edit the article and ensure that it "adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines". The suggested editor has 21 years of experience in editing and creating Wikipedia pages. His last activity was from December 6th, 2023. Out of curiosity, I asked about the rate they charge for editing articles and keeping them active. He emailed me saying the editing services cost "$2999, however, after applying additional discounts it will cost you $1999."

Just to be clear, I didn't create this Wikipedia page and I don't care if it got deleted. I would rather let my work speak for itself. However, I'm interested in delving deeper into this type of scam so I can alert everyone else about it.

The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashem Al-Ghaili, whose nomination is the first and only contribution of Vinnyb1322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

What Is to Be Done? I think someone with a rebbit account should go message this guy and get him to tell us which admin the scammer was claiming to be, so we can go tell them that some asshole is signing their name to stupid letters. jp×g🗯️ 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• @User:Vinnyb1322 replied on the Reddit post, claiming they had nothing to do with the email (which matches what was said in the post itself) and that they made the AfD in good faith. So maybe the scammer just used a recent AfD as an excuse? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• OP says they were given the URL of https://blandingsolutions.com and https://www.bizapedia.com/tx/blanding-solutions-llc.html for the scammers, for what it's worth. Malarkey? jp×g🗯️ 04:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Pinging relevant users here: @HashemAlghaili (target of the scam), @Brendanconway and @William Avery (both impersonated by the scammer). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 06:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• I have seen this type of scam mentioned before. It's a paid editing scam. It's a simple variation on what is described at Project:Articles for creation/Scam warning and is nothing new. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Hashem has brought to my attention that someone is impersonating me my and writing from [email protected] has been trying to extort money from him. I have not been active on Wikipedia for a few months and only have access to my phone. Can anyone advise if I need to secure my account and how? I am an admin but have not been active since August File Éireann 17:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Brendanconway: Based on what's described in the Reddit post, there's no indication that anything of yours was compromised, or that the scammer did anything that couldn't be done by anyone with access to the Internet and the ability to write the words "I'm Brendan Conway". (Anecdotally, scammers seem to prefer impersonating users with usernames that sound like IRL names.) That said, there's never a bad time to encourage all admins to enable WP:2FA and to make sure that one has a secure password that is not used on any other sites. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Brendanconway: User:Smallbones has a notice at the top of his userpage you might want to use. I think there are a couple others explicitly saying "no, I did not email you to ask for payment for edits" etc. jp×g🗯️ 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Help stop paid editing! If you have ideas on how to better stop paid editing, please leave them at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. If you have particular incidents you'd like to discuss, please note them at WP:COIN.

• Just to be more precise, I have a scam warning near the top of my talk page User talk:Smallbones and then on my user page (about 2 screens down) is another notice (see to the right) that might need updating. Either or both used together could get the main point accross. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• I just closed the AfD. Any established editor is welcome to re-nom if there's merit. We're not feeding the trolls. Star Mississippi 17:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Did the emails really come from wikipediaafd.org? The domain name was recently registered which makes me think it might have. And if so, has anyone notified the WMF about this? It seems to me it's something they're likely to be interested in since it's one thing to impersonate a Wikipedian with some random gMail address or whatever, another with a domain with the WMF's trademark in the name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  For further clarity, it would be best if someone who received an email is able to forward the entire email with headers to the WMF, but I wonder even if we can't get that it might be worth reporting to the WMF anyway since there's still something for them to investigate without that IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nevermind checked the Reddit thread, sounds like the OP of the thread has reported it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Obsession with Jason Momoa

• 2A02:810D:9F00:1428:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Germany has been writing obsessive stuff about Jason Momoa. The /64 range was blocked briefly two months ago, but they popped back up today.[29] Let's get another rangeblock going for Special:Contributions/2A02:810D:9F00:1428:0:0:0:0/64. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

They've been doing this since September despite one previous block, so I've blocked them from the Momoa article for six months. Maybe it will wear off by them. I've watchlisted the article and will block them from the talkpage if needed. Besides that, I think some or all of the edits need revdel for the sake of the obsessed fan. Acroterion (talk)

I believe this IP is now editing as BunnyBoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Celjski Grad (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of warnings

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

---

What is the maximum number of warnings a user can receive before facing a ban or block? A particular user (HistoricPilled) has accumulated more than six warnings within a week but continues to engage in edit wars and vandalize articles by adding unsourced information. Additionally, the user has removed these warnings from their talk page. Imperial^[AFCND] 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a thread currently active about this on WP:AN. —C.Fred (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  See the user's talk page. I have a complaint for calling me a "clown". It is similiar to a personal harrassment I have faced some weeks ago in the talk section of Maratha raid on Delhi where the user got blocked for harrassment. The blocked user challenged that he will create another account. However, I felt this as a personal harrassment for which I got as a prize for reporting an issue. As I requested earlier, if an expert on military history helps, it would be better. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  My bad, I was the one who told them to bring it to ANI as it appeared to be the more appropriate channel for what they needed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 05:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

@Pootika fresh This user blanked my user page and talk page for undoing his edits that appeared to be disruptive.[30], [31] The user also removed contents (files, references) from articles without proper explanation like these [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] Jayashankar8022 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to point out each one of the edits by User:Jayashankar8022 started everything by keeping undoing my edits.....i just made the edit or removals that lacks reliable sources...why he is keeping following me and undoing my edits...why he is taking advantage of a privileged editor by suppressing young and new editors like us Pootika fresh (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The reporter does not seem to be "going after" new editors. Frankly, when one sees a new editor make certain errors, it is often reasonable to briefly look through their contribution history to see if there are common patterns of beginner editing behavior that can be pointed out or corrected.

Your response comes off like you are deliberately reverting their edits as comeuppance for their reverts, which is totally unacceptable even if what the reporter had done was unacceptable. If you don't assume good faith from more experienced editors, you're going to continue to have these issues, and you likely will not last long before being blocked. Remsense留 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pootika fresh I've got no plans to follow or attack fairly new editors or to take advantage of a "privileged editor." Since you are a new user and have less knowledge about the various guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, the chances of making mistakes are common. Please don't get offended just because some of your edits were reverted. Instead, take time to understand why such edits were reverted. You instead removed contents from my user page and talk page, which isn't a fair way to respond. Also, you have used foul language on my talk page in Malayalam-language.[37] Jayashankar8022 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Rampant addition of Tamil scripts into Malaysia-related articles by Visnu92

• Visnu92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bringing the uncooperative attitude of Visnu92 to attention. That editor has been rampantly adding and restoring adding Tamil scripts into a host of Malaysia-related articles, for example [38], [39], [40] and [41], and has refused to engage in this discussion that I had added in his talk page. I opened a related discussion on this issue in WikiProject Malaysia and it was clear that there had been no consensus on the addition of transliterations other than Malay (Malaysia's official language) for articles on local government and transport infrastructure. Besides potentially going against MOS:PLACE, MOS:CONSISTENT and WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, such additions are impairing readability, turning the affected articles into a jumble of languages.

Seeking mod intervention on that editor's refusal to seek consensus and edit behaviour that is affecting the readability of the articles in question. hundenvonPG (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have decided to block for 48 hours, hoping that they see their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

96.30.183.2

96.30.183.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – clearly not here to improve Wikipedia, though this is too ambiguous to be reported to AN/V. I think they got enough warnings. Janhrach (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• It's in a Canadian cable company's customer IP range, and given that the nature of the contributions changed markedly at the start of November, it has probably simply switched from one customer to another. The obsessive editing of the sandbox at almost 2 minute intervals seems to have stopped today. If it starts again, just preventing this IP address from editing for (say) 3 months until the next customer gets the IP address might be simplest.

  Xe has also copied your signature in warnings to other IP addresses, NightWolf1223.

  Uncle G (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thx for letting me know @Uncle. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

100 percent vandalism: User:Abstracc

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

---

• Abstracc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For three years we have collectively tolerated Abstracc even though none of the contributions have been constructive. From the first[42] to the most recent,[43] this person has vandalized Wikipedia with every edit. Especially worrisome is today's BLP violation against Eminem.[44] Can we put a stop to this harm? Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say tolerated. I'd say not know about. This one, given the nature of the vandalism content and the earlier talk page responses, goes straight to an indefinite revocation of editing privileges with no talk page access. The edit summaries such as Special:Diff/1065804205 are deceptive and this is indeed a 100% vandalism only account that is wasting editor time. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

IP still breaching ENGVAR despite warnings

116.86.53.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have reported this IP twice before for this very reason.

This IP has made several edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) breaching WP:ENGVAR, primarily making changes to English varieties in articles without discussion. They appear to be non-communicative and fail to use edit summaries, so while their intention may be good, disruptive editing is still disruptive.

If this doesn't encourage the IP to tell their side of the story, I'm not sure what will. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

They've been warned about this enough times now, and communication is required. It's hammer time. Blocked for 1 week. WaggersTALK 09:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

67.128.123.194

67.128.123.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Continued inappropriate edits to disambiguation pages after warnings (e.g. Special:Diff/1189300986), refuses to engage on their talk page. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked x 31 hrs for persistent disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Revocation of AutoPatrolled

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

---

User talk:Vycl1994 just created an article, Amy S. Thompson which not only seems to be an A7 criteria, and lacking notability, but also editor added Wikipedia:FORBESCON source, which is clearly listed as an unreliable source per the noticeboard. Not sure what's going on with that, but I'm feeling the user should potentially have auto-patrolled status revoked, as using a source that's clearly listed as unreliable, is pretty unacceptable for such user rights. I'm not trying to be an arse here, but was genuinely shocked when the users profile said 7+ on WP, and Auto-patrolled status. If you look at the history of the page, it seems pretty unacceptable for the mainspace. Cray04 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cray04 I think I disagree that this is A7-worthy: there's a credible enough claim to WP:NPROF#C5 that, if this should be deleted, it should go to AFD. (I have no clue whether WVU counts as an institution with a "reputation for excellence or selectivity".) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the FORBESCON source with Inside Higher Ed, the publication that FORBESCON cited. Reading the notability of the article, I believe NPROF#C5 applies. Vycl1994 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats regarding sources right? It seems she was awarded professorship, but not distinguished. I will let the consensus decide and officially dropping it for now. Sorry, I hope this doesn't seem malicious or personal. Cray04 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Clearly A7 is not met as there is a credible claim to notability. Take the article to WP:AFD if you disagree. But, I'm concerned by this editor thinking that another editor should have autoconfirmed status removed for ... creating an article they disagree with. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Not auto-confirmed, WP:auto-patrolled. I am concerned you don't even know what perms your account has. But that's fine. No harsh feelings, at the very least this will perhaps manifest awareness. Cray04 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You're now replying to me, not Vycl, and I made a simple error in typing the wrong "auto" term. I see no reason to remove it from them because they created an article that you think should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ha. I rescind. It's been a long day. I have truly donned the jesters cap by doing that and there is no coming back from it haha. Cray04 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Marla Maples

Here we go again on Marla Maples. The page is a BLP and a contentious and controversial page as it is related to Donald Trump. It receives egregious, disgusting and persistent vandalism and is protected for a short period of time. When it's unprotected the egregious, disgusting and persistent vandalism resumes immediately. This has happened over and over again. The page is again protected for a short period of time. This clearly isn't working. Can someone help? Maybe make the semi-protection longer? Cring Bosby (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The latest semi-protection has been increased to one week, compared to the previous one lasting only one day. This should hopefully be enough for vandals to calm down (given its sudden start, the vandalism likely came from the same person or at least related people). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait, nevermind, saw the LTA case. Reporting you to AIV. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not vandals. It's a LTA/sockmaster who picks multiple targets and returns to each when the page is unprotected. It doesn't matter if it's a week or a year. Whoever protects it next should probably skip the small increasing increments. One day wasn't long enough for that first protection to begin with. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, saw the LTA just a few sections above. Cring Bosby is very likely the same person, given the common behavior. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If the LTA's goal is to cause articles to be indefinitely protected, should we really be enabling that? Like of course there are times when indef semi or ECP are warranted, but I'm not sure that is the case with this particular LTA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I had thought it was a different sockmaster than that, but whatever. Should we enable that? Well, it's either protection or dealing with awful BLP violations. Maybe you didn't see the ones on Maples' page, but yeah they're bad. We're not left with much choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't have Maples' article on my watchlist so not sure what the LTA said, but I can take a guess from the examples on the LTA page. I dunno if indef ECPing the targeted page will have the desired effect. Sure it'll stop disruption on that page, but the LTA has a history of just moving on to other targets once their target of the hour/day has been locked. If we escalate it in that manner, sooner or later we'll have bluelocked every biography, so they'll move back to hurricanes. If we ECP all hurricanes, then they'll probably pick some new target. At some point on a long enough timescale we'd stop being the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The Proxy API Checker says that one of the IPs that made the egregious edits (12.252.65.162) is a Proxy/VPN and this is a repeat use of that IP (was previously blocked in September 2022 for the same reason). The range 12.252.64.0/21 doesn't look to have supported constructive edits for the last few years. Maybe it would make sense to block the range for a few years.  — Archer (t·c) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

12.252.68.178 is reasonably likely to be a zombie proxy, as there's evidence that it's running a PPTP server, and another exposed service on it has known exploits in the wild. So if this were Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies I'd recommend a an admin issues a soft IP block for 3 to 6 months.

As for 12.252.65.162, while I can see that one of the services that IPCheck collates from states that it's a proxy, using other tools I'm not evidence of it being a likely proxy. Maybe someone else might see more, but I'd hesitate at calling that IP a proxy. As for the /21 range, I don't have time/energy (it's late where I am) to do a full dive, but I believe it's part of a wider /8 AT&T business range. So doing a block might have collateral. I did a quick check on the other IPs that were active going back to 2019, but didn't find evidence of current proxy usage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• 63.86.0.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) includes a few of the IPs the LTA has used (63.86.0.98, 63.86.0.66 (Proxy/Recent abuse|Bot/Fraud Score 100), and 63.86.0.97), although there might be some collateral impact if that range is blocked.
• 134.204.104.0/21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) already includes some long-term blocks, but collateral impact doesn't appear to be an issue.
• 192.226.112.0/21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) includes 192.226.117.190 which The Proxy API Checker indicates Proxy/VPN/Recent abuse/Bot/Fraud Score 100. Maybe the duration for its block should be extended significantly.

 — Archer (t·c) 04:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why can't the page be permanently semi-protected? GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what the sock wants, for whatever reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The sock also wants to vandalize page. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The same person is adding the same severe WP:BLP violations to Lara Trump. That article was extended confirmed protected for a year by Dennis Brown. This article is semi-protected for one week. I think that the protection should be similar for both. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That's our Catch 22. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a catch 22. Preventing BLP violations should clearly be the overwhelming priority, even if it is the apparent goal of the vandal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

And how do we do that without breaching WP:5P3? This LTA is known for changing target articles once they are indefinitely protected, and their activities aren't just limited to BLPs. If the only way to outright prevent this disruption is to indef SEMI or ECP all BLPs, and anything else the LTA targets, are we still the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protecting all BLPs should be the default to begin with. CalebHughes is obviously being WP:POINTY, but he does have a point. IP editing of BLPs should have stopped after the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has come a long way in the last 18 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If there was a LTA who added "Peep Poop Shittles" to articles a hundred times we'd obviously semiprotect them, why does it matter what the fool wants us to do? jp×g🗯️ 18:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because once we semiprotect it, they'll move on to another page to do the same thing there, as they've apparently already done in the past. They're not limited to this one page, there's a pattern (eg. at Lara Trump before) and it will likely still go on somewhere else. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if IPs are persistently vandalizing an article, the solution is really obvious: to semiprotect it. If some guy takes a whiz on the floor at the Walmart every Tuesday while wearing a "I ❤️ Being Kicked Out Of Walmart" t-shirt, the right move is not to keep letting him do it because of some strange psychological concern re "winning". jp×g🗯️ 01:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is saying that you shouldn't semi-protect the targets at all. But the semi-protection shouldn't be longer than it otherwise would be, just because the LTA says "I'll be back". If they learn that there's a "recipe" to get any article indefinitely semi-protected, they'll just continue this for years until we accumulate tens of thousands of articles that new users can't edit. And the total amount of vandalism seen by readers will be the same as if the protection was short-term. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The sock will just move to another page and do the same there. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 05:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Why not just feed the bear? If it's no longer hungry, it will stop begging." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Does Wikimedia (or whoever) have the ability to track down the sock? GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Look: ultimately, a socker can't be stopped, only checked, and we've known of sockmasters with hundreds of puppets. Someone in my area with a laptop who wants badly enough to do so can get to heaven knows how many different IP addresses, between public libraries, universities, schools, municipalities and businesses with free public WiFi. Wikimedia doesn't have the resources -- no one does -- to chase rainbows. (And, ultimately ... track the sock down to do what, precisely? Confiscate their electronics? Dox them? Send legbreakers?) Ravenswing 04:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Tragic. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, the US could pass the equivalent of the Section 127 of the UK's Communications Act 2003, you'd just have to repeal parts of your First Amendment. But until that happens, I'm not sure there anything that can be done by any person or agency off-wiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We do have an applicable law: The WMF can sue vandals under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (better known for its horrifically broad criminal applications). But it's impractical for a lot of reasons, not least that any defendant would likely be judgment-proof. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

General question (YANAL, not asking for legal advice, blah blah...): At what point are socks violating the CFAA? After the first block? The first ban? The first WMF office ban? If it's (as I suspect) the third option, then maybe just asking the WMF office to ban some of our more persistent LTAs might help, even if they never attempt to sue anyone. Just a message that "hey, this is real world now" might jolt some LTAs out of the impression that this is only a video game. That said, the CFAA is frighteningly over-broad, and it feels almost immoral to take this route. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder, how my home country handles such sock masters. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Online stalkers and harassers can be held accountable in the United States, especially in cases involving threats of sexual violence. But the victim needs to pursue it. The Streisand effect needs to be taken into account. Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it depends a lot on what the sock is doing IMO. For example, I'm fairly sure the WMF does try and take action against paid editing socks, but I think most of the time with limited effect especially if they're based outside the US or some other part of the world where the legal system might care. And I recall looking into a disruptive sock once. I can't remember how but somehow people were fairly sure of their real identity and from what I read they were known for causing disturbances in the physical world. (I don't mean relating to Wikipedia but they had obsessions in and were causing problems to people in person because of this. The stuff they did on Wikipedia seem to arise out of similar obsessions.) Even managing these disturbances was something the legal system in the UK where this person lives had trouble with. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind the probable reaction of courts/elected officials to the situation: "If Wikipedia dislikes anon IP vandals so much, then Wikipedia can change its rules to require registration in order to make edits. If Wikipedia can't be bothered to take such a basic and obvious step to mitigate the situation, we're not going to mitigate it for them." Ravenswing 12:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there is something the WMF can do for us. Expose the spur.us proxy data (that they're already paying for) to the edit filter. That won't stop all the LTAs, but it will help us cut down a huge amount on the endless whack-a-mole for many. But that's a "low" priority. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:ST47ProxyBot already has functionality for auto blocking peer-to-peer proxies, among other types. It might be possible to interface that with Spur's dataset. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I was told (in a private phab task IIRC) that some of the "proxies" labeled by spur.us as proxies might not actually be proxies, otherwise they'd just be blocked automatically, as Tor exit nodes already are. But the ability to say something like likely_proxy & /* something mildly sus */ in an edit filter (even if the user is logged in) would be wonderful. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

LTA, Block evasion IP address that refuses to listen.

145.255.9.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address has been constantly adding unsourced information to many Disney related articles. On the Disney Channel (Russian TV channel) article, the IP address has added unsourced information and was reverted by @Ertal72, telling them to WP:CITE. The IP address refused to listen and proceeded to start an edit warring over this.

The IP address also proceeded to continue their disruptive editing on the List of Walt Disney Studios films (2020–2029) article by constantly changing information without providing a single source. This kind of disruptive edit isn't the first time this happened as the exact same thing happened on August 30, 2023. The disruptive IP address back then was:

136.169.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Also, despite all of the warnings given on the IP address's talk page, the IP address has only replied with unsourced information for their changes. Please look into this as soon as possible as the IP address is continuing to disrupt Wikipedia as I am writing this. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Pixar's Exclusive Distributor instead of Co-production

Walt Disney Pictures is Pixar's Exclusive Distributor through Disney's Distributor BVPD/WDSMP. 145.255.9.32 (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for your edits? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Like DreamWorks Animation Movies. 145.255.9.32 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

What Phil means is can you provide a link (i.e. a URL) to a reliable source for your claim(s)? --MuZemike 12:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

See also the Revision history. yikes Nobody (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow! A couple of people are way over WP:3RR. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes! I want to ask where are the admins?? This IP address will not stop with the unsourced edits and it's completely chaos!! I about to lose my sanity! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 14:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like @SarekOfVulcan put an end to it. Nobody (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the page might be protected, but this IP address could cause more mayhem on other Disney related articles. I'm still waiting for any admin to block this IP address. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 14:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why you made 19!! reverts pm List of Walt Disney Studios films (2000–2009), wayyy over WP:3RR. This isn't obvious vandalism so it isn't an exception. It takes two to edit war and you're an experienced editor, you know this. I think it's trout worthy. Canterbury Tail talk 14:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, I overshot the WP:3RR policy because, per WP:3RRNO, this IP address was likely evading a block of 136.169.173.251 (blocked for 1 year). Both IP addresses are from the same location and both have very identical editing patterns on the same article and other related articles. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 15:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Rather than mashing the undo button, you should alert an administrator. I've range blocked the /20 for a year. Account creation is left enabled, so it might need to be disabled if registered accounts show up. I have thousands of pop culture articles (films, video games, albums, etc) on my watchlist, including some of these articles, but the tedium involved in checking my watchlist means that I often miss disruption until it's reported at some noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, Thank you and also, I would like to apologize for the mess I've caused yesterday. I did report the IP address to the AIV at first, [45] however it was left unanswered for 6 hours and was eventually removed by the AIV helper bot [46]. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

AIV is mostly for overt vandalism. You can try your luck reporting block evasion there, I suppose, but it's unlikely to be acted on unless it's pretty disruptive. It's often better to report it here, check the recently active admins, or leave a message on the talk page of a SPI clerk or CheckUser who's active in the topic area. It's likely they'll be familiar with the socks and block evaders, and they'll probably also be willing to do range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

K. Annamalai et al

Apologies if this has been discussed here before, which I'm sure it has!

There are two Indian politicians by the same name, K. Annamalai. One is a member of legislative assembly, and as such notable per NPOL. Their article is at K. Annamalai.

The other has been causing all sorts of problems for a long time now, at AfD, AfC, SPI, and elsewhere. It has been created and deleted several times, and when one of the titles finally gets protected, the same rigmarole starts at a slightly different title. Examples include Kuppusamy Annamalai, KuppusamyAnnamalai, K Annamalai, Annamalai K, Annamalai Kuppuswamy, etc., plus whole host of others with bracketed dabs after the name ('IPS officer', 'BJP', and so on).

These have been deleted following at least two (possibly more) AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai (I.P.S). The latter was taken to deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_November_2#Annamalai_Kuppusamy, which endorsed the outcome, and set a condition that this article should not be created under any title without going through DRV.

New article has recently been created at K. Annamalai (politician) (see what they did there?) by Kelmaa (paid editor). When I requested G4 on the basis of the earlier AfD and the DRV verdict, this was challenged by Zoglophie with a comment "this should go to Afd". That not only goes against the DRV outcome, but I also don't see why we need to keep litigating this same subject over and over at the already busy AfD. If I've caught the wrong end of this particular stick, someone feel free to point this out.

Be that as it may, I'm also here to ask (and in so doing, I now have a funny feeling I may have asked this before!) if there's any mechanism which would protect titles on wholesale basis, as otherwise this nonsense looks likely to run and run, and community-wide a huge amount of time and effort continues to be wasted on this. There are so many different ways of spelling, abbreviating, punctuating, and dabbing the title, that even mass-protecting anything with eg. the 'annamalai' string in it may not catch everything, but it would at least be a decent start. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Surely this has been created by someone having paid interests, but I have removed that portion from the article.

I speak one of the Indian languages and I found many sources about him. There must be many in Tamil as well. So if you have objections to my removal of CSD, you can re-open an Afd as I said. zoglophie^•talk• 12:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing This page is for chronic and unmanageable behavioral problems, as it says at the top. Are you arguing there are chronic behavioral problems here? If you want help in editing Wikipedia, you can ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. For preventing the creation of pages, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (salting). TSventon (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Recreation (under any title) is explicitly disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV. We just had (another) AfD with subsequent DRV; the existence of sources (and it doesn't matter in whcih language) just by themselves does not make the subject "magically" notable. I have moved this to draftspace, protected the (new) article title...whomever likes can add sources to the draft, and it runs an evaluation via AfC. Note: any admin who feels this is the wrong appoach can reverse this at will, of course. Lectonar (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:TSventon - Yes, there is a chronic unmanageable behavioral problem. The main continuing problem is the gaming of titles, as was discussed in the recent Deletion Review. A further behavioral problem in the DRV was the bludgeoning by an appellant who tried to compensate for his limited command of English by using an excessive amount of English. This is one of the most blatant cases of the gaming of titles that I have seen, by changing the spelling of the name, adding disambiguators, etc. User:DoubleGrazing appears to have suggested use of the title blacklist. Yes, there is a chronic conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for the explanation, but I realised that this was a valid request when an admin acted on it. TSventon (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems that using the title blacklist would be difficult because another notable person has the same name. What's wrong with submitting the draft to WP:AFC, as required by the WP:DRV discussion? I'm afraid I don't have time to read through all the references myself (is it possible that this has been WP:REFBOMBed?) but someone there may determine whether this is a notable topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Phil Bridger asks what is wrong with submitting the draft to AFC for review? Nothing. That is what a good-faith editor should do. DoubleGrazing and I are asking what to do about bad-faith editors, who are changing the form of the title rather than using AFC and DRV. As for the title blacklist and the existing article, the existing article exists. Would blacklisting the title have any effect on the existing article? Can someone with more technical knowledge of how the title blacklist works answer the question? But we are asking this forum to prevent the bad-faith creations; we are not asking how to handle good-faith submissions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going to make the exact same points, although no doubt less persuasively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If we just blacklist the title as usual, it wouldn't affect the existing main-namespace page or the two existing pages in draft, nor their talk pages if they already exist, nor in general any other already-existing page that's matched; but it would prevent the creation of new talk pages, talk page archives, good article reviews, afds, mfds, etc. With a little more effort, we could allow pages in Talk:, Draft talk:, Draft:, and/or Wikipedia:, though it's inconveniently verbose to blacklist "main namespace only" since the blacklist works on a match of the entire title instead of namespace+title. Head over to Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist and make an edit request, and we can workshop the regex there. (Not going to edit it in myself, of course, since I was heavily involved in that DRV.) —Cryptic 22:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Phil Bridger asks if the draft has been reference-bombed. That is a rhetorical question. Bad-faith editors often reference-bomb an article so as to interfere with checking the references. We knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A Few More Comments

I have a few more comments. The gaming of titles is a form of gaming the system, which is a policy violation. I have often seen the gaming of titles for actors and other entertainers, where it is probably being done by ultras, enthusiastic poorly behaved supporters, but in this case at least one of the editors is a declared paid editor, and the others are probably undeclared paid editors, rather than ultras.

In this case, the subject editor may be notable, but the drafts and articles that are being developed by the supporters do not establish notability. If an article is finally accepted on this person, it will be in spite of the disruptive efforts of their paid supporters, not because of those efforts.

If there are reliable sources in Tamil, then a neutral editor can develop a draft and submit it for approval by Deletion Review, since the last Deletion Review said that Deletion Review is now required. Any work on drafts or articles that tries to bypass Deletion Review will just be disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

IP Editor(s) making nonconstructive/disruptive edits

• 2601:46:57E:BE0:A41E:FE77:8FCD:45B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:152:680:43A0:E475:216E:A017:5BDA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:154:8103:7BC0:68DA:CD71:F14:CA5A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2607:FB91:8C05:50A9:98F:FD37:E74D:846E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:3973:B20D:3FFE:4B08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:F4B0:74EF:5597:4FAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:493D:765D:2C6B:CBBE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:618D:AD6D:DE3B:7200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:D8:5FC3:F3DC:C26E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:3973:B20D:3FFE:4B08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9900:510B:5D53:6CAD:5730:10BF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:9907:1100:3519:BEB8:CDFF:42F6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 96.58.139.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for long-term abuse)
• Virginia Beach Department of Emergency Medical Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emergency medical technician (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Louisville Metro EMS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Louisville Division of Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Boston Emergency Medical Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Louisville Division of Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tampa Fire Rescue Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Santa Clara County Fire Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Toronto Fire Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Virginia Beach Department of Emergency Medical Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There have been a series of nonconstructive edits made to a lot of related articles. I have selected only some of the articles to put above; there are others. The changes are mostly formatting changes, such as capitalization changes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), but most of these changes are against WP:MOS or general practice in English; they have been asked (1, 2, 3) to read the MOS and the capitalization issue was mentioned. Some are just not constructive, such as duplicating content in infoboxes. They are also refusing to use edit summaries (after being asked). They have been asked (1, 2) to proof-read their edits, as there are simple mistakes that are being published that they are not fixing for themselves. Some of the changes appear to change content, not just formatting, and those are unsourced. There have been warnings on their user talk pages from other editors, not just from me. Because these are IP edits, I can't know if they're the same editor, but given the character/content of the edits and the overlapping/similar pages, it seems likely. Kimen8 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I contacted admins Muboshgu and Materialscientist about this user, resulting in semi-protection of Santa Clara County Fire Department. Diffs: [47] [48] Wracking ^talk! 17:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2603:9000:9900:510B:0:0:0:0/64 was previously blocked for disruptive editing by Ad Orientem on 5 September for 48 hours and then for block evasion by DatGuy on 7 September for 3 months. As soon as the block expired on 7 December, the unconstructive editing resumed.

 — Archer (t·c) 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the 2603:9000:9900:510B/64 range x 6 months. A couple others are already blocked. Unfortunately, the remainder are too stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif

Hello,

Could you please issue a warning to the user Kingsif who practices wikihounding on the following soccer pages : 1, 2, 3, 4 among others on November 4 against an IP user with whom they have editorial disagreements. In fact, they intervened suddenly even though they had never edited there before, spying on the IP user with whom they disagree. What's more, the reasons given for most of the revocations are unjustified : the North Korean soccer team's page is literally an entire copyvio (cf. this is a copyvio and it's still there), and the additions on women soccers' pages are generally truthful, moreover the so-called "journalist style" (advanced by Kingsif to justify their edits) is very much in evidence on the US women's soccer team's page, for example, and they don't seem to have a problem with it (double standards). There's nothing scandalous about the fact that the "History" section for Spain has been expanded, as this is the first time the Spanish women have won the World Cup, and they weren't the favorites. Regards. --37.166.75.173 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is what they have a problem with me changing, by the way. I am far from the only user to have reverted such additions, too. I believe the Spain article had double the content added, yes "journalist style" using metaphors and hyperbole and excitement, and it may have been the same article or another that had such an epic saga added without refs. I clearly edit many football articles, there was no hounding - I noticed that one IP had made many such edits and (quite genuinely) suggested that they start a blog rather than try to get their original content about the teams to be hosted on Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Or this they just reverted. I had previously quoted the content this IP (and all their other IP identities) want to include, but you should just click on these links and the ones the complaint indeed provided themself to see what they refuse to accept doesn't belong. And that's without addressing the major concern I gave them (the reason for reverting wholesale rather than cleaning): a football team article cannot be a repository for a blow-by-blow of every single game that team plays. There's thousands of bytes there for just seven games. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Attacks against nationality in edit summary

95.25.242.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacks against nationality in edit summary. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. We'll have none of that nonsense. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

HJ72JH reported by Skitash

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

HJ72JH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This disruptive user is persistently adding unsourced original research to Zanzibar genocide and moving the page title to what suits them without a discussion, in violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:V. There is now a problem and the article can't be moved back to Zanzibar genocide. Skitash (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• I used the same style as the 1804 Haitian massacre article. I also used the exact same source. The research I included was original and came from the Zanzibar Revolution article. I used this research (which was sourced and academic and the exact same source used by Skitash) to provide the reasoning for the massacre in the Zanzibar massacre. HJ72JH (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• The article was biased and I was making the article neutral by providing all viewpoints using the exact same source as Skitash. HJ72JH (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not been persistently adding. Once again, I used the exact same source and similar text from the Zanzibar Revolution page. The article in question should be written in the same style as 1804 Haitian massacre, which is not called a genocide by many sources. Skitash used a very small number of sources to create a biased article that did not explain the reasoning and also used Africa Add as a source for the photo. This film has been called racist, inaccurate and accused of staging scenes which shows the scene from which the photo comes may have been staged. I used the exact same source as Skitash that was used in Zanzibar Revolution to explain the reasoning for the massacre. It was a horrible event that should not have happened and all sides must be talked about just like the 1804 Haitian massacre article. HJ72JH (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In conclusion, Skitash has lied about what I did, I've explained my reasoning in full, I used the exact same source as Skitash and this is why the report should be withdrawn. HJ72JH (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The source Skitash used for the photo is Africa Addio which is what I'm referencing.This film has been called racist, inaccurate and accused of staging scenes which shows the scene from which the photo comes may have been staged. HJ72JH (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Right now there are two articles, Zanzibar massacre and Zanzibar genocide, that aren't quite the same but are very similar. We can't have that so one of them is going to be a redirect to the other. The right place for this discussion is one of those articles' talk pages and yet neither has been created. @HJ72JH: is this disagreement so bad that you won't discuss it at Talk:Zanzibar genocide? @Skitash: is this disagreement so bad that you won't discuss it at Talk:Zanzibar massacre? City of Silver 21:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's best to have it in the same style as the 1804 Haitian massacre, I will it to also be called a genocide in the same style. As in, "The 1804 Haiti massacre, sometimes referred to as the Haitian Genocide". I believe the reasoning for the massacre should be included rather than dismissing the reasons. I've used the same source. I do not think it's okay to be accused of adding unsourced material when I used the exact same source as them, a source that's also used on the Zanzibar Revolution article. Moreover, I believe they're being hypocritical as they used a controversial, unacademic source. HJ72JH (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like the report to be retracted as it is unfounded. HJ72JH (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@HJ72JH: That probably won't happen. First and foremost, read WP:NPA because if you don't stop personally attacking Skitash, you're going to get blocked and their preference will stand. Make your case in a new discussion at Talk:Zanzibar genocide. City of Silver 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

They personally attacked me with this report: "the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Zanzibar genocide." I used the same source as them and similar text for the context from Zanzibar Revolution. HJ72JH (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a warning. I warned you because you persistently added WP:OR to the article. Skitash (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The report is good faith and not a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The report was unfounded as I used the same source as in Zanzibar Revolution HJ72JH (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That's {{uw-or}}. Not a personal attack. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The report was unfounded as "Motivated by resentment as well as racial hatred and promises of wealth and women" comes from Zanzibar Revolution HJ72JH (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

And uses the same source HJ72JH (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@HJ72JH: I'd love to weigh in on this but since this page isn't for content disputes, I can't do that here. It's time for you to start a discussion at Talk:Zanzibar genocide. City of Silver 21:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, do that now, and remember that Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. With every edit here you make it more likely that you will be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion board is about conduct, and looking at HJ72JH's edits that led to Skitash's revert and warning, the warning for original research was in good faith and appropriate, so Skitash did nothing out of line. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the ping.

• HJ72JH has been making misleading edit summaries while deleting a bunch of sourced content,[49] such as by removing a large chunk of background information that is crucial for understanding as to how the genocide came to happen.
• HJ72JH has been disruptively moving the article to "Zanzibar massacre" without a discussion, comparing the genocide to the 1804 Haitian massacre. The word massacre is used to describe indiscriminate killings of a large range of people, whereas this is clearly not the case in the Zanzibar genocide. This was a systematic genocide of an ethnic group, and multiple reliable sources agree on this. Per WP:COMMONNAME, there are much more sources which refer to the event as a genocide [50] than those which refer to it as a massacre [51]. This event also had a considerably higher number of deaths than did the 1804 Haiti massacre.
• The user added their own original research to the article, such as by labelling Africa Addio as "(a highly controversial film that has been accused of being inaccurate and racist)", changing "Motivated by racial hatred and promises of wealth and women" to "Motivated by resentment as well as racial hatred and promises of wealth and women", and adding "However, this must be noted as a personal opinion by one person." to the end of the lead, which is purely WP:OR.

Skitash (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I added background information.

The labelling comes from the article itself. HJ72JH (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Motivated by resentment as well as racial hatred and promises of wealth and women" comes from Zanzibar Revolution HJ72JH (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) HJ72JH is making controversial moves without discussion, and this needs to stop. Zanzibar massacre is gone, and Zanzibar genocide is left. Any editor is free to suggest that it be moved to a different name using the appropriate procedures. See WP:RM.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

2A02:C7C:5676:8D00:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:C7C:5676:8D00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP range has been editing for over a year. A large number of the edits are categorization or constructive grammatical corrections, but there is also a lot of persistent misinformation vandalism and MOS violations.

Some of the misinformation is altering cited information ([52], [53]), sometimes uncited information, but no explanation or source is provided ([54], [55], [56]). Ford Explorer has been a favorite target - the same edit has been made repeatedly: [57]. They've done this at least a half-dozen times, sometimes even begging it to not be changed, but no source has ever been provided.

MOS violations include capitalizing seasons ([58], [59]) and an apparent disdain for semicolons ([60], [61], [62]).

The user often changes IPs before seeing a talk page warning, but those that are seen go un-heeded. The only user talk page edits this range has made are to blank warnings and make personal attacks (and some pleas to be unblocked, but there was no block on the individual IPs nor the /64, /48, or /32 ranges at that time so I'm not sure what that was about). With all the seemingly-productive edits mixed in it's unclear if this is a recalcitrance/competence issue or if it's sophisticated trolling; either way, I think a block is in order. --Sable232 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

All the information provided in the edits are 100 percent correct, PLEASE stop questioning this and leave alone, YOU will be banned from here permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:5676:8D00:5D1B:DCD5:4370:63F9 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's "100 percent correct," why are you unwilling to provide reliable sources to back that information up? --Sable232 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

User's blocked for 72 hours. Then we see what happens after that. I've also left a message on their talk page (which was blanked and replaced with a "please unblock me" request) I like Astatine (Talk to me) 01:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

76.93.58.213

• 76.93.58.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been consistently adding unsourced information to sports-related articles, even after two level-4 warnings by me. Given the warnings on their talk page and the previous block, I would prefer the block to be 51 hours long. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 00:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

208.90.127.100

208.90.127.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Persistent WP:NOTBROKEN violations, for months, after an warning by Sergecross73 in August and my recent re-iteration of the warning. Not sure if mass-rollback is advisable, but I think a block would be. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Potential to be another User:Kung Hibbe address. Canterbury Tail talk 02:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

CIR problem

Jorene Paguyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Been having an issue with an editor repeatedly changing an article without sources. They've had it explained to them so, so much on their talk page that they need to cite. But they keep either straightforwardly ignoring those attempts to engage, or asserting that they know the information is true because of their nationality and/or they saw it on TV. Repeated attempts to explain what a citation is have gone nowhere, and they keep just...doing the same edits again. I'm trying very very hard to be patient but it continues to be fruitless; I am not advocating or requesting any specific response here but it's clear I'm getting nowhere. --AntiDionysius (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely until they can demonstrate they understand that all content must be verifiable by the use of reliable sources. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

User: John Yunshire

John Yunshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not only consistently tried to keep the extremely biased tone of this article that misreperents the entire Korean people as racist and chauvinistic, but he has also went on to delete an entire talk topic discussing the neutrality of this article as well, as if to try and make his edits seem justified.

To be fair, I made unexplained reversions myself on this article by simply reverting in order to combat this, and I will accept any criticism/punishment for this, but I must say that I have only done so to try to get rid of the biased tone of this article and make it as neutral as possible. I also have never deleted anyone else's entire talk topic in the article. Thickmelon (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to read WP:BOOMERANG before proceeding further. And then explain how an edit summary like this [63], or comments like this [64] could possibly be seen as appropriate. If there are actual issues with the article, you are going about dealing with them in exactly the wrong way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

New account that appears to have gamed AC and then introduced edits into articles related to WP:ARBPIA that it shouldn't have because it should have EC before doing so.

Hi all, I noticed @Trucktruckerlatin making an edit to an article which was on my watchlist, which was quickly reverted by another editor. Quick review of the edit shows that it is in regards to WP:ARBPIA and further quick review of the account reveals that it was created 5 days ago, with all of its 14 edits occurring within the last 24 hours.

Edits in order:

• adding a space to an article
• removing a space from an article
• removing a space from an article
• adding a space to an article
• removing a space from an article
• removing a space from an article
• removing a space from an article
• removing a space from an article
• adding a space to an article
• editing to replace a comma with the word 'called' in a way that ignores English common usage just to make an edit

Once the editor made 10 edits this is where the obvious edits start that they shouldn't be making unless they are EC.

• History of Gaza article, which is semi-protected, editor inserts material about 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis
• Persecution of Christians article, which is semi-protected, editor inserts a whole new subsection about "Palestinian Authority and Gaza Strip"
• Susan Sarandon article. I referenced this article above. Editor edits material about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

This pattern indicates a clear deliberate plan of action. Note, I've reverted all edits in WP:ARBPIA areas as the editor clearly has no rights to be editing in that area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We've got another world traveler here who likes to edit from IPs that geolocate to different continents every day. It's probably a throwaway sock puppet account. We already have enough users who add/remove whitespace from random articles, so I've blocked this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)