Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144

Stonewalling by Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am currently dealing with stonewalling (and hostility) from Beyond My Ken over an edit to Induced demand (my change) that I would have thought was rather uncontroversial.

I have attempted to reconcile disagreement on the article talk page (Talk:Induced demand#Lead paragraph), where the user refused to explain what part of the content change he disagreed with, and insisted that I find consensus. I followed his demand, and sought consensus on the talk page (Talk:Induced demand#Consensus seeking). No other editor raised objections (or support). Beyond My Ken insists that changes are not needed, but has still not explained what was wrong with the change, or why we should not explain terms introduced in the lead.

I briefly attempted to address the user at his talk page, pointing to the problems with reverting based on “no consensus” (User talk:Beyond My Ken#Attitude). I was met with the accusation that I want to “fuck up a Wikipedia article”, and subsequently had my signature vandalized on both pages ([1] and [2]).

I suspect, based on previous reverts ([3]) and talk discussion (Talk:Induced demand#Removal of my changes to Induced Demand) that I have stumbled into Beyond My Ken attempting to “defend” the page (or his version of the page, which obviously would be problematic WP:OWNERSHIP). I didn’t stop to investigate other edits for who was “right”, but Beyond My Ken does not appear interested in engaging with other editors in discussion, or elaborating on his actual disagreements to seek meaningful consensus. — HTGS (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look and while I won't comment on the substance of your request (BMK), I should point out that beginning every response with a ping is a bit passive aggressive and not exactly conducive to a calm discussion. FYI. Also the "fucking up" comment was in response to rather ill placed humor on your part. RegentsPark (comment) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken if he's fuck[ing] up the article, then it's reasonable to expect that you'll explain how he proposes to do so on Talk:Induced demand. It's difficult to build consensus when senior editors don't contribute to the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Paul August ☎ 01:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@HTGS: Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are all possibilities for broadening participation. Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I didn’t (don’t) see the change to content as the main issue, so much as BMK’s continued refusal to engage with the substantive issue. — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, I believe those changes to your signature were mistakes, not vandalism. Several of BMK's messages in that thread contain similar, uh, oddities. City of Silver 01:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair assessment, and one I had been working with. I probably should have couched my initial comment there with less certainty; please don’t take it as a primary concern. (Assuming good faith is an exercise that gets harder as frustration grows. As readers will no doubt understand, I got here in final frustration, but I will take the lesson.) — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Propose this be closed with no action.

There's fault on both sides, but nothing to get worked up about. BMK could have provided a single substantive objection, e.g., "The definitions are unnecessary" rather than the unsupported, if correct, assertion, that it "does not improve the article". This would have put us quite a bit higher on the hierarchy of disagreement. However, disengaging what BMK thought to be an adversarial editor is exactly what we're told to do, so it's difficult to fault that.

HTGS did come off as somewhat abrasive with the repeated pings, the title of the BMK talk page section "Attitude", and the ill-fated attempt at humor, plus some WP:BLUDGEONy behavior in the talk page. However, BMK's refusal to engage also left few avenues for good faith attempts to improve the article.

Both editors were acting in good faith, rubbed each other the wrong way, and now there's a discussion on the article talk. Nothing more to do here.EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a minor affair. That said, my concern here is that this is a pattern that we've seen with BMK before, including cases where there's no possible concern about the behavior of the other editor. Specifically, an editor proposes a change, BMK objects, the editor asks what's wrong with the change, BMK tells the editor to go get consensus for the change without really engaging on the substantive issue. It can look like bludgeoning because the other editor keeps trying to engage, and BMK has at times (including this one), set some pretty strict limits on their engagement.

Let's set out a sequence of events here:

1. User A edits article.
2. User B reverts the edit.
3. User A raises the matter on the talk page.

Leaving aside outright vandalism, I think we'd expect User B to explain their objection. This is a collaborative project. If User A and User B go in circles, it's not unheard of for User A to wander over to User B's talk page to figure out why they're talking past each other. I've certainly done that. If User B refuses to engage User A on their talk page (which is User B's right), then User A is kinda stuck unless (1) someone watching article decides to put an oar in or (2) they pursue one of the other options I listed above. It's possible for User B to make the cost of change for User A rather high without really doing anything. Maybe that's okay. Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Emphasis added. Without a substantive objection there isn't really a dispute. WP:OWN and WP:EPTALK go into this. In my view, and I think policy backs me up on this, reverting a good-faith change creates a responsibility on the part of that person to explain the revert substantively if someone challenges it. Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mackensen here, it's exceptionally poor behaviour on Beyond My Ken's part. When you revert a change, it's reasonable for the reverted editor to ask why; in fact that approach is recommended in several places such as WP:EW and WP:BRD. If you respond that a change is "not an improvement", it's reasonable for the other editor to ask you to elaborate. It seems to me that HTGS did a reasonable job of explaining why they felt their changes were an improvement, and also explained their rationale and asked for BMK's input on an acceptable way forward, and BMK just basically said "no" and expected that to be the end of the discussion. It looks very much like BMK opposed for the sake of opposing and for no other reason, and then refused repeatedly to discuss, and bluntly refusing to discuss is not the fait accompli BMK seems to think it is. Later, after HTGS started an expanded discussion to which they invited BMK (BMK again opposed for no other reason than to be in opposition; a clearly tendentious argument by that point) there appears to be consensus emerging against the proposal, but those editors gave reasons that HTGS could respond to, and since there's actually a discussion things are moving forward productively. If BMK doesn't want to participate in that discussion then so be it, but their repeatedly saying "no" with no attempt to explain and no followup is very clear WP:STONEWALLING. Frankly, if BMK was not as experienced as they are, I would consider pblocking them from the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also note BMK's comment here (since reverted), in which they cast a bunch of aspersions about HTGS' motivations, and said they would participate in a consensus-seeking discussion once HTGS started one. That comment was left here just shy of three full days after HTGS had already started a discussion, a day and a half after HTGS pinged BMK to comment in it, and roughly a day after BMK's last hand-wave opposed-for-the-sake-of-opposing comment. I would like to see an explanation for all of this, although I don't expect one to be forthcoming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Could you please respond to the above concerns expressed by Mackensen and Ivanvector above? Paul August ☎ 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe we are still seeing these same old complaints about BMK. This is a perennial problem going back many many years and countless people have tried getting through to him. Status quo stonewalling is an extremely maddening disruptive behavior to have to deal with and I don't know why he continues to do it. Absolutely exhausting. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm too new to be aware of the deeper history, but since @Ivanvector and @Mackensen have seen one, perhaps they would be willing to propose a solution, such as a short block with escalation if it continues. Since I haven't seen the pattern, I would not support such a proposal, but if they can dig up some diffs that demonstrate the pattern, I'd be amenable to casting a support !vote. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've had run ins with BMK as well. They are needlessly antagonistic and happy to ignore things like ONUS when they are certain they are correct. My recent example was related to disputed content added by an IP editor to the Right-wing_populism page. BMK was certain they were right thus ONUS wasn't going to apply. The problem in this case is they might be correct but since they were certain they were correct they didn't feel it was important to follow the normal dispute resolution process (discussion, get consensus etc). As an individual incident this is a blip. However, these things come up time and time again with this editor. Perhaps a 1RR limit would help? Springee (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Per BMK's response and the discussion below, I'd like to request closure with the following understandings:

1. No action for this report, given BMK's personal circumstances and laudable response in this thread.
2. Note BMK's acknowledgement that to "stonewall" without explanation is not acceptable: I should have provided the reasoning behind my objection to the changes.

If such behavior does recur, swift sanctions to prevent disruption would be reasonable. Otherwise, there seems to be a consensus that BMK's statement satisfies the desire that they see the prior issue and will undertake to not repeat it, which if successful, is an ideal outcome. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment You are all taking this way out of proportion. Examining just this complaint, there is almost no substance in it. First, is there really stonewalling going on? OP changed some text in the lead, BMK reverted, this went on a couple of times (WP:BRD HTGS?). The discussion moved to the talk page where all I see is an "original lead is better" vs "new lead is better" arguments. Either both are stonewalling or neither is. Technically, it is HTGS's job to explain, line by line, why their version is better. The "Fuck" comment is by itself understandable. Starting every response with a ping is less than polite because it reads like "John, why do you think so"; "John, you are not right",... which is passive aggressive in the extreme. Then OP chooses to make a "joke" which is barely funny and you need to focus on the ! point at the end to figure that out. When BMK responds with "don't be a smart ass", HTGS responds with "Some people have a sense of humour, some don’t", a very obvious implication there. Add to that the rather patronizing "It’s merely advice; we’re all here to improve the encyclopaedia, after all". Given this background, BMK's response is actually quite mild "I enjoy humor, and especially when it's appropriate, but mot so much when it's an excuse for fucking up a Wikipedia article". All this delving into history etc. is not appropriate in this instance. RegentsPark (comment) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Prior history

Per EducatedRedneck's request I've gone through the archives for prior examples of this issue. I don't like digging up old disputes like this but I think it's relevant to show a pattern:

• June 2016: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#Beyond My Ken's banning Wikipedians from user talk page (and incivility) (no action)
• June 2016: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#User:Beyond My Ken reverting maintenance edits without explanation (no action)
• June 2016: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#User:Beyond My Ken (no consensus for a warning)
• March 2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken (BMK restricted from placing images in certain ways)
• April 2021: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Beyond My Ken disruptively editing ("BMK, you do good work, stop giving people a reason to bring you here")
• November 2022: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#Stale revert war and refusal to discuss at List of warez groups (BMK reprimanded)

There are plenty more in the history. BMK is a good editor who does good work. He's also a confounding editor who digs in his heels over trivial things and makes mountains out of molehills. I don't like the idea of BMK getting blocked, but I also don't like that BMK's approach to collaborative editing guarantees that we'll be back here again. It's a waste of his time, our time, and the time of whichever novice editor accidentally crossed his path. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I happen to know that BMK is going through some things, and some of those things may have contributed to a shorter fuse than was called for. T he above list is--well, if half the list is from June of 2016, then maybe we should not weight those things so heavily. I propose we move on: I know BMK is trying to. If at any point his supposed stonewalling is actually disruptive enough to warrant a block (or if it amounts to edit warring, etc.), then surely one of the administrator in this thread can consider placing a block. Same for the other editor, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Mackensen for compiling a history, and thank you Drmies for the added context. It sounds like nobody wants a block for BMK, but I would like to hear them at least acknowledge that status-quo stonewalling is unproductive and state that they'll try to avoid it in the future. Even discounting the 2016 cases, there's still a one-per-year ANI pattern, including the case this time last year for damn near the same thing, for which they were reprimanded. In that case also they never seemed to acknowledge they did anything wrong, and here we are again. Before we move on, it'd be good to see some indication of progress, and not that we'll be back here again next year. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies I appreciate what you're saying, but let me push back. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia. At any time, editors are dealing with difficult situations. We don't know and it's not fair to ask. This also recalls BMK's response during one of the 2016 discussions, when he went on a long personal tangent instead of addressing the matter at hand: [4] (starts with I will not be participating in this discussion again, read on). We're still responsible for our conduct, and this is a pattern of conduct. I can dredge up examples from over 10 years ago, and I can also find more recent ones. BMK has "moved on" from these incidents before. He stonewalls, people object, he evades any real accountability for a situation that he caused, and then we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, I don't think we'll hear from BMK anytime soon, and that's really all I can say without betraying confidence. Mackensen, you've been an admin for longer than me--rather than continue this thread and try to find more arguments in the past for why the user should be restricted in the future, why not use our new and very sharp tool? You see something, say something: warn the editor and then give them a partial block from the article and/or talk page. I don't think BMK has a tendency to "spread" his ... stonewalling, so a partial block seems like a helpful thing here. But no, again, I do not support sanctions. The disruption is over, at least for now, and building a case (like the old RfC/U, which I'm sure you'll remember!) for serious editing restrictions, or whatever you had in mind, that's going to take a while and I'm not convinced it will do anyone any good. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of digging up old history, but I'm also not comfortable that an experienced user with a noted problematic history can simply ignore the discussion about yet another incident in the same pattern and thus escapes any sort of accountability for it. BMK has been editing since this thread started, and did comment here although they removed that comment, so I don't accept that they're "too busy" to respond, whatever it is that's going on in real life (and no we don't need to know what, you can take Drmies' word to the bank). None of us is perfect and we all have bad days, all we're looking for here is for BMK to acknowledge that they were having a bad day and that their behaviour in that discussion was below the level generally expected of veteran editors, or, you know, something. It's pretty much the bare minimum, and I think if we had that then we'd all just move on and go do something else. Instead, here we are talking about blocking him, and I can't say I disagree. This probably will blow over, it's already pretty far up the page and sometimes things go that way here, but next time this happens I wouldn't blame anyone for blocking first and asking questions later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This is also good to know, and does mean we could extend a little more compassion. I still am concerned that this seems to be a pattern independent of whatever's going in in their personal life and, as Ivanvector pointed out, they've continued to edit outside this thread. This was before this ANI, but they seem to have been exhibiting some stonewalling behavior in this thread as well, where they assert that sources support their insertion, that it's necessary, and forbade it from being removed. A pblock from Induced demand doesn't seem to solve the issue, and without some assurance that BMK is working to fix it on their end, I think something should be done to prevent further disruption to other editors that are attempting to improve the encyclopedia.

@Drmies, this is not an ideal situation, where the community needs reassurance but BMK is not in a position to give it due to personal life. What would you think of an indef, with the stated intent that it be lifted as soon as BMK provides the bare minimum as Ivanvector says? If BMK is dealing with things in their life, I agree that we shouldn't demand they put aside serious personal matters just to reassure us. Is it unreasonable to enforce a wikibreak until BMK is able to provide the requested assurance? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, I think an indef block for this is excessive. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I'm just trying to find some way that we can know the disruption will stop, but which makes it easy for BMK to edit productively , as they seem to do good work. I'll keep thinking on it, and if you have an idea, I'd be interested. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Since Drmies has made this disclosure, let me say that I'm in a position to confirm what Drmies said, and I discounted it because BMK has behaved this way for over a decade, as demonstrated above. If your personal situation is such that you can't edit in a reasonable way on Wikipedia, then that's fine, but the solution is that you don't edit Wikipedia until that's no longer the case. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Mackensen, last I checked BMK made a few edits but is not looking at/fighting over that Induced Demand article anymore. I am not saying that BMK has never been criticized for his edits, and I have in the past agreed with some of the criticisms. I just think that this has already blown over, and yes I think that we should move on, which is what we often do in meaningful relationships. Sorry, I'm just sympathetic toward his personal situation, and I know that doesn't excuse past indiscretions, but I do think this one is over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies if that's how you see things I won't try to change your mind. I would ask you this: what's your plan for addressing things the next time this happens? Because it will happen again, and the fact pattern will be identical. Is that just the cost of doing business? Because it really sucks for the editors who encounter BMK and his abusive behavior for the first time, who wonder if maybe they did something to encourage it. It's up to experienced editors, administrators or otherwise, to model expected behavior and set norms. I've thought for years that we do everyone a disservice--including BMK--by just shrugging our shoulders. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Mackensen why would we shrug our shoulders? We can block for all kinds of things, including disruptive editing, and we have partial blocks to get editors out of one particular article or page where they are not acting properly. I use that tool all the time; I rarely shrug my shoulders. A temporary partial block is a great tool. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck said: I would like to hear them at least acknowledge that status-quo stonewalling is unproductive and state that they'll try to avoid it in the future, and Ivanvector has said this is: pretty much the bare minimum of what we should be willing to accept from BMK. Without such I don't see how we can not impose some kind of sanction. Paul August ☎ 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Paul August that some kind of restriction is necessary but that an indefinite block is too harsh. I think a WP:1RR restriction gets at the nub of a major issue--reverting without discussion--and has the benefit of being easily enforced. Something more elaborate of requiring a discussion of reverts isn't enforceable. Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There's the issue of what's been called "stonewalling" and there's the related edit warring/hostility over trivial matters, both of which go back many years. BMK doesn't often use edit summaries at all, and when he does they're frequently of the "not an improvement" or "better before" variety (those links are lists). There are many complaints about fighting disruptively over things that should be trivial (basic MOS stuff, etc.) going back 15 years (omitting a link to an RFCU from way back then because it's under an old name). Every single one of BMK's replies at Talk:Induced_demand#Lead_paragraph is frustrating. Repeatedly reverts with inadequate explanations, then HTGS starts a discussion and BMK responds with the nuance of an ecommerce chatbot, saying "start a discussion and get a consensus" with no substance six different ways to someone who started a discussion and is trying to get a consensus. It took multiple other users getting involved for the matter to go anywhere at all. A restriction that says, after so many years, "you have to better explain your reverts" doesn't seem like it would be functional, so maybe a revert restriction is the only way to intervene (certainly not a block). I'd probably modify the 1RR Mackensen proposed to specify it's for things that aren't obvious vandalism or flagrant POV pushing -- BMK does a lot of noncontroversial reverts, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. While I can sympathize with BMK on a human level for whatever he’s going through right now, I have never not. And most of us have never not. BMK has always been a very well-liked, sympathetic, highly respected editor, and it is uncontentious that he is overwhelmingly a net positive member of the community, to say the least. It brings me no joy to criticize him, much less say he should be sanctioned. I just can’t buy into the suggestion that this is a minor incident that has blown over and we should all just cut BMK a break and move on. That’s literally what we’ve been doing for years and years. It sucks, but I can’t even take the suggestion seriously anymore. It is just an endless cycle and begging him to self-correct over the years just hasn’t worked. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• BMK has a long history of altering reference sections to go against MOS. When confronted in the past, he has said that MOS is wrong and his way is right. Recent examples from the last few months no edit summary; other, examples, and another one. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Complaints about BMK's edits at the BLP Noticeboards in the last 6 months.[5][6] The second link was more concerning wherein that they mass reinstated disputed WP:BLPRACIST categories and demanded consensus for removal despite WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Response by Beyond My Ken

As mentioned above, I've had some very serious family events going on which have distracted me since the end of June. My participation here has been minimal, and the effort I've put into my editing has been poor, which has lead up to this situation.

I've had time now to review this thread, and my actions at Induced demand, and I substantively agree that my behavior has been very poor, and not at all up to the standards of what is expected from Wikipedia editors, or, for that matter, which I expect of myself. As suggested by multiple commenters, to "stonewall" without explanation is not acceptable: I should have provided the reasoning behind my objection to the changes that User:HTGS made, and fully participated in the consensus discussion they started. My failure to do so was entirely wrong.

I apologize to the community, and specifically to HTGS, for my rude behavior, and I formally withdraw my objections to the changes they wish to make to the article.

My personal situation is ongoing, but not interminable, and it was my intention not to edit in any major way until it had passed and I was able to edit with a clearer mind and fewer distractions; in fact, I contemplated asking for a self-block for a month or so to help me in carrying that out, but ended up not doing that.

If, as a result of the discussion above, some sort of sanction is deemed necessary by the community, I stand willing to accept it, although I do hope that it won't be required.

I'm not sure that I have much more to say about this incident, so I don't plan to comment further here unless someone has specific issues they wish me to address, in which case I request a ping to make me aware of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Separate to, and before any discussion of administrative questions or sanctions, I want to say thank you, Beyond My Ken. I appreciate and accept your apology, and I sincerely wish you the very most kindness and grace in your personal life. I understand fully the compulsive draw that Wikipedia can have, and I trust that even if other editors can find you… troublesome at times, you wouldn’t have the record you do if you didn’t care about the encyclopedia. — HTGS (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

HTGS My deepest appreciation for your gracious response. I hope that editing Wikipedia will continue to be for you the great pleasure that it has been for me for the vast majority of my time here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I also want to thank Beyond My Ken for their thoughtful response here, particularly given the personal circumstances, and echo HTGS' well wishes. This seems to me to be an ideal outcome; BMK has given a strong indication that there won't be future stonewalling, and given the stressful personal time, I find that remarkable and commendable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Beyond My Ken. I also hope that your personal situation improves soon, and hope to see you back soon. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I truly appreciate Beyond My Ken's thoughtful and considerate response here. Under the circumstances I'm happy to consider the matter closed. We can revisit as appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for your comments above. I now consider this particular matter to be resolved. However, I hope you realize that there is evidence here of an ongoing problem. An acknowledgement of that from you and a promise to try to do better would also be much appreciated. And you should understand that It will be more difficult to overlook any such behavior going forward. I've admired you and your contributions for a long time, and I hope to do so for a long time to come. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul August: Yes, please do take my comment above as an acknowledgement of not only this particular incident, but also of past incidents as well, which present a picture of poor behavior on my part. I very much hope that moving on from here I will be successful in stopping myself from editing in that manner. Because I edit in some controversial areas (it's ironic that the article in the current case was not a particularly controversial one), meaning I come up against some difficult situations, I may be prone to slip a little at times, in which case I would appreciate a note from someone politely pointing out the error of my ways, which I hope will be sufficient to get me back on track again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's going to be hard for a single message to put folks who perceive a long-term pattern at ease. That said, this response is a masterclass in responsibly addressing these kinds of concerns. I'll agree with others that we can probably close this now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

agreed with this ^ uninvolved Andre🚐 06:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I would add myself to the list of "folks who perceive a long-term pattern." I once previously specifically suggested to BMK that they stop using the edit summary "better before", which they used frequently to revert constructive changes. To their credit, they took the suggestion seriously, and I believe they reduced their use of the edit summary, but this whole affair here shows that the fundamental issue remains. BMK regularly has difficulty collaborating with other editors. Agreed that no sanction here is justified, but I strongly urge BMK to *always* take the time to explain their thinking except when dealing with the most obvious kind of vandalism. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non EC user disruption at an AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See User page. User has been notified of CT restrictions and asked to desist but persists in editing (and canvassing) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Palestine (phrase) notwithstanding. Assistance please.Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Palestine (phrase), where User:Raconcilio has just asked a contributor whether they want to "cause murder" by supporting deletion of an article. [7]. This follows repeated attempts to canvass for the AfD. [8][9]. I removed the later canvassing myself, while another couple of editors have removed other edits to the AfD by Raconcilio on the basis that they are excluded from editing per non-EC restrictions on the topic. Since I'm unclear myself about the exact policy on this, I'll not offer an opinion on the merits of the removals, but instead suggest that at minimum, the blatant canvassing and the "murder" comment alone are quite ample grounds to exclude this individual from further participation in the AfD, if not grounds for broader sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've ECP'ed the discussion and someone else has struck the contributions. Probably a bigger issue to be dealt with but I'm about to step away from the computer for the day so will leave to others. Daniel (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about non-EC restrictions on AfDs. But there is a restriction on A-I topics for non-ECs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The ARBECR restrictions are clear, if couched a little bit technically:

When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions: The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not listening Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked an AE logged. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears that canvassing by e-mail is now occurring. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "killing" suggests the same editor. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

BD2412, can you confirm? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see my comment in the AfD. User:MaterialWorks noted the same experience there. BD2412 T 20:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: What is the username of the editor who sent it to you? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Raconcilio. BD2412 T 21:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Xxxcatfishxxx

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Xxxcatfishxxx is a relatively new user who has persistently added pet-keeping guide info to Peters's banded skink. This info has been reverted by four different editors and partially reverted by a fifth over the last six weeks. Despite being welcomed, notified, and progressively warned on their talk page there have been zero replies or changes to their editing behaviour. They have been advised to slow down and read some of the pertinent editing policies before editing, but have already run afoul of image copyvio rules, made threatening noises in an edit summary (here), and inserted odd text that appears to be AI generated (here) - note "the Joined Realm of Extraordinary England and Northern Ireland" and multiple fabricated species names "Peter's Grouped Skink"/"Peter's United Skinks"/"Peter's Joined Skinks") before paraphrasing it to read better in the following edit. Loopy30 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:111.92.80.194

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pertaining to the page South India, there is a persistent disruptive editing by user with IP address User:111.92.80.194 who is hell bent on adding a particular city to the list or removing others ([11], [12], [[13]). There were two reverts done and on my part have left a message now in the talk page. As the user has started engaging in personal attacks ([14]) which is evident in the comment left for the last edit, bringing it to the notice as it involves using bad language in the public history which might warrant an IP block if it continues. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of Markt (Bruges)

I just deleted Markt (Bruges) per WP:G12 with the following evidence:

• The article was created by Darkwraith (talk · contribs) on 20:47, 18 June 2008
• At 20:48, 18 June 2008, CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) tagged the article as a copyright violation of http://www.trabel.com/brugge/bruges-market.htm
• At 21:07, 18 June 2008, Darkwraith removed the copyvio tag for no reason
• The article has largely been unchanged since then
• The website tagged as copyvio is now dead and brings up a stock "domain for sale" page, so Earwig reports a 0% likelihood of a violation, erroneously.

Can another admin or two check I've done the right thing, as I always get slightly uncomfortable unilaterally deleting articles that have hung around for over 15 years, even when I think I'm doing the right thing and following policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the last archive prior to that, May 26th 2008, I don't see it being similar enough personally. The article is mostly photos and those are all fine. The paraphrasing on the rest is okay as far as I can see. Now that's based on the final state of the article. Some things are close, but I don't honestly think close enough to warrant a delete and some are considerably different. Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This should have gone to WP:CP. Quite likely it only called for revdeletion; while the first revision is clearly infringing, the current one just as clearly isn't, and even others from 2008 are unclear. WP:G12 does not read "there was a bot claim of infringement at some point which the deleting admin doesn't need to verify", and it's not the only tool in your toolbox. —Cryptic 12:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit made after the CorenSearchbot tagging is actually a complete rewrite of the text. That version is okay. I suggest retoring the article and applying revdel from creation to the CorenSearchbot edit. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the article from 25 June 2008. I'm also improving the article, copyediting it and adding sources which will make any claims of copyvio moot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your restoration makes it appear that Kevin is the author, but Darkwraith is the author of the article. Our licensing requires attribution which is missing because of the partial restoration. The revision immediately after the CorenSearchbot tagging is the one that should be restored if you don't want to include any of the copyvio material in the article history. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm feeling dense today. Do you mean the revision from 21:03, 18 June 2008, and all earlier revisions restored but revision deleted? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The revision time-stamped 20:03, 18 June 2008 is clear of any copyright violations. It was a complete rewrite by Darkwraith. That is the version that should be the restoration point if you want to restore with proper attribution, and omit the versions with copyrighted material. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Threat from IP 188.236.172.210

[15] "correct it or u will face consequences" Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Gasp! Not....consequences! In all seriousness the IP was told, twice in fact, that what they are requesting will not be done on the talk page. I don't see any admin action needed at the moment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I do - this is in a contentious topic with an ECP provision, and the threatening behaviour is disruptive in itself regardless of the merits of the requests. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This was my thinking. Longhornsg (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) you didn't notice/alert the IP that this ANI discussion is being held. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have now done so. Just do it yourself if the OP does not . Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:זור987

Since last year, I keep an eye on the Israeli deletion queue (and much longer on the Dutch queue). Yesterday I noted that User:זור987 has submitted already his third AfD with an invalid deletion rationale. זור987 is a permanently banned user on his native Hewiki. He takes interest in anything related to light, which is nice, but does not seem to recognize the limits of his own understanding of this field, creating a long history of unhelpful edits in the article space as well. I appreciate if someone can take a look and, if warranted, take action. gidonb (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the he block reason but that wouldn't affect us here. Could you give a bit more information? They have a lot of edits. Secretlondon (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The block at Hewiki is a consequence of repetative inseration of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, and removal of information based on the same, which are pain points also at Enwiki. The warnings at his talk page summarize some of that. For example, here. His three AfDs speak for themselves. I used זור987's self-assigned gender at Hewiki. Hebrew is a more gendered language than English. gidonb (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We could stand to see some diffs on this wiki supporting your vague contention of objectionable behavior; what he was up to on other wikis isn't our issue. On your only tangible complaint, only one of those AfDs is remotely current; the prior two are from July and 2021 respectively, not what you could call a barnburning problem needing immediate action. Ravenswing 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright violations by User:Sedvabs

While performing copypatrol, I encounterd a version of Iznik pottery was flagged as a potential copyright violation. At the time, the page had been this version of Iznik pottery. After investigating a bit, I noticed that some of the paragraphs had been copied verbatim from "The blue-white ceramics of China and İznik", an article in Hürriyet Daily News; "Stories Ottoman Objects Tell", a 2018 class project from Boston College; and The Iznik Pottery Industry: C15th-C18th, a chapter in a web course on Islamic Ceramics from the Ashmolean Museum. All three of these sources appear to be non-free. After looking at the page history, I found that the content had been inserted by a student, Sedvabs, who is a participant in a WikiEdu Course run by the University of Delaware. The WikiEdu staff listed on the course website are Brianda (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed).

The initial additions of plagiarized material to the page by Sedvabs are as follows:

• One edit by the student inserted a paragraph beginning with Alongside the Chinese porcelain. This paragraph can be directly found in the Hürriyet article.
• The next edit by the student inserted a paragraph beginning with Blue-white may be divided into four types. Again, this parahraph is taken verbatim from the Hürriyet article.
• The following edit by the student inserted two paragraphs. The first of the two appears to be in the student's own words, but the second of (the paragraph beginning with İznik ceramics on display including wares) was lifted verbatim in the Hürriyet article.
• A few edits later, the student added another paragraph (beginning The1520s is thus a period) that is almost taken word-for-word from The Iznik Pottery Industry: C15th-C18th.
• After making several other edits, the student inserted another paragraph (beginning with Iznik pottery both drew inspiration from). This paragraph was copied verbatim from the Boston College student project.

After noticing this, I began to remove the material that had been copied word-for-word from the sources and I left the student a note on their user talk page. In the message I left the student, I noted the following in bold print:

Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.

One minute after I left them the notice, the student re-inserted the paragraph beginning with Blue-white may be divided into four types into the Iznik pottery article, despite it being a copy-paste from Hürriyet.

After seeing all of this, I left the professor (ProfTern) a note on their talk page about the incident. The professor responded, saying that they had been in touch with this student to alert them to the helpful and clear reminder about close paraphrasing that had been placed on the student's talk page. The professor also noted that the student had completed a WikiEdu training module about plagiarism, and noted that plagiarism is a violation of community guidelines at the University of Delaware (for more information on this, see page 48-50 of Delaware's Student Guide to University Policies, where the institution's understanding of plagiarism and academic honesty is defined, as well as question 3 of the Academic Integrity Quiz available on the University's website).

Less than one hour after the professor left a note on her talk page, however, the student proceded to continue to plagiarize and insert copyright violations:

• In two consecutive edits, the student re-inserted paragraphs that had been largely copied verbatim from the three sources mentioned above.
• Two hours later, the student made slight modifications to one of the plagiarized paragraphs in another edit. It is unclear to me what the reasoning of this was, but it was entirely insufficient to remove extant close paraphrasing concerns.

As such, I have re-removed the material that had been copied and/or closely paraphrased from copyrighted sources. A REVDEL has yet to be performed.

Because this editor has repeatedly inserted copyright violations and plagiarism into the same article, even after a talk page warning and a talking to by their professor, I am requesting that Sedvabs be blocked from the article namespace until the student shows that they understand our copyright policy and plagiarism guidelines and will adhere to them going forward.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indef block WEF/ WikiEd probably ought to encourage U of Delaware to fail the student with prejudice. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this to our attention. User: Brianda (Wiki Ed) is reaching out to the student as well, and I'll message User:ProfTern to follow up about this, but it sounds like they've already been pretty responsive. I think this is a case where the student is just simply not listening. We'll continue to reach out to them to help them understand the consequences of readding plagiarized content including the real prospect of being blocked. Thanks. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Only want to point out that "email this user" is not enabled, which means it's possible this student never provided an email and hasn't seen the talk page messages. ProfTern may want to email them instead. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rhododendrites. I emailed this student immediately when @Red-tailed hawk informed me of the issue. The student seemed to understand the problem but was unable to meet with me to discuss as they had a final exam for another class. It is clear that they did not in fact understand the consequences of re-adding plagiarized content, as pointed out by @Helaine (Wiki Ed). I have emailed them again asking them to immediately stop making edits until we can get this sorted. Thanks to everyone for their patience with the student editors. ProfTern (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@ProfTern and Brianda (Wiki Ed): Thank you for communicating the serious nature of this to the student and for being responsive throughout this unfortunate incident. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Article page ban immediately, to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. This may be a good-faith issue compounded with WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, and emailing may not prevent the damage. The solution is to block access to that article, which in the absence of an ability to contact them otherwise, will get them to contact us. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps an area where being harsh with student editors is very appropriate, given the consequences plagiarism can have academically. Noting that there was also some copyrighted text in the user space, which has already been tagged for revdel by Red-tailed hawk. CMD (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• I p-blocked them from mainspace, draft, and user to make sure that this is addressed before editing resumes. Any admin can lift this block at their fancy --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Or expand its scope, hopefully; what areas of the project are we encouraging them to edit. ——Serial 21:34, 8 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 ([16], [17]), sometimes uncited information, but no explanation or source is provided ([18], [19], [20]). Ford Explorer has been a favorite target - the same edit has been made repeatedly: [21]. 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 ([22], [23]) and an apparent disdain for semicolons ([24], [25], [26]).

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)

POV IP user repeatedly making troll edits

Every single one of User:170.10.40.20's 10 edits have been reverted. They're all just deliberately disruptive posting of knowingly false information. The latest edit is not even a WP:PRONOUNS issue. It's a deliberate blanking of sourced material about the subject's gender and replacing it with the IP user's preference. WP:PRONOUNSAGF does not apply. Editor has received four warnings before the level 3 warning given today. Requesting IP ban. Kire1975 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

One edit in the past few weeks from an IP isn't usually grounds for a block. Mach61 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Please close the complaint. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it normal for an administrator to threaten to block a user over a content dispute?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is regarding the Dave the Diver article. On the talk page there was a dispute over whether particular information was reliable due to multiple reliable sources posting it (whether the game was "indie" or not). When a user tried to claim the information was wrong they were explicitly accused of lying and threatened with a block. The incident has been resolved however I am concerned about the way it was handled; particularly the treatment by the admin towards the user; and a lack of mediation between parties. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As per the notice at the top of this page, please leave a note on User:NinjaRobotPirate's talk page informing them of this discussion. WaggersTALK 14:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is two months old, and didn't directly involve you. Is there any particular reason you want to revisit this now? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Gamowebbed, the quote you provided has NinjaRobotPirate say, "If you remove this again, I will ask an uninvolved administrator to block you." The title of this section has you claiming that NRP threatened to block the user, but that is definitely not the case. --Yamla (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The accusation of lying is what concerned me the most. How would an uninvolved administrator block the user? A edit warring/disruptive editing block? 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator, and had this been presented to me as disruption (or admin abuse) on 2 October, I'd have probably done something like this but nothing else. I certainly wouldn't have found any grounds to block anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(ec) The first thing to observe is that there is a difference between threatening to block, and threatening to ask an uninvolved administrator to block. The latter is what happened here. I'd say that was badly worded and the "threat" should have been to ask for an uninvolved administrator to impartially review the situation and decide on an appropriate course of action - which might or might not involve a block. The accusation of lying - a failure to assume good faith - is a bigger problem with that post in my opinion.

It's worth reading the rest of the discussion; Waysiders took the right approach and noted that everyone has a bad day from time to time. On that basis I'd say there's no cause for action provided this is a one-off incident, but if this becomes a regular behavioural pattern then ArbCom will need to review NRP's conduct as an admin. WaggersTALK 14:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A "bad day" which was provided in good faith by the user doesn't exactly justify strongly accusatory behaviour from an admin towards a user who was trying to correct misleading information. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I furthermore note that NinjaRobotPirate is the principal contributor to the article Dave the Diver, and consequently has spent time making sure it's well written and factually accurate. It's just a fact of life that when you've spent hours, days , weeks or even years fixing up an article, it's kind of human nature to snap at someone who seems to be making it worse. I've done it, and I'd like to see a longstanding editor who's written lots of content who hasn't. So my conclusion is, yes it's a bit gruff, but the net harm to the encyclopaedia is about zero, so - no foul, play on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My feelings are pretty much in line with Richie333. Although one might add "obviously" to that statement. I was subjected to "strongly accusatory behavior" first when I added sourced content to the article – I even found a source that stated everything in black-and-white and included a direct quotation from the source inside the citation itself. And it was still removed, and I was accused of adding unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, at least you didn't get accused of WP:OWNing the article! :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's ok to say an editor is lying if that's what the editor is doing. For example, "the source doesn't say indie developer" was a lie. This section heading is also a lie. Same with "trolling." OP is trolling, I am trolling, we are all trolling. And that's no lie. Levivich (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent refactoring of cited, quoted content

Among other disruptions by Dribl (talk · contribs), continuing after multiple notices and a reassurance that there would be no further problems. Also problems with tense, other MOS issues: [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]; [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]. When I see a new account working this quickly and carelessly, it raises a red flag suggesting this isn't their first time. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this just another of the problems with newcomer task: copyedit? I can see that a new editor wouldn't necessarily always remember to check for titles and quotations, and the MoS on tense catches even experienced editors (me for one) out all the time. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I imagine so, but it's a problem when they rephrased quotations a half dozen or more times, acknowledge the warning, vow not to do it again, and then do. Once or twice, perhaps it's understandable, but this is a characteristic of the user's copy editing. There are, as linked above, a number of other small errors. When reversions are necessary at 20 or 25% of a new account's edits, it's a problem for the community. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

These are far from the worst examples of newcomer copy editing I've seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not pretending otherwise. That doesn't negate the issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned the numerous Oxford comma edits, like the latest [42]. This is a lot of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Persistent unhelpful and unsourced edits by IP

@121.6.221.174 consistently adds unsourced information and refuses to engage in discussions or use edit summaries, despite having been warned multiple times on talk page. Examples: [43], [44], [45], among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawkin Verbier (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Sporadicmonk03

Sporadicmonk03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a long history of unexplained, undiscussed changes, some of which they enter edit wars over, including unexplained removal of content and other changes other editors consider unnecessary (e.g. capitalizing section names in navigational templates, changing between national varieties of English, navbox decoration) or disruptive. They seem to have completely disregarded concerns and objections over their behaviour on their talk page (see history log), just like elsewhere on Wikipedia, by simply reverting them. –Vipz (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

31.125.85.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is this editor's IP address (doing the same things). –Vipz (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Their reply to this was thus and they then deleted the entire section. They've also just deleted a Talkpage note complaining about the IP address so I've blocked the IP address, and left them a note to (a) edit from one account, and (b) not to remove other's comments. If anyone else feels a block is necessary, feel free. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

CIR issue on shortdescs

• Mzwakhe Vilane (talk · contribs · logs)

User either doesn't understand or disagrees with WP:SDNONE (some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful) and is changing the deliberately absent short descriptions on self-descriptive articles like Economy of Japan and History of Austria to the phrases "Japanese economy" or just the single word "Austria".

They've ignored multiple talk page messages pointing out that such edits are unhelpful. They are making no other edits. Belbury (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

They're editing from the android app, so this is a possible case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I've blocked them for 31 hours for disruptive editing, but if they still do not respond on their talk page and continue with the same edits they should then be indeffed. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User: AB BLEL

User:AB BLEL continuously inserts the same edits into Telegram (software), while WP:SQS all of my attempts at discussion. As they provide no edit summaries and do not explain their reasoning on the Talk page, which I have requested multiple times per WP:DISCFAIL, I am evoking the last step of DISCFAIL and requesting administrator action. To be clear, their edits are not vandalous in nature, but the complete lack of communication and reverts makes them rather disruptive.

Here is a brief list of diffs from this incident:[46] is the first in this particular event; followed by them regularly reinstating their changes without any response to my attempts at discussion: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Culminating in today's return after multiple warnings, silently adding the same edits: [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASpacemanFalls (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I note that nearly all of this user's edits are to this article. I think there's enough that we should ask for an explanation of this apparent WP:COI. At least if the editor does not respond to concerns he (the editors name is "William" so I assume that he's a "he") should be blocked from that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism on Konstantine Anthony Page by an IP User

Hello,

I'm reporting ongoing vandalism on the Konstantine Anthony Wikipedia pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantine_Anthony by an anonymous user, specifically IP address 72.132.44.146. This user has made multiple disruptive edits, removing significant information regarding the public spanking incident involving Konstantine Anthony, which was widely covered in the news globally including major outlets such as Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS and the AP.

The edits in question are: - [Edit at 15:50, 26 November 2023, removing 344 bytes] - [Edit at 15:49, 26 November 2023, removing 633 bytes]

These edits have been reverted, but the persistent nature of such vandalism suggests a need for temporary semi-protection of the page to prevent further disruptive edits.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sleeplessmason (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I am a fan of the content you have reverted to restore (diff). Firstly, for such a sensitive claim in a BLP, I expect the sourcing to be better. Secondly, how is this a "controversy" - he got abused by "anti-LGBT" people according to the source, that isn't him being controversial? What is "significant backlash and attention, sparking online debates"? Was it significant? The source doesn't suggest so. Do we need to cover this in a separate subsection of the article? Is it currently being given undue weight given the relative size of the article? For me, yes. Daniel (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Persistent problems with the User User:Bgsu98

Since several weeks User User:Bgsu98 act like a tyran in all Figure skating related pages :

- It appears CLEARLY that this user deletes absolutely all edits made by users other than them ; - The user shows themselves threatening as soon as someone else revert their edits ; - Do no accept to be that someone else edit all Figure skating related pages, constantly reverting the edits made that other editors ; - Extensively modifies all pages related to Figure skating and do not accept that someone else make an edit.

They should receive a warning and if their behaviour continue to be sanctioned or even forbidden to make another edits of these pages and banned from Wikipedia. 2A01:CB14:1190:F700:35C6:B260:FF82:187F (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hyperion82

@Sportsfan 1234

@Bayreuth0115

2A01:CB14:1190:F700:35C6:B260:FF82:187F (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of this page, you are required to notify involved editors, and pings are not sufficient. I have notified them for you this time. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I love how one of the users this string of numbers has pinged as a "witness" is someone who's currently blocked for disruptive editing and persistent sockpuppetry. 😂😂😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 range of the OP for one month (they've been blocked before recently).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• For the record, I was the person who semiprotected 2023 European Figure Skating Championships page because of this IP's disruption. User:Bgsu98 is a responsible adult, has been wrongly reviled for much good work in the past, and can handle the abuse. I thank that editor for their persistence and good humor about it. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate your kind words. If anyone has any genuine questions or concerns regarding edits I've made to any figure skating articles, they know where my talk page is located. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Bgsu98: - A lot of those figure skating articles you frequently edit use a list-defined reference citation style. When you remove content that is supported by a list-defined reference, you then need to go to the references section and either comment that ref out, or remove it. See these cite errors you created here, here, here and here, and honestly, that is just a handful, you frequently don't check for these specific cite errors. If you need further assistance, please see the help page. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the suggestion; I will be more mindful in the future! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

500/30 gaming for ARBPIA editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pretty clear ECP gaming by User:WarrenWilliam via intensive recent gnoming to reach 500/30 for the purposes of ARBPIA editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will take such a trivial request, but could the WP:REDLINKS violations be rolled back? Mach61 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is obvious gaming. If I am reading their contribution log correctly (and taking into account their deleted edits), their 501st edit was to make this change to the article on the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. This edit was immediately preceded by about 250 minor edits of varying quality. Some edits, IMO, made articles worse (for example, this edit turned a sentence into a fragment). They apparently were copying and pasting a stock edit summary; in this edit they forgot to change the edit summary. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed ECP permission and have advised that before they can request extended-confirmed permission to be returned, they must have made at least 250 substantive edits and at least three months have passed. Return will be contingent on evidence that they will comply with CT restrictions, subject to consensus at AN or individual administrator discretion. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone feels like taking on a gnomish rescue effort, there are a ton of edits in the gaming run that need review. Edits like this one change away from the consistent full-sentence style used at the year articles. I reverted that one but there are hundreds. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be even better if WarrenWilliam could do the cleanup. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my position: the cleanup would do a lot to rehabilitate WW's standing in the community, but I still think Acroterion's 250 edits + 3 months criteria should stand as the path back to EC status. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this not a pretty clear example of WP:NOTHERE? I propose a topic ban for Palestine/Israel. It's going to be hard enough to maintain balance and neutrality on those pages without keyboard warriors turning up and trashing pages in order to get up to the minimum edit count. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll also point out that his very first edit in the topic area was to add a quote from someone that was obviously framed in a way that raises BLP concerns (ie. it was a quote that, placed in this context, could obviously harm their reputation), cited solely to a primary source for the quote itself - the Galloway quote in that edit is the particular point of concern, although the entire edit has more minor issues. They later expanded the same source to include more people, with the same problem. The fact that they rushed through ECP to add something like that is particularly concerning. --Aquillion (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Fairly clearly WP:NOTHERE and blocked indef. If they wish to actually contribute, they can do so via an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Think you just left a block notice, but didnt actually block? nableezy - 18:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have carried out Black Kite's clear intention and blocked the editor. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits restored

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll refrain from edit warring with an administrator, UtherSRG. Edits by Shanna1998 have struck me as likely written by AI--[54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]. The net effect of the prose is to add verbiage, often promotional in tone, and which sometimes alters the meaning of the previous version. Sometimes the revisions read as pretty credible, in part because they seem to improve prose that's already poorly written or promotional. The user has not responded to messages. After I reverted some of their most recent edits, UtherSRG restored several [62]; [63] and removed my warnings to the user [64]. Even if I'm wrong about the use of AI here, the edit history is largely non-constructive. UtherSRG then undid my most recent reversions of edits by BillyB1511, [65]; [66]--the second one is a coin flip, though restoring the first makes no sense. My warning was again reverted [67]. Mostly, I'd appreciate more eyes. A separate report focused on the AI issue is inevitable, as I've been running into it by new users of late. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at Denny Januar Ali, the version that UtherSRG reverted to (Special:Diff/1188437835) is inferior on two grounds. First, it removes a reference. Second, it adds words without improving meaning. I don't get the revert, and I'd like to hear from UtherSRG on their overall approach here. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

IP - I acted hastily. I had just reverted another IP's vandalism when I saw your edit on TimeShard and mistook it for more vandalism and started reverting your recent edits. I should have been more careful. You have my sincerest apologies. How may I make this up to you? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

UtherSRG, other than reconsidering the edits, there's no need for atonement. Your explanation is deeply appreciated. Very best, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So...shall I do the reversions? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've got them now as best as I think is possible. Had to massage one while another was no longer needed as the underlying word choice was changed entirely. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. They weren't all obvious regressions, but constituted part of the larger patterns of disruptive/test edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antares600

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Antares600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Antares600 has been here as a registered editor for just under a year. They started off with mild incivility as their first edit and eventually escalated to this. Not a harbinger of good things to come (although, in fairness, the personal attacks did cease).

They've made their mark through general disruption and edit warring. Whether it's edit warring against the MOS (with more snarky commentary) or edit warring to restore refspam, they've done it against a number of other editors, and seem to think that everyone else is the problem. This little gem, where in the midst of edit warring to make a mess of the page layout they told another editor to stop using Wikipedia on a desktop, is simply asinine.

They've repeatedly deleted sourced information claiming it's "redundant," but would never say what it was redundant to.

There was recently a consensus to remove automotive model codes from the "Name" field in infoboxes and give that information its own line for clarity. Antares600 decided they were above that consensus and tried removing it all, followed by this unpleasantry on the talk page of the editor who implemented the change, calling it "pointless" and a "waste of time."

Image vandalism has been the largest area of disruption. They admit to editing against a long-standing consensus that images are selected based on their quality and not on recentism. And to think that this or this (to name only a couple recent egregious examples) are improvements is either a lack of editing competence or intentional disruption.

And, finally, the "I don't need to cite sources because I know everything" edits have started. I've found that editors with this attitude rarely become productive. --Sable232 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Carmaker1, is that you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:1011:b326:48d4:f9e6:9ce3:c1ca:85af (talk • contribs)

I'm surprised it took this long for Antares600 to end up at ANI. I'm still waiting for the permanent ban they promised to give me. - MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

They're certainly not the worst user, but not very useful either. Blocking them won't make a difference; there will simply be one more IP swapping and adding pictures over and over and over again. Please require registering before editing.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie, I had a feeling it would eventually come to this, but I was in no rush to do it since I don't relish making reports here.

IP, almost certainly not. Editing style doesn't match, and if the IP talk page to which Antares600's first edit was made is/was their IP, it's in a different part of the US from Carmaker1. --Sable232 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Already beaten you to the punch. I wash my hands of making any contributions to this site. I've had enough of the BS from you and every power hungry admin who have clashed with me. Y'all have done nothing but wear me down mentally. You lot are the worst people I've dealt with in the past decade. I'm done.

Now then, I'm abandoning my account, and expect for it to be deleted. Do note that this is not a request. I will hear no arguments nor any other comments. Antares600 (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, so... bye. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced edits from user with two accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Where did Linus go, Charlie Brown? (talk · contribs) has been warned repeatedly for adding unsourced content, and Sergecross73 blocked them for it for one week in November 2023. Their (declined) unblock request said only 'I am inexperienced and I lack knowledge about this platform'. Unfortunately, they didn't spend their time away learning about reliable sources. They returned to create an article with a single reference to Fandom. They've added wikilinks in several articles which disagree with those to which they link, or in the last case, are unsourced there as well.

They have a sock, Charlie Brown versus Lucy Van Pelt.. (talk · contribs) whose work (in the same subject areas) suffers the same problems. Messages on the talk pages of both accounts say that their drafts also lack sources, and are typically deleted as G13 when the user hasn't edited them for six months. They're taking up other editors' time, and the encyclopedia isn't benefitting. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocking admin here. The editor was reported to me like 2 months ago. I was trying be lenient and work with them, because it felt like their edits were in good faith (and they weren't very prolific generally speaking.) But they've completely disregarded my offers for help and warnings outside of the time they posted that ridiculous unblock request. I'd support a CIR block at this point, as they're not open to interacting with others to improve, nor are they improving on their own. I'll hold off in case consensus moves in a different direction. I'm not dead-set on a block, more like exasperated and out of ideas. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D blanking sections, refusing to comply.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was disappointed when they first started this. It is a blatant violation of policy. I reverted their edits, they refuse. I disagreed with them on talk pages, they are still refusing to update article information and instead are resorting to blanking. I notified them multiple times, they disagreed. I try to convince them, they still think I violated WP:BURDEN. They think that their diffs are OK, as if they were at the top of the Danning-Krieger Curve. I can't provide the diffs, but their 4 recent edits to current squads are all blanking, and they insist that they are right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalwidth (talk • contribs)

Have you thought that they might be insisting that they are right because they are right? And I certainly see no violation of WP:BLANKING, which is about user talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The are blanking, not in talk pages, but the equivalent in mainspace. I also somehow forgot to sign my report. Anyways, this means they are not right. Equalwidth (C) Your watchlist 08:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Equalwidth, it is called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, maybe I'm overstepping the bounds here, but WP:AGF can only go so far. It's patently obvious from their talk page and editing history that Equalwidth is either a) a returned blocked/banned user (something touched on but un-addressed on their talk page); b) someone who is masterfully trolling WP's admins. Could be a little of column A, a little of column B. Of course, "Danning-Krieger" might also apply, but did I mention, trolling? Whichever it is, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What? I believe that WP:NOTHERE does not apply here. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Equalwidth (C) Your watchlist 11:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am deeply concerned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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[[68]], however none of the editors wanted to discuss this information. After RFC ended I opened a new RFC[[69]] regarding this information. However, no one wanted to discuss that either. After that I put this information on NORN[[70]] and FTN[[71]] for discussion and there none of these editors took part in discussion, it's the same case in the Columbus talk page[[72]]. I started discussion in the article Dante Alighieri where the same information existed in Italian footnote.[[73]] 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".[[74]] 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)

Number of warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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

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 [75], or misrepresents the source [76], or simply adds a non-existing page as a source [77]; some of those edits may even fall under vandalism. This has continued even after conveying the concerns about his edits [78], [79].

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 [80] 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)

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)

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 [81]. 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)

Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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.[82], [83] The user also removed contents (files, references) from articles without proper explanation like these [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] 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.[89] Jayashankar8022 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [90], [91], [92] and [93], 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)

100 percent vandalism: User:Abstracc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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[94] to the most recent,[95] this person has vandalized Wikipedia with every edit. Especially worrisome is today's BLP violation against Eminem.[96] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threat by User:Patidar Itihas

User:Patidar Itihas has made a legal threat on the Leuva Patel talk page: [97]. 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)

Revocation of AutoPatrolled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: [98] [99] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 63 hours long. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 00:17, 12 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 ([100], [101]), sometimes uncited information, but no explanation or source is provided ([102], [103], [104]). Ford Explorer has been a favorite target - the same edit has been made repeatedly: [105]. 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 ([106], [107]) and an apparent disdain for semicolons ([108], [109], [110]).

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)

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, [111] however it was left unanswered for 6 hours and was eventually removed by the AIV helper bot [112]. 🛧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)

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,[113] 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)

EC gaming/WP:ARBPIA

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)

User: John Yunshire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 [114], or comments like this [115] 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIR problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.[116] 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)

Hello my dear,

to your answer,

You are not right, thats the truth and you all have an obsession to edit other peoples statuses and life journeys and more, you know nothing about. You have no right blocking an ip with your obsession to edit and twist it to say someone else who edited two times only with an truth and fact of the relationship status and nothing more, to be supposedly obsessive while you all are that by being on the edits what is none of your business of his and relationship status with his girlfriend and definitely when the girlfriend did not know how to do this right the first time herself and she done that and he helped as well.

You all wanted a source and he made a source happen for it as well and the gorgousness.

And only that got edited, because the girldfriend will have troubles otherwise. BunnyBoth (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ta-daaa 🎉... Celjski Grad (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement with the sources

A user is not willing to accept some sources even though those got approved by WP:RSN. Check this discussion and the talk discussion of Battle of Aror. Please find a solution for this. The concern of the user is, the secondary sources don't cite any primary source in itself. He rejected the reliability of such sources, even though it got approved by WP:RSN. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion that you linked at WP:RSN has not come to any conclusion yet. It is certainly premature to expect admins to do anything about this, and it looks rather like forum shopping. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 12 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)

That is a threat. Not okay. HJ72JH (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is a statement, not a threat. I do not have the power to block you anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 12 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,[117] 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 [118] than those which refer to it as a massacre [119]. 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)

GermanManFromFrankfurt

GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gajre ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Battle of Nikuštak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I've linked the concerned pages. The editor in question has made false accusations of vandalism against me (see 1 and 2), which is a violation of WP:NPA. This is not even his first time making such accusations against other editors (see 3 and 4, I realize that one of the IPs was a sock, but that's not really the point here). I was simply removing unsourced commanders and units from the infoboxes of the articles in question, abiding with WP:V. I think since of some of these former commanders are still alive, WP:BLP also applies. When it comes to the Battle of Nikuštak, an editor also created a talk page section regarding the result and unsourced content, and it appears that GermanManFromFrankfurt didn't even bother reading it. Diff 2 also indicates a violation of WP:BATTLE. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Recurring inappropriate language by User:W!K!TR0N (sock of User:DARKXRAV3N) and vandalism

User W!K!TR0N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated engagement in reversing changes made to the Apple silicon through multiple sockpuppets of user DARKXRAV3N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While these socks have been reported to the appropriate board, I'm bringing it up here because I'm honestly sick and tired of having to repeat this process every few days when yet another sock pops up, specifically for the comments that come along with it as can be found in the edit summary of this edit of the article [120] and the general vandalism to the article that seems to stem from a lack of knowledge on the subject matter that result in WP:OR based on sources that don't even support the claims being made. --YannickFran (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Note, user was blocked at the same time this was originally written. --YannickFran (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerning edits on Frank Farian's wikipedia page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not the user of subject in this issue however I found it to be concerning (and such user wanted it on WP:ANI) so I am posting it here. At around, 4:30 PM, a Wikipedia administrator (Drmies) blocked an anonymous IP user for "longterm disruptive activism" (the user was not involved in anything that alluded to WP:ACTIVIST content). The issue at hand was whether the Wikipedia page for record producer and booking agent Frank Farian's birthplace should be marked as "'Nazi' Germany" or solely "Germany". Since I do not believe the prefix "Nazi" is necessary in this situation I initially undid this user's edit, to which they backed up their edits with Wikipedia policy and arguments pushing for precise locations within Wikipedia, which actually made sense upon reading them. Upon getting a notification I noticed that the user who undid my edit had been blocked, so I check their reason and talk page and found this:

The user in question was given the message "I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it is not going to work" and a warning minutes before the blocking admin changed their mind and carried out the block. As stated above, I do not believe that "Nazi" is necessary and am not ENTIRELY familiar with WP:BLOCK or an admin's blocking process, but I do feel like this was carried out quite... unfairly, so to speak. The user was giving arguments and citing policy that added up and the admin didn't even provide edit summaries. I am here to make sure that Drmies did not misuse their admin powers and to see if "Nazi Germany" 'was' really just a radically-induced preference or like the proper birthplace in this matter. 

I hope this doesn't become an issue. 

Impossible Project (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that this user is the subject of the situation they are describing; they admitted it here. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

OP indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in my motives for blocking: I left the user a warning, and then I thought to check what they'd been up to and looked at the /64 range. Whatever's happening in here is...well, it happened. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

I would also add that after a number of attempts to hijack K. Annamalai were reverted, one editor even nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai). Curbon7 (talk) 08:08, 13 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)

Link building

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This contribution has mixed of reliable sources and unreliable sources, probably link building pattern, and those link were added in same article in ta.wiki. This report is for admin action. AntanO 09:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You brought an editor to ANI for one edit? An edit that you haven't even reverted, let alone discussed with the new user? Unbelievable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by User:Midofe1996

The user Midofe1996 has made very offensive personal attacks against me. In the talk page of Generalplan Ost article, Midofe1996 wrote: "unfortunately Wikipedia is run by propagandists like @Shadowwarrior8 who do not seek to inform objectively but rather to feed stories."

"In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption." WP:NPA
This is a very offensive smear and this user should be blocked.

Thanks.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I repeat, @Shadowwarrior8 is a propagandist not a real informant.

Wikipedia shouldn't let people like him be authorized editors if it wants to maintain decent quality control Midofe1996 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Midofe1996, if you think Wikipedia is "run by propagandists", why are you here? Remsense留 12:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps the views of the OP are different, but that is hardly the worst personal attack I have ever seen, not even close. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen much worse too, but it is still a personal attack and warrants at least a warning. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  And plainly part of an unacceptable pattern, looking at the talk page. Remsense留 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, just saying that it doesn't fall under something warranting an immediate block, I think. (though a pattern might) 331dot (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's also the pattern of them editing exclusively on pages (and associated talk pages) about historical European atrocities (mostly Generalplan Ost and Atrocities in the Congo Free State), often trying to revise the numbers downwards. This definitely runs into the questionable zone of WP:NPA behavior. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Midofe1996 has bluntly continued with the adhominem attacks, even here in the notice-board!

  That user's smear tactic is not even a one-off now.

  @Phil Bridger @331dot Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering the subject matter, the attack is interesting. Am I the only one to be concerned about Midofe1996's editing considering stuff like this Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State/Archive 1#Orphaned table, [121],[122], [123], [124], [125]. It's possible some of these are justified but e.g. the last one 635,000 has been added back now and I'd note even when Midofe1996 was making the edit there seemed to be a source which gave 600,000. To be clear, I'm not saying all such edits are bad e.g. I found some others like [126] and [127] where it does seem the figures removed weren't clearly supported by any sources, but it does seem to me Midofe1996 has a tendency to remove even sourced numbers or views they disagree relating to mass killings and deaths, and sometimes add questionable stuff for similar reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is even more concerning given that this user appears to focus pretty much on trying to downplay historical atrocities like in the Congo Free State or Generalplan Ost, which make up virtually all of their edits in the last 3 years. While WP:SPA are not disallowed per se, being one on such a contentious topic, mostly trying to revise the victim counts in historical atrocities downwards, absolutely deserves more scrutiny. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

One attack removed, one level-3 warning given. Nil Einne, thank you for the deeper dive: I agree, this editor does very questionable work. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

67.128.123.194

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive anti-Israel IP address

2601:282:1A82:DDB0:913:187C:235F:F063 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can any admin deal with this IP address? Thanks. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

LTA/attacks

I am not sure whether this is an incidence of sockpuppetry (from this banned vandal with the disgusting attack username) or merely egregious personal attacks, but this and this edit by Dock Mock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indicate something odious going on. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

On a much less serious level, immediate use of level 4 warnings against anyone who reverts their edits (here for this edit and here for this edit) is not a great indicator of good faith (and may lend credence to the theory that this new account is not a new user). AntiDionysius (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for the time being. While most of their edits appear to be fine, the pages targeting Oknazevad are not only beyond the pale but also raise suspicion of sock-puppetry. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the several dozen apparently-okay edits on top of it were confusing. Who knows. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

After checking their filter log, I think it's fair to say they are likely sockpuppet of Evlekis, as such I've tagged their page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the tag per WP:DENY (see the instructions at the corresponding SPI). Talk page access and email also disabled as is standard in this case.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, you reblocked after I had already removed tpa, I'm not sure why? There's also no point leaving them a block message explaining that the talk page access has been revoked and inviting them to make an appeal at UTRS. This is one of our more abusive LTAs, you're extending courtesies that aren't warranted. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

May I request that the edits with that abusive sockpuppet name (the one with my username included) be revdel-ed. Crap like that shouldn't be allowed to even exist in the edit history. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Also this diff, from another similarly named sock as well. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've revdelled the edits to Long Island MacArthur Airport that included the attack username. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This would make some of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadji-Dawud to be in fact one person, and NapoleonTHEvictorious (talk · contribs) has an overlap at the edit war in the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That account is unrelated, FWIW, and the AfD is currently appropriately struck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

User:208.175.138.112 has returned from a block and immediately returned to disruptive editing

User:208.175.138.112 was blocked for disruptive editing repeatedly, and has returned and began making the same edits he was blocked for. glman (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for another month. This was previously handled at ANI November 2023. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Yabama200

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently for the past few years, the users Yabama200 (talk · contribs) has continuously changed statistics without citing a source and blanked content on dozens of pages related to Nigeria. There appears to be a concerted effort by this WP:SPA to remove or diminish notes of non-Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.

Their primary and first form of vandalism is to simply lower the stated population number of certain ethnic groups without sourcing and increase the population number of Igbo groups without sourcing. The account has been doing this since its creation in 2020, with its fourth ever edit being to halve the population on the Urhobo people page. While Nigerian demographic data is difficult to come by, it is clear that these edits are not being made based on new information as they don't even change the sourcing. Other impacted pages include the Ijaw people, Edo people, Igala people, Nupe people, Isoko people, and Kanuri people pages — often multiple times per page. For Igbo group-related pages, the account increased listed population sizes by millions of people after committing similar vandalism on pages for some Igbo subgroups (Izzi, Ikwo, Ezaa). In related vandalism, the account blanks sections on non-Igbo history, removes non-Igbo languages, and is obsessed with changing ethnic statistics and regions with significant populations.

This user needs to be blocked, ideally permanently, as this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-charged, unsourced edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC).

Yeah, that's the second editor from Nigeria trying to overstate the population of their own ethnic group in two days. Very likely not socks of each other (look at their opposite-direction contributions on Ibibio people), but a bit surprising to see. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MichaelI Effiong

User MichaelI Effiong appears to be attempting to restore a population estimate that he himself overestimated based on estimate from a source in 2008 that stated that 3.6% of Nigeria's 140 million population is ethnically Ibibio which he estimated to be 10 million when the actual number was 5,040,000 or 5 million. I told him that this estimate is old and that there is a new estimate from the CIA that puts Ibibio at 1.8% of Nigeria's population which would be 4.1 million people. Therefore to keep consistent with Ethnologue's estimate of 6.2 million native speakers the original article had the population estimate for Ibibio people from Joshua Project. I fixed up the inconsistencies and the link and a day later he restores his 10 million estimate from his source even though that's not what it says. When I sent him a warning on his talk page he sent two long replies claiming that his source is from an "indigenous source" and he also sent some propaganda replies and what can be perceived to be threats. When I reported him to the Wikipedia administrators against vandalism they told me to bring the incident here. For evidence you can check the edit history at Ibibio people and my warning on the talk page for MichaelI Effiong for evidence. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• So ... following your less-than-a-month-old community-imposed topic ban on eastern/northeastern African peoples and languages, you just trotted on over to western Africa instead? Dancing on the edge a bit there. Ravenswing 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I edit all peoples and regions. You can check my edit history. But what does that have to do with the report? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we should overlook the twice-made "I will make a formal complaint to wikipedia if your interventions persist; it almost amounts to defaming the Ibibio people. And I will find out who you actually are." threat, Ravenswing. Uncle G (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    Also source misrepresentation, it in no way states 10 million only that the Ibibio make up 3.6% of Nigeria's population. Simple calc makes that 5 million not 10. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    That's what I just said that the user overestimated the 3.6% of 140 million to 10 miliion when 3.6% of 140 million is 5 million. He also continued to restore his edits back again at Ibibio people. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    And continuing to edit war is not the answer. There is no hurry to revert or "fix" the article while this discussion continues. --ARoseWolf 14:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Full protected to stop the edit warring. Cookiemonster1618, unless you want to see a broader topic ban I suggest you rethink your style of editing. MichaelI Effiong, the threat is entirely inappropriate. It needs to be retracted or you will face sanctions for it. Star Mississippi 17:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • The shoe is on the other foot a bit compared to last time at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:Ngunalik. My advice, Cookiemonster1618 is to cool it now. Other people have noticed the outing threat by MichaelI Effiong and the absurd mathematics that 3.6% of 140 is somehow 10.

    They've even noticed that this isn't the only editor falsifying ethnic population figures on this noticeboard right now. (#User:Yabama200) And yes, I hope that they're about to notice from Special:Diff/1177963614 and Special:Diff/1062080153 and Special:Diff/1177969690 that there's a similar pattern of removing any and all non-Ibibio content.

    Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

    • Of the non-blanking edits Special:Diff/1177966939 is an example of removing negative content and adding pro-Ibibio content in its place. Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Incivility, Immaturity and general disruption by User:IPs are people too

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IPs are people too (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this editor a couple of weeks ago, upon looking through their history of contributions here I am concerned that there is a maturity/civility issue at play.

This editor seems to have a completely irrational hatred of British English and British people, and the many of their contributions are disruption related to the presence of British People/English on this site. Some examples:

• They have used their userpage to host a variety of inappropriate comments about British Wikipedians. This started out with a completely bizarre "reminder" to British editors that they don't own wikipedia [128]. They then altered their userpage to contain the claim that the use of British English in articles was due to "British supremacists" making use of an "ill-gotten opportunity" [129]. They were warned that this was not appropriate for their user page [130], so they responded by modifying the note to make the equally inappropriate comment that British wikipedians were "jerks" [131].
• A few months ago they started a thread at the village pump proposing the creation of an American only version of the project [132], some replies to the proposal asked if it was trolling. This proposal includes gems such as Wikipedia itself is American, so it's become more readable for foreigners than on its home turf.
• They have gotten involved in engvar related discussions on various pages, but their comments are sometimes bizarre or disruptive. This includes comments that have no basis in policy, such as claiming we should use American English because they like it better [133], deleting British English headers [134][135] then claiming that the British spellings might actually be Canadian [136] and trying to claim that the entire discretionary sanctions regime has ties to America and should be rewritten in American English [137].
• They "retired" from the project (lasting a week) claiming the use of British English on the site makes them unwilling to contribute [138].

Aside from the disruption related to trying to get rid of British English there's a bunch of other disruption indicative of a WP:CIR issue or at least a lack of maturity.

• They claim on their userpage that merging articles is similar to a book burning [139]. This has lead to them disrupting AFD with comments showing no understanding of policy [140] [141] and this revert of a redirect performed as part of a merger resulting in the same content being present in two places [142].
• Erpert merges an article after his merge proposal is unopposed, IPs are people too shows up, restores the article with no comment before self-reverting [143] [144]. They then go to Erpert's talk page and find a discussion where an IP is complaining about unsourced material being removed by Erpert [145]. After some back and forth Erpert closes the discussion [146], which leads IPs are people too to add a message to their talk page reading If you're User:Erpert, f### off. [147]. Nothing Erpert did seems to merit that level of incivility.
• Edit warring to try to insist that a picture of a Tesseract is 3D [148] [149] [150] [151] [152].
• Whatever this is [153]

Their campaign against British English seems at best to be a time sink, but frequently crosses the line into personal attacks and insulting other wikipedians on the basis of their nationality. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Has this editor actually contributed anything? As it seems like they're just a timesink and are Wp:NOTHERE except to right minor annoyances to them personally at best, or are just a troll at worst. Either way I don't see how the project is worse off for them not being part of it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a whole lot. The user has just over 80 article space edits, a disproportionate percentage involving this anti-Brit jihad of theirs. Ravenswing 23:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

One wonders if there's socking or a copycat going on: Mr.right.247, whose first mainspace edits started yesterday, and each and every one an insistence that this entity or that is American (generally because they have US ownership and/or corporate HQ), must therefore say so, and expressions to the contrary are "vandalizing pages purposely with lies"). Ravenswing 12:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW @Mr.right.247: just changed their name from NinjaDefiler, earlier today. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if Mr.right.247 is not a sock it takes a lot of AGF to believe they're not just a troll. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how a company is headquartered in the u.s.a and owned by a u.s.a based corporation and be considered Canadian-british when it has no ties to either of those countries? What's next sega is a u.s.a based video game corporation because that's what it started as? The answer is no, that's not how the world works, now explain how i am wrong so we can resolve this problem with facts and not biases. Mr.right.247 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To claim that entities like Massey Ferguson, Leyland Trucks and the National Hockey League have "no ties" to the UK or to Canada is hardly the way to convince us that you prize facts over bias. Beyond which -- presuming you're not just trolling us -- you are fundamentally misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. It is not that your edits stand unless you can be persuaded to allow changes. It's that you must seek consensus for contentious edits before they're allowed to stand. Ravenswing 00:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We will start with Massey Ferguson, one of you admins and or editors explain how you can put a corporation as a "Canadian-British" corporation when it's legal domicile, headquarters and OWNERS are based in the u.s.a? I have to hear this explanation, just because something WAS THAT 30 years ago does not make it valid today,that's equivalent to someone saying Sega is a u.s corporation today because it was when it first started, but for some reason even on Wikipedia it says it is a Japanese corporation. Do you know why? because that's what it IS TODAY. I'm not a troll everything I just stayed are facts, even according to "wikipedia" so do not make assumptions without merit to stand behind. Mr.right.247 (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Mr.right.247 as not here. Trolling, RGW... Take your pick. IP... is sending sock vibes too, but I can't think of the account I'm thinking of at the moment or whether they're still blocked. Star Mississippi 02:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  We've jumped to admin abuse. About to log off for bed but if any admin feels this account isn't just blatant trolling and consensus develops, feel free to revise my block. Star Mississippi 03:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  And with the ongoing ranting and raving, the guy's headed straight for losing TPA. Ravenswing 08:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to yank it given they're already screaming admin abuse, but would appreciate if someone else spared us. Star Mississippi 14:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• UTRS appeal #82343 is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused. Earlier, I advised the editor to go to WP:SPORTS & seek consensus for the changes they wanted to make, at NHL, NBA & MLB. Yet they went seeking consensus for a change at Massey Ferguson, a page where their desired edit, is already in place. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep it's pretty bizarre. Like @Star Mississippi this is ringing a potential sock bell, but I think I'm just thinking of an IP address I blocked last week - details at #IP still breaching ENGVAR despite warnings in the latest archive. That user was completely uncommunicative whereas this latest one seems pretty mouthy so perhaps not the same person but I'm always a bit suspicious of coincidences like this. WaggersTALK 14:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah; the timing was very suspicious, so when he triggered a couple articles on my watchlist ... Ravenswing 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Very unable to follow their reasoning. As they mentioned "other avenues" twice, I assume they emailed ArbCom by now. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The user has since been indeffed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M.Bitton's rollback use

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have recently noticed that M.Bitton usually uses the rollback tool in editorial disputes. In the last case, I removed several sources based on a recent discussion at WP:RSP (RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)), where the editor proceed to undo the edits with the rollback. This has continued even after I warned about it: [154][155][156][157][158][159]

M.Bitton has every right to disagree with me and to dispute the changes, but the tool is supposed to be used in cases of obvious vandalism, this is clearly a misuse per WP:ROLLBACKUSE. For instance, I also have the rollback permission, but have not used it in this dispute.

Marginally related but perhaps just as important is civility: at first glance, just in the last weeks, Bitton seems to have the habit of removing messages in their talk page along with rude remarks: "Get lost!" [160][161][162][163][164], "Take a hike!, "Exciting stuff" [165][166][167][168], "Go believe it somewhere else!" and, in my case, "I've had enough of this nonsense" [169][170] and "this is clearly a waste of time". Best wishes. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the rollback tool since I never asked for it. The "I've had enough of this nonsense" was the perfect response to their baseless accusation about abusing a tool (that I don't have), while evading the question that I asked them.

Now, the OP needs to explain why they have been removing various sources en masse (single-handedly deprecating all the sources that are linked to the Venezuelan government). Please see the previous discussion that I've had with them back in October (notice their I can add the ministry as an entry to WP:VENRS, i.e., add the sources to the essay that they keep using to justify their removals).

With a bit of luck, they may even explain why they started playing games (reverting, removing the same sources while leaving a misleading edit summary). M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Said answers were provided at the user's talk page, to which they have simply refused to engage with [171][172].

The last removals took place today, two months after WP:VENRS was first cited, after a thread was opened at the realible sources noticeboard at their request (as mentioned above), which concluded the same thing I've been poiting out: the sources are unreliable.

At any rate, all of these concerns can be said without being so insulting. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:VENRS that you keep abusing was never discussed. You know this and so do I, so stop playing games and address the raised concerns about your mass removal of the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

These are regular reverts, often using Twinkle. While Twinkle does have a function called "rollback", it is accessible to any user and different from the rollback privilege, which M.Bitton doesn't have. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: You might be thinking about Twinkle. It has a rollback function and it clearly can be abused. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Playing the victim is pathetic and won't change anything. Please address the raised concerns about your mass removal of the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Literally have several times now. You're just refusing to listen. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever. Time to let the admins have their say about your mass removal of the sources that you are single-handedly deprecating (by adding them to an essay that you are abusing). I'm done here (unless some other editor or an admin wants me to explain further).

 Note: the OP has also been falsely claiming that the sources that they removed are WP:GUNREL (see this example as well as countless others; too many to cite). M.Bitton (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, try to stay civil. No need for emotionally heated language in here, especially since you've already been warned about this earlier. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The accusations are nothing but a personal attack. Anyway, I'll await the admins' input about their mass removal of the sources and false claims of WP:GUNREL. M.Bitton (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a bunch of discussions going in parallel here. A content dispute, about whether specific sources being on WP:VENRS gives legitimacy to remove them, a tool usage dispute, about whether Twinkle's rollback function (different from rollback permission) is acceptable for reverts in the first dispute, and a civility dispute about M.Bitton's behavior when confronted by other users.

I believe it would be best to try to address these topics separately from each other, rather than the current discussion conflating all three at once without being clear about which point is being made. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no civility issue and no tool abuse (though one could argue that the OP is abusing the editing privileges with their unconstructive edits), it's just a very poor excuse by the OP who has nothing to say about their mass removal of the sources while falsely claiming that they are removing WP:GUNREL. M.Bitton (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: (edit conflict) The last removals in question cited the discussion at RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune) (WP:RSN), not WP:VENRS as M.Bitton is leading to believe. The last time I cited the list to dispute a source was on 24 November ([173]), and the last time I did to remove several references was on 4 October ([174]). I'm aware these concerns have been controversial, so in the last months I have tried citing wider policies and discussions for this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't let you change the subject or mislead the readers. I am talking about the 100 or so edits in which you removed various sources while falsely claiming that they are WP:GUNREL (these took place a few hours ago. This is one example amongst many). M.Bitton (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and those are precisely the edits that I'm referring to, perennial sources already has a description for said outlet. You're the one that brought up VENRS. No need to bold your text like if you were shouting. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to link to the part that mentions http://www.abkhaziagov.org (that you decided all by yourself to turn into a WP:GUNREL source). M.Bitton (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

On a matter not relevant to the report but perhaps increasingly relevant to ANI—@M.Bitton's insistent, deliberate taunting in the edit summaries made on edits in this thread are frankly obnoxious and not making them look good. Regardless of the issue here, that specific behavior is unacceptable. Remsense留 12:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what happens when someone drags you to ANI and then refuses to answer the questions. There is nothing that I said that I won't say again and again. M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not what happens with most people. That's a you problem. Remsense留 12:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The only problem is the waste of my time. Anything to say about their mass removals of the sources under false pretences? M.Bitton (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, not at the moment, but if you're trying to get people looking at this page to get your position and side with you, it's not the best strategy to annoy them every time they look at their watchlists. That's not me being snide, that's genuine advice. Remsense留 12:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm only trying to state the facts. Whether people want to acknowledge them or not is their problem. M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Discussing on ANI can and should stay factual and civil, and repeatedly calling it as a "waste of time" is not the most productive way to argue. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's about time people started talking about the moon instead of the finger. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To reference the summaries that Remsense is talking about: "time to start laughing", "I'm still waiting", "still nothing? Quelle surprise", "The only problem is the waste of my time", and "good try, but it won't work", just to mention some. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Good try, but I won't let you change the subject. Since you claim that the sources that you removed are perennial sources, I ask you one more time to link to the part that mentions http://www.abkhaziagov.org (that you decided all by yourself to turn into a WP:GUNREL source). M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to use accurate edit summaries? Angry messages don't explain the changes you are making Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit summaries that I used for this discussion are accurate. I stand by all of them M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the content disputes, but if I was reading an articles history and only saw "good try it won't work", I'd be confused about what doesn't work. Markup? Code? I have the context now from reading this, but those who read next year likely won't. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Instead of spamming this board with my edit summaries, can you please either link to the part of WP:RSN that mentions http://www.abkhaziagov.org (that you decided all by yourself to turn into a WP:GUNREL source) or admit that you were wrong? M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

NoonIcarus clearly needs an enforced time out Swandib mk I (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) ( Suspected sockpuppet of MaiJodi Mk 1, see investigation)

This is strange engagement from a new user (one day old) with only twelve edits, all reverted. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not looked at the full picture related to this dispute. My comments below are based on the parts that I am familiar with.

• The OP is largely responsible for the essay VENRS. A look at the editing history of the page shows the extent of the OP’s work. The OP uses the opinions on VENRS to justify the treatment of sources in wiki articles. Very few of the sources listed on VENRS have been assessed via the Reliable Sources process. Here are a few examples from the last few months of the OP's (mis)use of the VENRS page - search the OP’s history for the word “VENRS” for more examples.[175] [176] [177] [178] This (mis)use of the essay has been mentioned previously by a number of editors and is responsible for a number of disputes. (See the following discussion on the Admin page [179]) I have previously suggested that VENRS either needs to be destroyed completely or moved to the OP’s own talk page.
• Regarding removal of sources, the OP has previously binge-removed specific sources. On 27/10/23 the OP went on a crusade to remove all references to the Cuban online encyclopedia EcuRed. This was based on a short enquiry at the Reliable sources noticeboard.[180] One editor objected to the removal, saying "next time you remove thousands of references in hundreds of articles, maybe you could replace them with the sources listed in EcuRed (if any) or others, rather than leaving a mess behind".[181] On the 15/11/23 the OP went on a binge of removing citations to Jacobin. I counted 10 removals. Jacobin has been assessed as generally reliable for facts but biased. Some of the reasons given for the removals were "Removing biased, WP:UNDUE source" and "Biased source". In a number of cases the text removed was either attributed opinion or factual.
• I did look at one editing dispute between the two editors. This was at Marcel Granier. It appears that the dispute started on 13/10/23 when the OP made a bold change to the article. [182] This was reverted by M.Bitton on 15/10/23. The disputed change was re-added by the OP on 13/12/23 and immediately reverted again. It was then re-added by the OP and immediately reverted again and again. Throughout this to-ing and fro-ing no discussion was attempted on the article's talk page. Burrobert (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that are now removing the sources while falsely claiming that they are WP:GUNREL (see this example, one of many). M.Bitton (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors need to use article talk and stop taking it all so personally. Some diffs above mention articles where there is nothing relevant on talk. Examples: Talk:Marcel Granier, Talk:Adán Chávez. Anyone wanting to mass-remove a source needs solid consensus if challenged and edit warring (example: Marcel Granier history) is not the answer. Re those edits, NoonIcarus is correct that removing a list of children's names is obviously standard procedure and should not be reverted. Re NoonIcarus's removal of a source, repeatedly linking generic WP:GUNREL and WP:RSP is very unhelpful for third-parties trying to work out what source is claimed to be a problem. When in a battle, make your arguments on article talk not user talk! @NoonIcarus: When someone says you remove sources while "falsely claiming that they are WP:GUNREL", you really need to give a response that engages the point. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Context

I'll provide some context of the dispute in case it is needed:

• 14 October 2023: I started removing several sources related to the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate, specifically the Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, and Orinoco Tribune. Sources from this network have been responsible for publishing false or fabricated information, amplifying disinformation and engaging in harassment and defamation campaigns (as it can be appreciated at C-Informa's report Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of chavista narratives and this graph). This also included EcuRed and Aporrea for consisting in user-generated content and, to a lesser extent, primary sources such as Twitter and the website of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The reason why I have cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources (WP:VENRS) is to provide a rationale and context better than just "Unreliable source". Related discussions include WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System, WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad, WP:VENRS#RfC: WP:VENRS and WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS
• 15 October: M.Bitton reverted the changes using the Twinkle gadget, asking me to bring the discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard. I argued that said references were unreliable and asked for a feedback about my concerns. Bitton removed the messages after I notified about the start of a discussion at the RS/N (with a rather sarcastic remark).

I opened the discussion with Orinoco Tribune because at the time it was the most used outlets from the disputed ones (WP:RS/N#RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune). The discussion was closed on 18 November and the consensus was that the source was unreliable.

• 12 December: Yesterday, nearly two months after the first removals and one after the WP:RS/N closure, I removed the same sources again, this time citing the discussion at the RS/N (not WP:VENRS). M.Bitton proceeded to revert the changes again with Twinkle again. In a few cases, Bitton argued that Orinoco Tribune was not deprecated, cited WP:ABOUTSELF and noted that not all of the sources were Correo del Orinoco, but most of these reverts went unexplained. I replied back at their talk page, pointing out to the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard and commenting why the source was not reliable even for WP:ABOUTSELF. I also pointed out to WP:TWINKLEABUSE, and that rollbacks should only be used in the case of obvious vandalism. They removed all of the messages ([183]).

I also left a message further explaining my edits at Talk:Pedro Bastidas#Unreliable and primary sources, one of the affected articles in question, notifying the editor. To this moment, there has been no reply.

With all that out of the way, we should focus back at M.Bitton's behavior. From the diffs I provided and the responses here, it's clear that there is a civility problem here, not only with myself but with other editors as well, and that their Twinkle gadget has been used for content disputes and not obvious vandalism: [184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192], or in some cases edit warring, which is even more important considering the editor's block history.

Any editor is free to object and dispute changes, and I'm open for any of these concerns, but they should always be done respectfully and without hostility. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you still refuse to explain why you lied in your edit summaries to justify the mass removal of various sources.

I mentioned one of the edits (amongst something like a 100 or so articles that you targetted), so taking your those are precisely the edits that I'm referring to, perennial sources into account, I will give you one more chance to do the right thing: can you please either link to the part of WP:RSN that mentions http://www.abkhaziagov.org (that you decided all by yourself to turn into a WP:GUNREL source) or admit that you were wrong. and in fact you lied to justify the removal of the sources that you don't like? M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: since the OP has a history of removing sources en masse (see Burrobert'c comment) and given the fact that they are yet to even acknowledge what they did, it is now clear that they won't stop until something is done about their disruptive editing. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you're referring to is a dead link whose archives cannot be verified. I did check beforehand.

It's telling that you continue hanging stubbornly to a single edit (which you have cited six times now) instead of addressing your behavior. I have done so with mine, you should do the same with yours. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

1) Actually, there are two sources (a drop in the ocean of the 100 or so articles that you targetted with your disruptive editing). 2) you have cited six times now I don't need to provide a 100 examples to prove that someone has lied a 100 times in a row, proving it once is enough (the rest is easily verifiable in your edit history). 3) A dead link is not WP:GUNREL, per WP:RSP as you falsely claimed in your edit summary in order to mislead those who don't know any better and abuse the trust of those who take an experienced editor's edit summary at face value. 4) Now that you mentioned the other source: can you link to the part of WP:RSN that supports your claim about Agencia Venezolana de Noticias (that you decided all by yourself to turn into a WP:GUNREL source) or admit that you were wrong. and in fact you lied to justify the removal of the sources that you don't like? M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:TLDR M.Bitton and NoonIcarus, could you please stop quarrelling with each other on this noticeboard? It doesn't get the result you want; it's more likely to alienate people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I was starting to read through this, but due to the massive bludgeoning and back and forth I gave up. Not worth my time wading into this. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to wade through the entire thing, somehow. Apologies for the wall of text that follows.

Most, if not all, content disputes can be resolved if the editors involved assume good faith and remain civil, and don't turn this noble project of ours into a battleground. The role of administrators is not usually to take sides in content disputes and pronounce who is right and who is wrong. So, while the root cause of this argument is a content dispute, it's not for me to judge whether the sources these guys are warring over are reliable or otherwise. Administrators are more concerned with conduct than content in cases like this.

I'll try to deal with the issues in the order they came up in this discussion. First of all, the thread was opened as a reported abuse of WP:ROLLBACK and we quickly established that was a misunderstanding, so we can rule that out.

The second, and for me more concerning issue, is that of civility, particularly in M.Bitton's edit summaries. That formed part of Noonlcarus's original report - despite M.Bitton's later claims that talking about it was "changing the subject" - and it was noted that M.Bitton's edit summaries in this discussion were also problematic. The sarcasm, impatience and incivility demonstrated in those edit summaries are not consistent with the ethos and aims of Wikipedia. That behaviour must stop, immediately. @M.Bitton, please consider that your only and final warning.

Next, the pendulum swings the other way. M.Bitton's mass-reverts wouldn't be happening if there weren't mass-edits they thought needed reverting. WP:VENRS is an essay written and maintained almost entirely by @NoonIcarus, which contains some "advice" around reliable sources and lists of sources deemed "generally reliable", "additional considerations apply / no consensus" or "generally unreliable". This sounds like it would be a very useful resource if those lists were compiled either via consensus at WikiProject Venezuela or the central Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But if it's simply a list compiled by one or two editors with little or no discussion or attempt to find consensus first, and other editors don't agree with their categorising, AND NoonIcarus is using it as the basis for mass removal of content, then we have a problem. It shouldn't be used as a basis for bulk changes without demonstrable consensus to back it up.

I have two recommendations:

• I would strongly recommend that an additional column is added to the tables of sources at WP:VENRS linking to the relevant discussions where consensus was established. If no such consensus was established that the sources is reliable or otherwise, it should sit in the "no consensus" list until such consensus is established.
• Do not simply remove references from articles; instead, tag them appropriately using a template from WP:CTT such as {{better source needed}}.

The mass removal is disruptive. The mass reverting is equally disruptive. Consider your heads knocked together. There is no deadline so any references to a source being deemed unreliable don't need to be immediately removed, but if they are, such removals don't need to be immediately reverted. Don't panic! Bring potentially contentious edits to the community and get consensus before proceeding.

Finally we get back to the rollback-that-is-not-rollback. The use of tools like WP:TWINKLE still carries certain responsibilities with it. WP:TWABUSE summarises this nicely. It's a borderline judgement but I don't think M.Bitton's use of the tool can be deemed abusive. I'd just encourage a bit more restraint, civility and consideration on both sides. WaggersTALK 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers: I'm unaware if there will be further feedback, but I want to give thanks for the thorough response regardless, as well as for your time. On a personal level, I will heed this advice. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers: Sure thing, but what about the misleading summaries (such as removing various sources from dozens of articles while claiming that they are WP:GUNREL, per WP:RSP, when the sources are clearly not)? How do we deal with them, especially when all repeated attempts to have the editor even acknowledge them are ignored? Do we ignore them or do we only revert such edits if they are made by new editors? The explanation given by the OP (after asking them I don't know how many times) that one of the sources is dead also doesn't hold much water given that a) being dead doesn't make a source WP:GUNREL and b) they know perfectly how to deal with dead sources. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the admins who expressed interest in this: @Canterbury Tail and Ritchie333: your input on this issue (now that it has been summarized) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You've got a number of options. As Waggers said, you can tag the source with {{better source}}. You can start an RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. Then when you find a source has been added that you disagree with, and your edit is reverted, you can use a dispute resolution venue such as WP:DRN to reach a conclusion. Or, you could conclude that since Wikipedia has tens of thousands of regular editors, this isn't worth having a dispute over, and walk off and edit somewhere else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure who your comment is meant for, but it doesn't seem to address the misleading summaries issue that I raised above (see my question to Waggers). M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you think that reply did not address the issue, I have to assume you just want action taken right now and are unwilling to take the advice on board.

Regardless, I echo Ritchie's last idea and strongly suggest you drop this and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It did not address the issue of the misleading edit summaries (that I mentioned consistently throughout the discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right, and the above replies come off as if they misread/misremembered who was responsible for which edits in this dispute. That having been said, Waggers' admonitions regarding VENRS and removal of sources from articles (and NoonIcarus's acceptance of them) seem like they should preempt the RSP misquotation issue. If there's any further misuse of edit summaries/misuse of RSP or VENRS, I would expect that it would lead to sanctions next time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I really don't want to go through all of this, but it seems like an excessive charge to me, and on the other hand M.Bitton is a bit eager to defend themselves--understandable, of course, but not so useful at ANI. I saw that User:NoonIcarus held up this edit as a rollback/Twinkle abuse, which suggests to me that they were eager to find fault with M.Bitton's edits--but couldn't be bothered to read M.Bitton's summary ("Discussed and reverted many times"). If they did, they would have found this, by an indef-blocked user whose edits are exactly like those of the recent editor, who is now also blocked. The history is full of unexplained and disruptive edits related to maps and flags; this is back in 2022, and there's plenty examples of it since then. The article was protected at least once to prevent it. So, no, I am not impressed with this charge. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest here that the main problem is WP:VENRS it is not a community guideline and is substantially the work of a single user. That user is then using it to justify their own mass removal of content which other users disagree with. I propose the deletion of WP:VENRS and the treatment of sources related (often tangentially) to the Venezuelan government on an individual basis. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've read a chunk of the evidence here, but I'm not going to read the entirety of this wall of text: indeed I'm tempted to close it as a waste of time. Some responses:

  M. Bitton does not have the rollback button. The Twinkle buttons, despite their names, are not governed by the same rules. So long as M. Bitton is using edit-summaries - and AFAICS they are - there is no tool misuse here.

  As Johnuniq says above, both parties need to dial it back a bit, not take reverts so personally, and use article talk pages for what they're meant for.

  Noonicarus, if you're claiming that a consensus at RSP supports your removal of a source, there better be such a consensus. I don't see how this edit summary, for instance, is accurate. If you simply made a mistake there, you need to acknowledge it.

  AFAICS WP:VENRS is an essay. It doesn't really matter how much effort has been put into it, it does not carry the same weight as a guideline or policy. You may point to an essay as an explanation for an edit, but as with most other edits other editors are free to challenge your rationale.

  I'm getting the definite sense that Noonicarus is scraping the bottom of the barrel for evidence against M. Bitton. I don't think we're in sanction territory, but this is evidence of battleground behavior, and Noonicarus needs to recalibrate.

  M. Bitton is getting provoked a little too easily. They really shouldn't be calling any edit "asinine", but particularly not when the issue is just a lack of clarity [193] (Turkey certainly does not share a border with Morocco, but the linked article is that of the Ottoman Empire, which did, did it not?). They also should not revert a good-faith edit without an edit-summary.

  I'm beginning to wonder if Venezuelan topics should be put under community general sanctions, though that's a separate conversation. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncommunicative editor

BJ3789 (talk · contribs) Has repeatedly reinstated unsourced information to several Puerto Rican election articles (particularly 2020 Puerto Rican general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and made unhelpful edits such as removing nbsps. Despite multiple comments on their talk page (including requests to comment on talk pages and previous ANI and 3RRN reports) they have never commented on any form of talk page or noticeboard. I recently reported them at 3RRN, but was advised to take it to ANI. It would be appreciated if someone could put a stop to it. Cheers, Number 57 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are also some competence issues here – repeatedly adding oversized images to articles (like this) despite being asked not to. Number 57 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see from zero talk page edits and User talk:BJ3789#Oversized images on articles that all attempts to communicate about the image additions has failed since August 2022, and at Special:Permalink/1190030371 and elsewhere the editor has just done it again to two articles within the past hour. I've taken away article namespace editing permissions and reverted the 2020 elections article for someone else to add whatever images are appropriate competently. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

A few days ago I blocked a disruptive IP for a week following a report here, specifically about ENGVAR stuff, mainly on an article about a Japanese train type. (Here's the archived discussion). I used the phrase "it's hammer time" to indicate I was going to do so. Yesterday a new account was created, Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'em, and immediately pinged me, starting a discussion on the article's talk page about ENGVAR.

My somewhat obvious suspicion is that this new account is the same person, having created the account purely to evade the block on their IP address. I'm too involved to take action so would appreciate another pair of eyes taking a look. WaggersTALK 13:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I've done the deed. Obvious sock and disruptive editor is obvious. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What a bad faith block. I have no relationship to the blocked IP (although I am Please Hammar Don't Hurt 'Em and obviously expect this new account to be blocked instantly. Go Admin, Go Admin, Go! Hammer Time!). Meanwhile the article being discussed still contains a mix of British and American English that got overlooked during the edit war with the IPs. Have any of you accomplished anything productive other than to create more disruption? I'll be back and we can have more discussions soon. Let The Disruption Continue (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Another sock? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the only sock in this case, as self admitted. Let The Disruption Continue (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. This user was also being somewhat of a hypocrite, saying that reverting disruption would take up "database storage requirements", and that reverting the disruption would also cause even more disruption, despite the fact I kept telling him administrators would be reverting this disruption and could protect the page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"I'll be back and we can have more discussion soon". The individual appears to promising to continue socking. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding fuel to this fire, I just checked through this article in question and the first time an English version is established is in the very third edit. In this edit it's clearly established as US English. As a result everyone else has been arguing for MOS:RETAIN on the wrong side of the argument. Per the MOS and normal practice, the article should be put back to US English, not British English. The first use of British English wasn't until many years later. Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've no horse in that race, I just want the quarrelling and edit warring to stop. On EngVar I'd love it if we had a tool that would automatically "translate" versions of English based on user preferences - whether that's driven by templates or a script or whatever. That way we could avoid this sort of disruption completely. WaggersTALK 16:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Editors argue of white spacing, they would argue over whether it should be 'colour' or 'color' in the wikitext even if it didn't make any difference once you pressed save. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The first edit has British English's "colour", and that remained in the third edit when US English's "aluminum" was first used; perhaps EngVar requires that Hybrid English should be retained. NebY (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Argh, yes you're right. British English was established in the first edit. My bad. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries; saves us wondering whether IUPAC's "-ium" spelling change created a variant of AmEng. :) NebY (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's called Canadian English. ;) – bradv 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

User:MelroseReporter

• MelroseReporter (talk · contribs)

tl:dr MelroseReporter is not here to build an encyclopedia, and it's very tiring having to police the article they're targeting.

MelroseReporter is a single purpose account dedicated to adding fringe science content to the article Shungite. The account was previously part of a sockpuppet operation dedicated to adding fringe science content to the article Shungite; it was unblocked on 9 December 2023 per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#MelroseReporter unblocked. The account was immediately used to start pushing the same fringe views on Shungite diff and diff. User was given a final warning about disruptive editing on 9 December diff. User has since that date edited ~15 times on Talk:Shungite pushing their various tendentious views and largely ignoring advice from a tag team of more experienced editors. The user's current modup operandi is to declare their intention to make changes supporting their fringe view - e.g. "So - unless there are solid objections, I'm going to delete that line." diff necessitating continued input from neutral editors who have better things to do that babysit this article.

MelroseReporter has agreed that it is time to bring the issue to ANI - diff.

I respectfully ask that administrators consider blocking this account as 'not here'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

They were previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts (the other account is CrystalBethMoonbeam), but ArbCom unblocked them with a one-account restriction. Since the WP:FRINGE POV-pushing has continued after they were unblocked, and it seems to be the only reason they're interested in being on Wikipedia, I have blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. If they're actually interested in helping write an encyclopedia they can be unblocked, but as it stands this is just wasting everyone's time. – bradv 21:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support block, was going to do it myself but Bradv beat me to it. This is a 0% surprising outcome of that unblock. There are many websites they're welcome to edit at, they do not need to waste everyone's time (again) here. Star Mississippi 23:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

IP range could use a broader block

If possible: 111.94.64.0/18 (talk · contribs). And rev/delete to their defamatory edit and summary at Tim Peake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the revdeletion. I'll leave it to others to decide about a broader range block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul Erik. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

68.237.27.46

Please investigate edits by this IP: Special:Contributions/68.237.27.46. Massive removals of texts under curious pretexts. Yann (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so here's what I found. They started editing on December 11, and this edit to an argument by Thinker78 against an ArbCom candidate was their first edit (which was also very rude, but that's not the point). They then edited here, undoing an edit by Thinker78. They made three edits to the book Harry Kitten and Tucker Mouse, ( changing a few words in the lead, deleting "we learn" and changing a link, and changing punctuation) and then one to the George Selden, the author's, page (changing a comma). They removed a sentence and added a "dead link" tag in Hatane (note: won't show the link I was using, wrong diff) messed around in the 2020 World Allround Skating Championships (removing bolding; I don't know if that's against the Manual of Style) and proposing a merge (see [194], [195], [196], [197]. This was all on December 11.

On December 12, they removed the section "This article is not very neutral" (I don't know how to link it) from the page Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism, a section by User:Mureungdowon, using the edit summary "uh sure" at 14:23 UTC. Their IP geolocates to New York, so that's 9:23 in their time zone. At 22:50 on the same day, but 5:50 PM in their time zone, Vif12vf reverted their edit, restoring the section, noting "?". The next day according to Wikipedia (1:43 on December 13), but, in their time zone, 8:43 PM on December 12, they revert the edit, stating "1. it's obvious 2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_John_Yunshire". However, the original edit was signed by Mureungdowon, not Thickmelon, John_Yunshire, AndyTheGrump, or Bbb23, the only people involved in the extremely short discussion, so I'm not sure how they thought this was relevant. At 1:45 (8:46 PM their timezone) Ertal72 reverted this. At 1:51 (8:52 PM their timezone), they reinstated their deletion, stating "Hello clueless recent changes patroller; my edit was perfectly adequately explained in context, and before reverting again you should (1) look at the content you're restoring, (2) look at the history of this page, and (3) follow the link in my previous edit summary, as well as those of User:John Yunshire". At 2:06 (9:07 PM, Dec 12 their time), Ertal72 reverted again, edit summary "It seems clear that part of this discussion is inappropriate, but unclear why the topic itself should be entirely excised. Would you please offer a brief explanation of the reasoning behind this?". The IP has not responded yet. Following this, at 16:33/11:33 Dec 13 their time, they removed a file added by Yann to Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (again, link won't work right and just links to most recent revision). Their edit summary was "if this were the subject of the article (i.e., if this video were Coal Black by Bob Clampett) I would understand including this, but that's not what it is (despite the, apparently mistaken, copyright information provided)" At 19:06, Yann reverted this. At 17.01/12:01 PM their time, they removed many citations and a lot of information, claiming it "looked like link spam". The sources aren't great but they don't seem like "link spam", and ironically their source for their added section, Shiksha.com, was described as a "spammy commercial site at best"; it's been reverted.

Sorry if this doesn't follow ettiquette or rules or overlinking or anything, I'm new to editing, but I hope this helps! 71.112.180.130 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To link an old revision, it's Special:Diff/the number that shows in the URL. Great job by the way! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like they're going into a construction site while swinging a sledgehammer. UnironicEditor (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

If I had to guess a reason, if its not for causing general annoyance, its a way to push for a policy to permanently semiprotect ALL articles / prevent IPs from editing at all JM (talk) 14:38, 14 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)

Um isn't this discussion mostly about persistent non anon socks? Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually reading it again I might be wrong about that, it's what I was thinking of with my earlier reply. However it remains true that there is a lot of problems with non anon socks and they're generally just as difficult to handle and I'm fairly sure legal action isn't any more likely to succeed in general. (As per my earlier point, it may be in specific cases more related to the type of disruption rather than whether accounts or IPs are used.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 16 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)

Guswen on Talk:Pi

User:Guswen has been disrupting Talk:Pi with off-topic religious material, is unapologetic about doing so, and is basically asking for a block there. Please page-block from that article and its talk page, indefinitely. As far as I know Guswen has been more constructive elsewhere and does not need more sanction than that. I am too involved to do this myself, and as this is not really vandalism I don't think AIV is the right board for this request. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Guswen was blocked last year for sockpuppetry and COI editing. The story, as I understand it, is that in 2009 he created an article based on his own (published) mathematics work; that page was deleted, and he recreated it. In July 2022, it came to AfD, was kept in the first round, went to Deletion review, and was relisted, to be deleted in August. Self-promotion and canvassing are different issues from the ... Bible code spam, I guess you could call it, at Talk:Pi, and it took me a minute to realize they were coming from the same editor. I don't know what the common thread might be, apart from generally lacking a sense of what an encyclopedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Due to Guswen's persistent disruptive editing, I have pageblocked the editor from Pi and Talk:Pi. If the editor continues to promote their idiosyncratic religious theories elswhere, the sanction can be broadened. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." [Matthew 5.11].

Guswen (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to interpret being told to treat Wikipedia as an encycopedia rather than a platform for proselytisation as insults and persecution then you are welcome to do so. Admins are also welcome to prevent you from editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." [Romans 13:2] —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Proselytizing is a bad look. I suggest you move on to somewhere else if that's all you're interested in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOHOLYWARS; also kind of hilarious that you literally directly respond to an admin saying If the editor continues to promote their idiosyncratic religious theories elswhere, the sanction can be broadened with immediately doing nothing but exactly that. Can someone therefore broaden the sanction here? The editor is all-but-asking for it. JM (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will stays on-topic when editing a Talk page." [Ezekiel 25:17] XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that his religious theories are idiosyncratic, that is not the issue here. His behavior would be provlematical even if his religous views were valid. In the context of the popular culture section, the only religous views that matter are those of the narrator, and even there it is hard to see how issues of validity could be notable. He's been warned and refuses to be bound by the rules. I haven't seen enough of his edits to comment on a wider block, but blocking him on Pi and Talk:Pi appears to be appropriate and necessary. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed. He only engaged on the talk page after I warned him for edit-warring, but even then provided, instead of WP:RS for significance within numerology, an escalating sequence of arguments so unpersuasive and so often facetious as to be indistinguishable from trolling, and probably best treated as such. NebY (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The strange behavior here is not unprecedented: this, this, and this/this/this all have the same tone to them, in my opinion. --JBL (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Persistent promotional disruption at Bernadette Giacomazzo

And quite the timesink now. Reported at AIV per Drmies's advice, then advised to report here by Bbb23. Italianstallion1234 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA, here to promote Ms. Giacomazzo. Edit warring, removing templates, poor sourcing, etc. Requesting topic ban, possible reversions as needed, and article protection. Drmies wondered about AfD. Discuss. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Support partial block. It's not a great look that pretty much nobody has discussed this outside of edit summaries but in light of admin Drmies' remark about Italianstallion1234 at that AIV report ("a case that's so obvious that a partial ban seems like a very good solution"), this is the quickest, easiest way to fix this. City of Silver 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I attempted discussion last night, to no effect. They twice ignored my question as to sourcing for the claim that the author 'promised' a six book series, and then supplied a series of sources, including private YouTube videos and real estate listings, that nobody would think to access unless they had an association with the subject. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a partial, rather than a total, block would be appropriate. The chance that such an obviously promotional editor would become a valuable contributor to other articles is approximately zero. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely page-blocked from Bernadette Giacomazzo. Note, there is a whole clutch of accounts named Italianstallion with some digits. Probably they don't all belong to the same person, since the name has an easy appeal to... to... well, I won't finish that sentence. But maybe some do. Anyway, all the accounts I looked at are considerably older than our user, one as old as 17 years, and most of them have no edits. I've left them alone. Phil Bridger, I agree Italianstallion1234 is not promising, but I'd rather start small. The block can easily be extended if need be. Bishonen | tålk 20:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

...Fans of Sylvester Stallone/Rocky, I know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Lolged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Lolged is posting a non-constructive comment and making a racist personal attack (“Typical of a ukrainian to just remove opposing opinions”)[198] in the edit summary at Talk:Human wave attack. According to WP:RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users like this one are not permitted to edit talk pages related to the subject of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and I believe that applies to this talk-page section titled “2022 russian invasion of Ukraine.” I had previously reverted[199] their original comment[200] already.

Would a neutral admin please take action? Thanks.  —Michael Z. 15:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted the edit and posted a final warning. Please change your signature so it displays your actual username--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  —Michael Z. 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually, there's no guideline saying that they have to. See this rfc. Cremastra (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    • To be honest, having an account named Mzajac and signing xyrself "Michael Z." for almost 20 years and thus being presumably one of the apparently many Michael Zajacs of the world, is not something that is deceptive in any way. This is not the first person even in the history of Wikipedia, let alone common usage in e-mail/newsgroups/formums for decades, to put xyr actual name in xyr signature when the account name is different and follows the common initials+surname style, and I really don't support the idea that people should be bureaucratically stopped from doing this. Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

      It's not a matter of deceptive but about confusion. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only editor who is checking out a diff or whatever else, sees Mzajac and is confused WTF does this have to do with Michael Z. Or to visit a talk page and see "other" people have responded but apparently not the edit warrior or person who reverted me or whatever because I don't see their username on the talk page. Or whatever the situations is where you see a username because these occur a lot and matter in quite a lot of areas of editing and then a signature on a talk page and do not connect the two because of regardless of how obvious it may be to certain editors or maybe even many editors if they think about the two carefully, there's no reason why you would or should have to do so. (And to be clear, I'm talking generally here. I don't care if your username is Jbiden and you sign yourself only as Joe B., it's the same problem.)

      And I mostly use a Windows computer with a mouse to edit and am experienced enough to know how to do stuff like hover to see the editor's actually user name. You can imagine the problems for editors who use mobile devices and are inexperienced enough to not know any of this. IMO it's well accepted based on good evidence that many aspects of our talk pages are very confusing even for editors experienced with forums etc precisely because we allow stuff that is very abnormal elsewhere, and this is definitely one of them.

      I strongly disagree with the comparison with forums etc. In the vast majority of those cases, the username is irrelevant or unimportant; and is sometimes even kept secret. (And there isn't really such a thing as a 'username' on usenet.) Further in many forums, and especially when it matters, the username is displayed somewhere standard. Signatures are just that, a way of the editor displaying some information about themselves if they want to, and are often by no means required or important.

      By comparison, on wikipedia, signatures are the only way you can who who the heck said whatever it is you're reading other than by very complicated methods or looking through the page history etc. Yet usernames are also a fundamental part of editing here that are often very important to know especially at a place like ANI or when arguing of user rights and that sort of stuff. And because we do have a fairly flat administrative structure where while most editors cannot take administrative action their views often count as much in administrative matters as admins (who they therefore can effectively overrule), it's not something that only matters to admins or "mods" but to all editors here.

      Yet some editors choose to make it intentionally hard for others to know WTF they are, while demanding we take action against some other editor. Needless to say we're not going to be predisposed to be favourable to that editor, so ultimately it's their loss if they choose to alienate the community with their harmful actions.

      Note the editor is free to do what many other editors do and do Michael Z. (Mzajac) or something else which would indicate their actual username which again, matters a big deal on Wikipedia, while displaying some other name as part of their signature; without requiring editors to do dumb shit just to find out WTF the editor's username actually, maybe after minutes of totally unnecessary confusion.

      Nil Einne (talk)

      I did not “choose to make it intentionally hard.” Two decades ago the Wikipedia sign-up process didn’t inform new users that their login would also be their screen name. By the time I found that it could be changed, I had too many edits to allow it. I see that has now changed. But in two decades, I recall less than a handful of comments on this and not a single challenge to change my sig. —Michael Z. 16:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

“non-extended-confirmed users like this one are not permitted to edit talk pages related to the subject of the Russo-Ukrainian War”

I think you might have misread WP:RUSUKR. He can edit the talk page (albeit not like that), just not the main page. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

“Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area,” including on talk pages (there are exceptions but these edits do not qualify).  —Michael Z. 23:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive."

They can suggest edits on the talk page. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep. That’s one of the “following exceptions” to the rule, which this user has not chosen to use. I have not misread it. The edits in question violate the restriction.  —Michael Z. 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless your opening comment above was fairly misleading, and not reflective of actual current policy for GS. It's not even quite right for CT. Also you're an admin and you started a discussion on ANI but didn't even notify the editor concerned? [201] Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to notify also when I pinged them here.

“Misleading” is your opinion and it is objectively wrong. What is it you want to accomplish by extending this discussion?  —Michael Z. 16:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by a few commentators above, the WP:RUSUKR WP:GS is not as restrictive as WP:CTOP's WP:ARBECR, so participating in discussion on the talk page by non-WP:XC users is permitted beyond the latter's WP:ER only limitation. WP:PING me if any of that is unclear, otherwise I'll close this with a note to that effect later. El_C 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@El C, the substantive difference is that in RUSUKR non-EC editors may post constructive, non-destructive comments and make edit requests, while in CTOP they may only make edit requests, is that right? Thanks.  —Michael Z.

Yes, that is correct, Mzajac. Each individual community-authorized sanction regime (WP:GS) may have its own rules for that, whereas all applicable WP:CTOP (fromerly WP:ACDS) ones fall under the more restrictive WP:ARBECR. More restrictive following a recent motion from a month ago, that is. Before then, there wasn't a difference, and the WP:RUSUKR instruction (and that of some other GSs) seems to have been copied from the ARBECR prior to this more restrictive motion (whose enforcement challenges I expounded on here). El_C 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

95.46.157.21 repeatedly changes a template to disagree with the cited source

95.46.157.21 (talk · contribs) repeatedly edited Template:Sidereal and tropical zodiac dates, changing dates to disagree with those provided in a Los Angeles Times article since November 11, 2023. There are two warnings for this issue, and one for a related issue, on the user's talk page. There is one post on the user's talk page further discussing the errors in sourcing the article by other editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Unwelcome escalation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I posted a question on WP:Rd/l (here). One user, User: AnonMoos provided commentary with no answers to my questions, plus it seemed disingenuous given the religious icons on their user page. I told them I disagreed for three reasons. They doubled down and dismissed my reasons by claiming they were an expert. I told them their dismissive response was queerphobic, and tried to follow dispute resolution procedure by posting it on the RD talk page and to the user's talk page. The user deleted the topic on their talk page, deleted my comment about queerphobia claiming it was a personal attack (here), and then called me an ignoramus on my talk page.

My take is, I shared how I thought them not answering my questions was useless, which was not the best idea, but honestly may have been influenced by my religious trauma related to queer identity, given the Christian idols and icons and symbols on their user page. Their dismissing my reasons was really hurtful because a dismissal of a validating queer identity experience is queer erasure. I was very surprised to see the user call me names and I laughed out loud when I saw their edit summary on the RD was WP: NPA, given I thought this was hypocritical. I believe my labelling of their speech as queerphobic is not a personal attack, but a research-based sharing of my feelings. On the other hand, the user calling me names was a personal attack. I'd like to request the user have a stern warning from an administrator, require the user to apologize to me, and require the user to perform some volunteer service by completing three tasks on the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies to-do list. Thank you for your consideration. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 10:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Question: What does this question have to do with Wikipedia?: "Hello, I'm making a fictional magic system and I'd like help with making sure I'm using the correct real-life procedure."

You stated "and then called me an ignoramus on my talk page", you need a diff because I don't see anywhere they called you anything.

I think this post contains a personal attack and was properly removed.

Any user can remove messages from their talk page for any reason. I think this is a personal attack.  // Timothy :: talk  11:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The question was on the reference desk. I understand people ask questions there.

The talk page post (here) refers to "dealing with an ignoramus", which refers to dealing with me.

The issue for me was dismissing what I said was a validating experience, which I think/thought was a proper application of the word "queerphobic". Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As a neutral observer who just stumbled upon this discussion, I'm only seeing one side unleashing personal attacks and escalating things out of nothing, and it's not AnonMoos. You are projecting that AnonMoos has hostility against your gender or sexuality, based on having images of the Trinity on their user page. This is an attack on the perceived religion of AnonMoos, whose page does not say anything about gender or sexuality. Many religious people are supportive or indifferent about the matter, you are stereotyping. I'm sure you would draw the line at believing that pictures of the Muslim religion are inherently hateful and homophobic, how is this different? I would say the same if a Christian user came here and said that another user was being an anti-Christian bigot just by having rainbow flags on their page; we live and let live as a society and as a website. Nothing on the Internet surprises me any more, but this all feels like Poe's law, especially requesting that the user do community service by fulfilling tasks set by the LGBT wikiproject; Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTARY and nobody is compelled to do any edit whatsoever. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The user asking "Are non-binary people now OK with being referred to as "it"?" was based on their willful misinterpretation, which is disingenuous. I tried to respond explaining it was validating, but the user saying "I don't know what's so "novel" about it..." was a shock to me and set it off. I'm not saying the user's idols are a problem, I'm trying to say they cemented the interpretation of disingenuousness. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 16:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

AnonMoos's comment "You use the neuter gender whenever you say the word "it", so I don't know what's so "novel" about it" was in response to you saying "the neuter gender is rather novel in my experience". Even if you are unaware of what "neuter gender" means linguistically as you seem to be, I have no idea why you would find that response to be shocking. I do see some willful misinterpretation in that thread, but again, it's not coming from AnonMoos. CodeTalker (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Although I don't expect attentiveness, I do expect people to avoid dismissiveness. Saying "I don't know what's so novel about it" was dismissive of me saying it was a validating experience. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 16:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot blocking my IP

For the second time this week my account has been blocked by the ST47ProxyBot (see here: User talk:Marcelus#IP problems). My IP is set by Vectra S.A., a legitimate Internet provider in Poland. I have no control over it, nor do I use any additional software. I don't know why Vectra is flagged for blocking, but it seriously hinders my work. I think that this problem does not affect only me and something should be done about it. (I'm writing this from mobile, please correct any formatting errors). Marcelus (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Do you have any free VPN software installed? Many will reuse your own IP address to provide a proxy address for other users, which then gets highlighted by proxy detection software and blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any VPN software installed. I do not provide my IP to anyone. Marcelus (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've granted some IPBE. It's a typical problem you get with dynamic IPs, where someone on the network is using a P2P proxy they can get a number of IPs blocked (it's not the worst I've seen, but it's real). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at your talk page, and the block log for the two IPs listed there. So there's a couple of things here to be aware of. First is the type of proxy mentioned is one that a lot of folks aren't aware of, as they can caused by malware or devices on your network being compromised. They can also be hidden inside otherwise legitimate looking browser plug-ins. If you're absolutely sure that you don't have any VPN software installed, nor any suspect browser extensions, nor anything that might call itself an "IP Changer", you might want to run an anti-virus/anti-malware scan on your devices just to be sure. If your devices are clean however, there's not a lot that you can directly do.

Secondly, as zzuuzz mentions, where an ISP has dynamic IPs that change frequently, it's possible that one or more other customers of your ISP could be knowingly or unknowingly using or be part of a peer-to-peer proxy service. As a result, when IPs change frequently for customers many can be flagged as proxies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps worth emphasising the devices on your network part too. Even if you're sure you're not involved wit a P2P VPN, are you sure the same for everyone else on your network? In other words, is there a chance someone else in your household or whatever that uses the network might either knowingly or unknowingly be using a P2P VPN? Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good shout. I know where I live, it's popular to buy cheap streaming devices that often come pre-installed with software and plugins to allow you to watch whatever pay-TV service you want, naturally without paying the subscription. Unfortunately it is also popular for those setting up the devices, or those writing the software plugins to secretly add P2P proxy functionality, and then get a kickback from the less than reputable VPN providers who typically operate these types of proxy networks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if these blocks could be reviewed - not this specific one, but how they're acted upon generally. In this case, 95.160.159.96 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 3 days, which doesn't sound particularly egregious. However, there are no vandalising or otherwise questionable edits on this IP, so I can't see how exactly this is preventative per the blocking policy. If there's a legitimate reason but WP:BEANS, then fair enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Sideswipe9th, @Nil Einne, @Ritchie333: It seems to me that the problem may lie in the fact that Vectra has the "dynamic IP" option turned on by default, which means that my IP is not fixed but changes from time to time and I think every time the router is reset. So blocking one IP because someone did some vandalism from it can affect many users. What's more, this problem will grow, I think I had such a situation once in the past, and twice this week already. In 2020, Vectra reported that it had more than 1.7 million customers and 4.6 million households within its network coverage. This is not a problem that only affects me. Marcelus (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus can you change your dynamic IP by turning your machine off and on? If so there is a workaround, but a vandal could avoid the block just as easily. TSventon (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK it doesn't work automatically; it won't change immediatelly. Marcelus (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also for me problematic will be situation when all or majority of IPs assigned to Vectra will be blocked on Wikipedia, it will make editing virtually impossible for me (and many other users). Marcelus (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I did a bit of research into the rationale for blocking proxies. It seems to have gone back to this mailing list thread in February 2004, where a user was complaining about what they considered "corporate spam" in an over the top dramatic manner. I'd probably describe them as a "deranged tendencious editor" rather than a straight-out vandal, although some might just consider that semantics. The editor appeared to evade blocks by jumping around and using proxies, and as this was such a regular occurrence, it was decided we might as well just block all proxies, full stop.

I appreciate we're basically stuck between wanting to stop the worst of vandalism, and also stop barriers for good faith editors from contributing. If the latter wasn't a concern, we wouldn't allow IP editing, full stop. The workaround is to assign longer term IP block exemptions to editors like Marcelus, and make it easier for obviously good-faith editors to request them. However, this isn't likely to work for the stereotypical IP editor, who comes in to fix one typo from "were" to "where" and doesn't know or care what a block is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No one ever really believed that proxies were banned, and they're mostly only blocked now because they continue to be overwhelmingly abusive (despite what some think). In reply to Marcelus's point, the whole ISP is not getting blocked. It's not even a noticeable minority, and potentially occasionally affects a handful of users at most. These types of proxies are transient, closed or moved within - usually - a few hours, and blocks typically only last a few days (unless it's particularly persistent and static), over a limited period. These types of proxies really are heavily abused - everything from massive UPE farms to some of our most abusive vandals. I think it's useful we limit the pool available to these nuisances. Is it sometimes inconvenient? Sure - what, twice. Ritchie333 is right that it's a balance, and we have IPBE available to help us. Alternatively maybe someone could persuade all the vandals and sockpuppets to stop, then we might afford to lighten up a bit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

While editing as an IP before I had an account I could rarely edit on a mobile network, it was just one of the annoyances of IP editting and I completely understood it's rational. If any IP editting is going to be allowed there will always need to be some balance against vandals, trolls, and bad faith editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that there is some aspects of a ban on proxies. It's not very effective, but proxies are also regularly blocked with no evidence of abuse from that specific proxy. Especially the traditional stuff e.g. IPs assigned to co-location and other services. Note I don't deny the wisdom of this, simply saying that it's IMO far closer to a ban than a block because we don't need evidence of abuse before we block. (I seem to recall that one time long after Tor was a concern but quite a few years ago now I was able to edit with Tor. I don't know how knew the exit node was, it could have been very very recent but my assumption was the process of blocking them just wasn't automated yet so it might be weeks before this specific exit node was blocked. However I still felt it was fair to say they were banned.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The current local and global policies are that open proxies, including paid proxies, are not allowed. The risks of abuse from them is considered to be too high. IP addresses that are active on one or more proxy services may be blocked at any time for any period of time. The only exceptions are if you are granted WP:IPBE at a local or global level. Whether you want to call this a block or a ban is arguably semantics because of how Wikipedia uses those two words in a non-standard manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Semantics indeed, but I do need to pick up on this common misstatement of the policy detail (global, local, practical, ..). Policy in fact says that they may be blocked, not that they are not allowed. This subtle difference actually prevents a whole pile of headaches. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I did say may be blocked at any time for any period of time later in my reply. Whether or not that's equatable with not allowed I think depends on whether you consider the title of the global policy No open proxies to be prescriptive on the rest of the policy text. But I know you and I have different opinions on whether some specific proxy networks are or are not suitable for blocking, and I think that's OK. Ultimately we both want the same goal overall, reduction/prevention of disruptive edits with as little collateral damage as possible :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of NOP, this may be of interest. If I edited meta more, it would probably be renamed already. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

can you change your dynamic IP by turning your machine off and on? Most ISPs that use dynamic IPs will change the allocated IP when the router, modem, or ONT is restarted. With IPv4 address exhaustion, and a lot of ISPs dragging their heels at implementing IPv6 it's unfortunately unavoidable. The only guaranteed workaround is to request a static IP from your ISP, though in most cases you will have to pay extra for this privilege, if they offer the service at all (more common for business oriented ISPs, less common for consumer). Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

my IP is not fixed but changes from time to time and I think every time the router is reset. So blocking one IP because someone did some vandalism from it can affect many users. Yes, however with the type of proxy we've been discussing here, we try to account for that by recommending or issuing short term blocks. From experience we know that this type of proxy is typically short lived, though there are some exceptions. This is why the blocks for the IPs mentioned on your talk page are only for 3 days.

Where this becomes difficult though is that there are some ISPs who don't regularly update the firmwares on their provided routers, which leave them open to exploitation with some relative ease. While I don't want to get to go too much into the technicalities, there are certain geographic areas where compromised routers are exceptionally common. This is also the case for some customers who buy their own third-party routers, and never bother installing any manufacturer provided firmware updates. Not saying that's the case here though, just that there's a lot of nuance when it comes to handling this particular type of proxy block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Review requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have absolutely no idea where should I write this. There is a bot-reported false positive at WP:AIV. However, the user, AdamDNK is new and they made substatial edits to topics that may be considered controversial. Under any circumstances I do not imply that the changes were bad-faith; it is quite possible that the edits improved the said pages. On the one hand, I am completely incompetent to review the edits, on the other hand I have a feeling I should forward this somewhere. And another thing, please notify the user about this thread. I have a feeling that the generic template is not sufficient, but my communication skills aren't either. Janhrach (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit silly, Janhrach, notify the user with the "generic template".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Janhrach (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANDREW THE COBRA TATE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Username of ANDREW THE COBRA TATE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evidently impersonating a real and/or notable individual (Andrew Tate). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future reports like this can go to WP:UAA. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second report re: Jaikumar Linga Balija

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jaikumar_Linga_Balija (talk · contribs)

See [202]. More of the same, dragging on since September. Linga Balija continues to have copyright violation issues, and then there's Draft:காப்பு ஜாதி. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked until they engage on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• I figured out what was going on at Draft:காப்பு ஜாதி. Jaikumar Linga Balija has machine translated several existing English Wikipedia articles into Tamil. It's not an attempt at a draft or an article at all. I'd have sandboxed it, but User:Jaikumar Linga Balija/sandbox also already exists. As with Draft:Linga Balija (Caste), Draft:Linga Balija, and Linga Balija Caste this person is just splatting stuff haphazardly everywhere. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emojis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure where is the right forum for this but does an emoji showing a face uttering possible swear words count as uncivil behavior as seen in a recent edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_protests&action=history?? Note that the editor in question had recently been unblocked following edit warring in the same page. Borgenland (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The glyph is defined as U+1F92C 🤬 SERIOUS FACE WITH SYMBOLS COVERING MOUTH, something someone might use to express their anger. I don't see how it's uncivil behaviour. If it had been U+1F595 🖕 REVERSED HAND WITH MIDDLE FINGER EXTENDED or similar I might have agreed with you, although it's a bit tame still. Bazza (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

While it may have influenced my decision, this is not about the emoji: Abazizfahad is now blocked for two weeks to enforce the one-revert rule on the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: To clarify, my reply was only to the question posed about the emoji. Thanks for your continuing work to guide the errant user you mentioned. Bazza (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good reply explaining possible issues while making clear that "I'm angry" or similar statements aren't personal attacks. Thank you and no worries! 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion, return of Brazilian IP range at Department of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, etc.

• 2804:14C:6581:5F9B:0:0:0:1000 (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of promotional content and copyright violations to Air Force related articles. Block evasion by Jordison.francisco [203]. WP:REVERTBAN is relevant for all edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User:NuancedProwler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• NuancedProwler (talk · contribs · count)

First claims to have reviewed a source [204] then claims is not able to access the source [205]. General disruptive behaviour, possible ban-evader or sock (maybe this user, new acc was created when old one was blocked), I presume WP:NOTHERE. Best regards. Wareno (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If you use this noticeboard (as opposed to SPI), you are required to notify the user. In any event, I've blocked the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mrmaxor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user keeps tampering with Baseball HOF voting numbers in many pages, or tampering with links of awards or making up numbers completely and without any explaination. I undid some of their "mistakes" and they again added it back in.Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add, it will take time to fix their unhelpful edits but I cannot do so because they will, like the last time, undo and add it back. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If possible, reverse/delete their edits from December 15 and December 16. All of them are basically vandalism. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In the recent cases that I have looked at this editor has changed 93.7% to 93.8%. The source for the most recent says 93.8%, and the actual figure is 15/16. or 93.75%, so this is only a difference in rounding style. Can you point to any instances where the edits go against the sources provided, or are more than just artefacts of rounding? Oh, and for the uninitiated (like me before looking at this), HOF = Hall of Fame. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The rounding off is fine in SOME cases but they added voting numbers for committee-elected HOFers back when they were not disclosed and without any source. They also changed names of committees like Golden Era Committee to Veterans Committee in many cases. I believe they also changed the links to awards in a few pages. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

My issue with rounding off the numbers is that every vote counts. So if a player gets 74.8% out of 75% which is required (just an example), they don't get elected. You don't round off that number. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Omnis Scientia (talk · contribs) reported this user without attempting a discussion about their issues with the edits on their talk page.-- Yankees10 18:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

L2 is of Sub-Saharan African origin, not American Indian - Please stop Billy from adding false info

User:Billy H Gambela repeatedly engages in disruptive editing, particularly on the Haplogroup L2 page, to assert his false claim that African Americans equal Native Americans (Indigenous Peoples of the United States). He did it again on 17 December 2023. Sometimes he does it under his name and other times under IP addresses. 172.59.209.214 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User:AHI-3000

Does not leave any edit summary, even after I specifically asked them to do so [206]. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine, I will leave a summary for every single edit I make from here on. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: (Non-administrator comment) While leaving an edit summary is good etiquitte, I fail to understand exactly how not leaving one would require admin attention, let alone dragging him all the way to ANI; is it really an unmanagement behavioural issue? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say it is when consistently not done and ignoring a request to do so. But if admins decide that edit summaries are no longer relevant, well, that is also an outcome of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not the point: leaving edit summaries is not a bright-line requirement. That doing so is relevant and good practice does not transform the practice into one. Your "request" doesn't impose an obligation on anyone. Wikipedia has quite enough rules without you inventing more to suit your preferences. Ravenswing 17:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I know, edit summaries are not strictly required, WP:ES is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Still, I do think that a lack of edit summaries is indicative of an overly hasty and potentially disruptive editing style on AHI's part, where they have made dozens upon dozens of bad categories so far that have taken up many hours of editors' time trying to fix, and did not acknowledge they made an error in doing so. If anything, that is why they should be on ANI, rather than the edit summaries. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: I do not create objectively "bad" categories, and even if I do, I doubt there's any rules against making them in the first place. Besides, some of your proposals to get rid of my "bad" categories ended with "keep", so all that suggests to me is that this is nothing but a subjective judgement. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• So someone is not leaving edit summaries, which they are not required to do anyway, you want them to leave edit summaries so you sent them a message telling them to do so, they ignored you because it's not mandatory... and so you take them to ANI? JM (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

69.143.61.210

User:69.143.61.210 has returned to Wikipedia twice and engaged in an edit war without adequately discussing the matter on the page's discussion board. Blocking is strongly recommended. AmericanHistorian (talk) 02:49, 18 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)

They have a penchant for changing "on Christmas Day" to "on Christmas", which is poor English. Narky Blert (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

uh... it is? News to me. I don't know anyone who calls it "Christmas Day" unless they're singing "Fairytale of New York." This might be a WP:ENGVAR thing that never occurred to me until now. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Mary's Boy Child", written by an American in 1956. "I Saw Three Ships", C17 trad English. (editadd) Christmas Day in the Workhouse, written by an Englishman in 1877. Narky Blert (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Narky Blert (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ENGVAR is a funny thing, I've never thought of the 26th as anything else but "Christmas day". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh, Christmas Day is the 25th of December in some religions and varies among Catholic branches. On the other hand, lyric phrase "Christmas Day in the morning..." probably works for any branch. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) —

26th? Are you sure? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure I shouldn't post so late in the evening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas Day to distinguish it from Christmas Eve. Lots of families celebrate on different days, and businesses may have different hours on each of those days, so distinguishing between the two becomes important. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Both "at Christmas" and "for Christmas" work for me as references to the short season surrounding the 25th; as in e.g. "I'm visiting my parents at/for Christmas". My mother's brother's family and mine used to visit each other at Christmas on alternate years for a slap-up meal and exchange of presents - but always on the 26th (Boxing Day/St Stephen's Day or whatever you want to call it). I stand by my original position that "on Christmas" feels unnatural in British English. Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right. "At/for Christmas" refers to the entire holiday period, eg. "I'll see you at Christmas" , "I will stay with my family at/for Christmas" and "I will move to my parents' place for Christmas". You say "on" if you refer to something happening on a particular day, eg. "on Christmas Day". "I have to work on Christmas Day", "the kid received a ton of presents on Christmas Day". In everyday language, I've heard "on Christmas" (in the US) quite often, though. Btw, in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and Switzerland, presents are traditionally exchanged on the evening of 24 December, so it's important to distinguish there, indeed. GeeGee (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed so interesting! I like to think I’m abreast of British/U.S. (and intra-U.S.) language variants and this one had never occurred to me. (I grew up in north Alabama and my best friend for 30+ years grew up in Philadelphia and he still snarls whenever I say “grocery” instead of “grocery store”.)

It seems like “Christmas” is more context-dependent in U.S. English than in British English and U.S. speakers winkle out whether it’s the period or 12/25 itself. “Christmas morning” is definitely a specific time, but I’ve never heard it qualified as “Christmas Day morning”. Oddly, I do make a distinction between the parts of 12/24! “Alphadeltafoxtrot and I flew to Nashville on Christmas Eve Day and had Christmas Eve with my family, then on Christmas we drove to Atlanta for Christmas dinner with his folks. Then we flew home on the 26th.” 12/24 is “Christmas Eve Day” until sundown/dinnertime and then it’s “Christmas Eve”. 12/25 is “Christmas”. 12/26 is “the day after Christmas” in the U.S.

This just seems like a cut-and-dried WP:ENGVAR issue.

I appreciate this fine discussion! Happy calendar day of everyone’s choice! Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of this thread after the instructive and entertaining digression, I submit that: '100 has been changing WP:NOTBROKEN links to a phrase ("Christmas Day") which is correct everywhere (though a second preference to some people) to one ("Christmas") which is wrong in some parts of the world. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Narky Blert (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Potential 3RR violation

I was asked to intervene at Yejju people where Abrasax123 & an anon IPv6 editor are fighting over which version of this article to keep. (The debate is on my talk page.) Since both versions have useful information -- which I verified where I could -- I attempted to resolve this dispute by merging the two versions. While Abrasax123 appeared to be content with this version, the anon IPv6 editor continues to insist on his version, which includes some poorly-sourced information, & refusing to merge two footnotes that cite the exact same source. (Not saying my version is the best one, but I've included links to reliable sources & verified what I could. More could definitely be done to improve this article, but I lack access to the required sources at this time.)

Unfortunately, since I am now an involved party I can't do more than revert or debate the changes. Blocking the anon IPv6 editor won't work because they are editing from a connection that assigns IP addresses from a pool. I'm suggesting that any admin who reviews this consider reverting to my version, then protecting it for a time, say a week, so that the anon IPv6 editor is adequately deterred. If a better solution exists, I'm happy with that. -- llywrch (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done, protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Misleading username

NightHeron1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was clearly created to impersonate established user NightHeron, violating WP:MISLEADNAME. Just one edit thus far (adding SPAM to Intelligence quotient) but probably best to nip this in the bud. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. If this really is a legit alt I'll be happy to unblock, but I'm doubtful. – bradv 05:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. Having worked with NightHeron for some time, I'm confident that this is not him. Generalrelative (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

New accounts User talk:Grayfell11 and User talk:Diannaa11 seems to be a sock, spamming the same links. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

now blocked thanks to zzzuzzz Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a cross-wiki spam issue. Anyone interested in finding more cross-wiki spam socks might want to look at these confirmed accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

While the CU block and username policy are good and all, I'm curious what made the account so clearly an impersonation. Is not the night heron an actual species of bird that one might simply have a fascination with? To me it seems perfectly possible that a user unfamiliar with WP:MISLEADNAME found that NightHeron was taken, and appended a digit as one might do in any other number of websites. Am I missing something? GabberFlasted (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

NightHeron1's only edit was to Intelligence quotient. Looking at NightHeron's recent contributions shows this subject area is what they were editing around the time the other account was created. Hard to imagine that's a coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I was indeed missing something. Thank you. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Toronto IP range trolling

• 2607:FEA8:D580:D700:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Toronto has been trolling Wikipedia off and on for two years now, with nothing constructive in evidence. Starting with this rant about morals, hitting bottom with this white supremacy cheer, and ending with today's anti-feminist garbage, the person has proved they don't belong here. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not someone we need editing here. Blocked for a year. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Contorista

I would like some admins to have a look at this comment at Talk:Ivo Sasek and determine if it's, uh, okay. Nardog (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I blocked the user since a lot of their contributions are focused on disparaging English speakers and the English language, with this latest addition being the last straw. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, given the nature of those comments (for the record, the diff in question here is not directed at English speakers as with the other behaviour referenced by Isabelle, but is rather a series of antisemetic canards, along with exhortations that Jews should not be regarded as "fellow citizens", but rather that we should "keep an eye on them", and a link to an offline site about the "Jewish Cabal".), I'm surprised it took them this long to earn themselves a block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: See also another ANI about categorically anti-Jew posting that somehow attracted zero attention. That new editor's activity probably needs further examination. Quote: "you are a Jew/Hebrew offspring, therefore you can say whatever about Israel history or your nations history, religions, and heritage, but stay away from Dacia history". I'm suprised this didn't result in a WP:NONAZIS (+WP:CIVIL+WP:OWN) insta-block. At very barest minimum, that instigator needs to be T-banned from both Dacia and Jews, but somehow the report archived away without any action at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Don't see much of a point to topic ban them, so I issued an indefinite block. No prejudice against an uninvolved administrator accepting an unblock request if the editor shows they understand why that comment was disruptive and promise not to make similar comments in the future. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Dispute between User:115.188.122.67 and User:bennyaha over Dean Lonergan

Between the 13th and 14 of December myself (bennyaha) did a massive update on the page Dean Lonergan as it is well overdue and especially current activity as a promoter. Later on the 14th of December User:115.188.122.67 began making edits that were not WP:NPOV and vandalism under WP:SNEAKY. User:ternera made first lot of reverts from User:115.188.122.67 and inquired why they made these edits via the user talk page. User:115.188.122.67 would continue making edits, until User:64andtim reverted all edits and sent warning. Warning can be seen on User talk:115.188.122.67. I attempted to get Dean Lonergan page semi protected but got declined and administration to step in on User:115.188.122.67 but got declined. User:115.188.122.67 would come back on the 17th of December making multiple edits again were not WP:NPOV and vandalism under WP:SNEAKY. User:C.Fred reverted one of the edits asking why is the hatnote needed?. on the 18th December I would revert all edits done by User:115.188.122.67. I made a request to have administration to step in but request went stale. I made request to have temporary protection for Dean Lonergan page which was approved. I sent warning to User:115.188.122.67 on User talk:115.188.122.67 and User:115.188.122.67 started throwing accusations of me (bennyaha) a fanboy of Dean Lonergan and being paid by Dean Lonergan. Bennyaha (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I created this due to WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIV. Bennyaha (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are the tags for the requests i made

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/12#Dean Lonergan

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/12#Dean Lonergan 2

Administrator intervention against vandalism Request 1

Administrator intervention against vandalism Request 2 Bennyaha (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I have reverted at least only one edit because that IP removed content without adequate explanation. Later, Bennyaha sent me an email, and I have replied back to them. – 64andtim ^(talk) 23:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was patrolling for vandalism via AntiVandal, and I came across said edit that blanked a part of the article, and I have reverted it. I later found out that this was part of a dispute, and I did my best to remain "uninvolved" between the two. – 64andtim ^(talk) 23:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted [207] because 115.188.122.67 changed his name to Dean "Locust" Lonergan, which appeared to be disruptive. I gave the removal reason that no reliable source was provided for this change and moved on down the edit filter log. I didn't look closely at the previous editing history on this article to check for sock puppetry or other unusual incidents. Ternera (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not related to this dispute, but I accidentally misclicked and rolled back this reply here. Whoops Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 02:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Stellairibarne

• Stellairibarne (talk · contribs)

Unresponsive new user who has been warned multiple times about using inappropriate edit summaries, all of their summaries are the word "Cool" (see contributions). They are also uploading and adding copyvio logos to articles, tagging the logos as being in the public domain when they clearly are not. Happily888 (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

31 hour block to stop the disruption. No objection to this being shortened if the editor chooses to communicate. Star Mississippi 00:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've left an explicit comment on their talk page as they've just been given templated comments. Secretlondon (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi and Secretlondon: The user has continued to edit unresponsively and use an inappropriate edit summaries following their automatic unblock. Happily888 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I've INDEFfed and will leave a longer form note that we're happy to unblock if they communicate and understand the issue with their edits. Not sure if this is a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Towering Inferno genre warring

• 2601:2C1:C580:9760:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Richard Nieman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For the last two months, a Houston-based IP range has been genre-warring at the film article The Towering Inferno, trying to add "action drama" to "disaster".[208][209] The very first edit of a registered user did the same thing.[210] Looking back further, another Houston IP range was doing the same thing: Special:Contributions/2601:2C5:857F:CC0:0:0:0:0/64. None of these have used a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP range for 3 months and the named user indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for six months. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

69.80.3.22

69.80.3.22 (talk · contribs)

User has been persistently editing aviation-related articles, usually editing fleet counts without including a source. Some of their edits have been reverted, some not. Has already been warned 5 times on the talk page for similar reasons. This is my first ANI post, feedback would be appreciated. Thanks RetroCosmos (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a good idea to provide links to their edits. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. I have checked most of their edits and they seem to be accurate. I believe their contributions are valuable. However, unexplained and unsourced removal of content is liable to be reverted (and I can see has happened already with several editors). Perhaps they don't know about the user talk page function, as none of the warnings have been addressed. I am not sure what the procedure for this is, guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! RetroCosmos (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Promotional editing at Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital

Including copyright violation and likely block evasion. May require further rev/deletion, user blocks or page protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:84CC:595A:A3AE:9B1 (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 09:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Castncoot

In my view, Castncoot has uncooperative and ownership behaviors, particularly in Talk:New York City. It has been ongoing for several months now and has severely stifled progress by other editors towards improving the article.

Evidence (in chronological order):

• Talk:New_York_City/Archive_20#Removing_stuff_from_NYC_part_2 (my first involvement)
• Talk:New_York_City/Archive_21#This_article_is_too_long
• Talk:New_York_City/Archive_21#LGBT_section
• Talk:New_York_City/Archive_21#Images
• Talk:New_York_City#Race_and_ethnicity
• Talk:New_York_City#Lead_too_long

Warnings:

• [211] and [212] - warning templates a month ago
• User_talk:Castncoot#New_York_City - today

– CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: this is not a content dispute but a civility and cooperation problem. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: While I'm on the "article needs trimming" side of the dispute, I think this is a content dispute that should stay on the article talk page and doesn't belong on ANI. I should point out that Castncoot is not the only editor who feels that the current length is appropriate so saying they're not being cooperative is not really a valid accusation. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Normal type of reply to any effort for a discussion with Castncoot and is why this is here You in particular don't have NYC topic experience and clearly have no idea what you're doing. I know you've tried this before, but unfortunately, despite your good faith efforts I'm sure, you do a very poor job every time, and this time is no different. Moxy- 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the detailed response below Moxy. I can see now that this is indeed a behavioral issue of rather large proportions!RegentsPark (comment) 21:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• There is very much a behavioral matter (more than one actually) to address here. I have no connection to the subject or any involved editors, but took some time (about 2 hours) to go over this stuff in detail. Here are a few Castncoot quotes from just the links above, to illustrate clearly: do you even know what those words mean? • Why exactly should you even have an account here on Wikipedia, when your only motive appears to be to destroy with this account? • Why don’t you start practicing on a children’s version of Wikipedia and then work your way up over the years? • while you have Wikipedia privileges • trying to irrationally sabotage this article • unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about • Stop screwing around with this picture • in order to obfuscate your edits • By the way, the punctuation I used at the end of my question is known as a “question mark”. I believe I’ve said everything I need to say for now, thank you. • I don't believe you should be able to maintain unrestricted rights on English Wikipedia (or Portuguese Wikipedia) any longer. • because I now have confidence that you actually know what you're doing, I am happy to collaborate with you here • If it [i.e. WP:PEACOCK wording] "puts you off", simply don't read the article. See how easy that was? • after Nikkimedia came in and recklessly gutted the section • You're just as incompetent as Nikkimaria with regards to this section • These harsh, INCOMPETENT removals cut me deep, man. There, fixed it for you. • It's terrible and totally unprofessional, and looks like a kid in primary school could have done this. • And you didn't even notice this, Seasider53?? And this is supposed to instill trust and confidence in you, Seasider53? Is it really too much to ask for competence • Now on to a more serious and more trustworthy editor with regards to this section, etc. Plus various unconstructive histrionics that aren't personal attacks: rescuing this article. What I was witnessing before my eyes was truly frightening. • this kind of gutting of the article ... I'm not sure why even have any article at all when so many important details would be gutted throughout the article (not long after criticizing others for their writing skills, I might add) • the result is just plain HORRIBLE??? Why even bother having an article then? • It's been cut several times, and now we're down to bone. • eats into actual muscle and bone, removing vital ... information (all in the article cross-referenced with {{Main}} at the top of that section).
  See next: Your mastery of the English language is subpar, and maybe you should confine yourself to the Portuguese Wikipedia where you can prop up Sao Paulo all you want; when someone is clearly incompetent at English, gently suggesting they edit the WP for their own language is reasonable, but the editor in question shows no such problem, so this was simply a snide personal attack with a weird jingoistic tinge to it. More: Why not spend your time constructively learning English properly for a few years and then attempting to rewrite the article in the sandbox, instead of raging destruction here? This one's worth quoting in full: Thank you for handing me the argument. Who are you to determine what is good or bad about NYC? Additionally, your grammar seems to be as horrid as your temperament (look up that word) and is not worthy of any article in the adults’ Wikipedia. There are also a bunch of "my city is better than your city, so go soak your head" sorts of responses throughout all this material, when other editors are trying to bring the NYC one back within norms across our typical well-developed articles on major cities; e.g. the only superlative that Hanoi has is not having any superlatives..which may be one reason it's never crossed my mind to read that city's page before, as just one example. It basically seems to boild down to Castncoot believing that NYC is magically special and that he has a magically special relationship to its aritcle, thus no rules apply to it or to him.
  Also troubling is It would have to become a WikiProject with consensus to remove the big climate table from the main page of all such cities across Wikipedia, indicating a belief, contrary to both WP:OWN and WP:CONLEVEL policies, that topical wikiprojects get to make up and enforce "rules" about content at articles they claim to be within their scope. Even worse is this "locals only" sentiment about who is permitted to edit and where our information comes from or what determines article length and detail level (personal anecdotal experience versus reliable sources and versus WP:SIZE, WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, etc.): You in particular don't have NYC topic experience and clearly have no idea what you're doing. Lots and lots more in the same vein: If you haven't visited NYC in the past twenty years ... then perhaps you should update your topic experience with a re-visit and a fresh pair of eyes. ... Anyone with any reasonable topic experience about New York City knows well that this article is condensed like a can of sardines. • Vanjagenije, do you know anything about New York? Or are you simply imagining that you do? • [two pings here], people who have actual topic experience on the subject? • unlike the others here, you actually have enough legitimate New York topic experience to majorly edit this article validly. • people without significant New York City topic experience please refrain from making edits over, say 1,000 bytes, at one sitting on this page • competence with the very narrow and specific matter at hand, which in this case is this extremely critical section • demonstrates a complete lack of topic experience • [editor] has impressively gained more topic experience about New York simply by taking the initiative to do so!. Castncoot's favorite phrase seems to be "With all due respect," followed immediately by patent disrespect of the editor and their reasoning, sources, policy citations, etc. (WP:FALSECIV) There are other cases of this pretend-to-assume-good-faith tactic, e.g.: I know you've tried this before, but unfortunately, despite your good faith efforts I'm sure, you do a very poor job every time, and this time is no different.
  Castncoot's failure to understand sourcing also runs deeper. Someone pointed out that a lawn-care company quoted by a source WWD was not reliable for a broad claim made in the lead about public perception of NYC, Castncoot responded with something so strange I took it for a joke at first, but it was not: That's insulting to and a prejudiced, personal attack against lawn-care companies. Lawns produce oxygen for the world. The point is that the source is WWD, not LawnStarter. The statement as phrased is correct and consistent with the sources; no one agreed with his interpretation of either "source" on the matter. More ad hominem nonsense: Chronus pinged 4 editors, every single one of whom were already active on the talk page (I checked), to a particular thread pertaining to what they'd already been talking about (whether there are too many images), and Castncoot's response was In one fell swoop, not only have you lost any level of credibility and neutrality as an editor, but you have also single-handedly tarnished the legitimacy of all of the editors you have summoned ... I believe that your Wikipedia privileges will need to be re-assessed. In another discussion on the same page, Castncoot then flips around and does Can we get the input of some other longtime major editors of this article, including Alansohn and Oknazevad [with pings] who had not been active there for a some time, so that was actual canvassing. Next, check out: I never agreed to a drastic, 20% reduction in total volume, and this was done without proper due discussion and vetting for such a drastic change, as if Castncoot determines personally what the limits are and that consensus cannot be achieved and proceed without his individual sign-off.
  This stuff is not okay, and forms a long-term pattern of verbal abuse and ownership behavior (especially via the WP:STONEWALLING and WP:SLOWEW tactics). Castncoot appears to do a lot of on-topic and good-quality editing at various city articles, but is displaying a WP:VESTED problem of acting as if empowered to exert perpetual personal control over them (especially this NYC one), and extreme hostility to people who contradict him. These quotes are incivility and other problems toward at least 5 different editors, so this is not some two-editor personality conflict. Nor is it "a content dispute"; it's a behaviorial issue involving control over all of the content, from its length and detail level to how it is sectioned, to what should be in split-off articles, to what the lead should cover, to what aggrandizing terms about the city can be stated by us with what sources, to how to illustrate it and to what extent and redundancy level, and that's just from the current talk page and two archive pages. In gathering these quotes, I noticed multiple other editors in the discussion complaining of an OWN problem "for years", planning an ANI about this editor's incivility (which was headed off by a nick-of-time WP:WALKBACK), and another one about the OWN, which fizzled out for unclear reasons. The time is now upon us to resolve these problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Castncoot behavior is perfectly outlined at WP:CTDAPE. Moxy- 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, that's a good shortcut to remember.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for putting all that together. I think Castncoot had some people who could see their viewpoint a few months ago, but even they seem to have backed off regarding their stance on the article. I think he/she is editing less on Wikipedia than they once were, hence they just blindly revert most of the time when they return to the website. It doesn't excuse the attacks, of course. Seasider53 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Per SMcCandlish there's more than enough to justify action. I would recommend a temporary block since a topic ban might be more punishment given the editor contributions are mainly in the same area. Perhaps something temporary would serve as a wake up call. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • How about making this a warning which I will heed in good faith? This is the first time this has ever come to this, I am an editor in good standing for over a decade or so and have never been blocked. I have never felt a sense of "ownership," but like others, I want to see a good result with any article. I will admit that I can be impatient when I'm expecting high editorial standards, and sometimes that impatience shows up on the page in an unwelcoming way and I admit that's wrong. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfect and that I need to improve. All of us have room to improve on some level or another! 😊 I promise I will heed all of your collective stark warning here, and if it happens again, then certainly a block would be fair and indicated. I believe that the goal and result at this point should be constructive, rather than punitive. Is this reasonable? Castncoot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

    That honestly sounds like a good thing to try first (and hopefully last). While it should have "come to this" sooner instead of the problems going on so long, I don't doubt that Castncoot has a good-faith intent to improve articles and keep them in a good state, and should be given a chance to adjust their approach. I might recommend a reading of WP:HOTHEADS which has a lot of advice for avoiding this kind of conflict (and a review of WP:ROPE as well). To get at the root of the content disputation, I think Castncoot is going to have to get used to the idea that length concerns are legitimate, both as to total article content and lead size; content isn't going to be "disappeared" just by moving detail to side articles, and all of our readers know by now that an article on a complex topic will have an overview article and drill-down side articles. 'Snot a hill to die on.

    That said, those interested in length matters might like to know that the length limits and the rationales for them have been under fairly intensive re-examination for over a month now at WT:SIZE; the discussion, however, needs more light not more heat. There's also been not-insignificant discussion of lead-length standards (based on FAs) recently at WT:MOSLEAD as well. I mention this because a review of where consensus is heading on these questions will be instructive for what the total and lead sizes should probably be at the NYC article, or at least not much beyond them. Aim for working together to make that happen instead of perpetuating an adversarial and defensive approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you, SMcCandlish. Castncoot (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

    If you could clarify what you mean by other people's (to put it more politely) "lack of knowledge" about NYC, that would help going forward. Seasider53 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

    And how NYC is so special compared to the "Much simpler and much more homogeneous cities like Hanoi". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Modifying an ongoing RfC at Talk:Hamas

I am writing to seek your intervention in an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC).

Background:

The primary cause of the RfC was an ongoing edit war on the lead of the Hamas article. I took a step back on December 10 when the edit war started, as I found the battleground approach too emotionally taxing. Yesterday, seeing that the edit war is not ending, I have filed an administrative request to temporarily lock the page to allow things to cool down through constructive talk, but it was declined. Then I have tried to take an initiative and put an end to the conflict by creating a neutrally-phrased RfC based on the contents in dispute in the last revert [213], without taking a particular side.

Intervention request:

The reason I am asking for intervention is the conduct of user VR (Vice regent, one of the participants in the edit war, who seems to try to take ownership of the RfC.

Initially I felt that the user has engaged in what could be described as bludgeoning, creating an environment not conducive to constructive discussion or consensus building. This includes attacking the legitimacy of the RfC as a consensus-building tool and excessive posting that has overwhelmed the discussion. Nevertheless I've explained the purpose of this RfC is to build consensus and I asked him/her to list all their objections so they can be addressed constructively.

When I came back some hours later, I was surprised to see find my RfC proposal #2 was significantly altered without permission, changing the text and adding an entire new sentence [214] in post mortem after many community members had already participated, potentially skewing the consensus-building process, and without discussion or notice to the RfC participants. The nature of the "sneaked in" modifications was not minor and substantially altered the scope and implications of proposal #2. I wouldn't have complained about a minor tweak such as a grammar correction, but I think it is disruptive to do such major changes in a live proposal without talking.

I believe these issues warrant administrative attention to ensure the integrity of the RfC process. It may be necessary to revert the proposal to its original form, or consider other appropriate measures to address the conduct concerns. Marokwitz (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Whenever there's a dispute over the wording, I always suspect WP:RFCBEFORE was not properly followed. Can you show us where the wording was discussed before the RfC was started because I had a quick look at the talk page and I'm not seeing it. If there was insufficient discussion beforehand even with the existing participants I strongly suggest this is closed and started again after the questions have been properly discussion (assuming it's still felt an RfC is worthwhile). Probably with a warning to whoever started the RfC not to do that shit again lest they be banned from the topic area. This is particularly problematic in the Israel-Palestine topic area and even more given the extremely tense feelings at this time and very high interest in these topics so it's highly disruptive to start a complicated RfC without reasonable discussion of what should be in the RfC beforehand IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. To be clear - I opened the RfC - so if I did it incorrectly I am to blame. Various versions of the paragraph in question were debated in the talk, for example in the section "Edit warring", that ended with no clear decision. To create the RfC I took the wording of the two options directly from the last revert that was going back and forth, without any modification.

My understanding was that this fulfilled the recommendations of WP:RFCBEFORE. I now understand that I probably should have created first a pre-RfC discussion.

I also consulted an administrator here User_talk:Daniel_Case#RFC question to ask if I'm making a mistake before coming to this forum.

If I made a mistake, then I will accept any decision - this is my first attempt at an RfC. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the above explanation by Nil Einne and after reflecting on my own conduct, I added a suggestion on the talk page convert the RfC to a regular discussion. From my perspective this request can be closed. Marokwitz (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: Indeed WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed. There was an edit war over Marokwitz's added text. I pointed out on talk[215] that their text has issues (including WP:SYNTH and WP:V) and nableezy[216] responded to that. No one responded to these objections, yet Homerethegreat[217] and Agmonsnir[218] kept edit-warring in the potential SYNTH text. Then Marokwitz started an RfC (with the same text that I had said might violate WP:SYNTH and WP:V) and within the first few hours votes in support came pouring in. VR _talk 12:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

KongfuGandalf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Obvious continuation of long-term socking. Westerosi456H, H3sam, Canadianelite345, Amirreza-Astro21, MohammadrezaShajarian12 ...and more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked in the time it took me to file a report. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Varna section of Bunt (community) page

Bunt caste editors have been repeatedly removing sentences regarding the classification of the Bunt community as Sat-Shudras from the Varna section of the Bunt (community) page. There have been extensive discussions on this matter in the Talk page already Talk:Bunt_(community)#Remove_“Varna_Classification”_section when similar deletions were made by caste promoting vandals earlier. The page was then protected and the vandals & their sock puppets were blocked.

Similar changes are being made to the Varna section to remove sentences with around 8 scholarly references. Example here [219] and here [220].

on another note the same users who made above edits that is User:TuluveRai123 & User:Anthrop2238 have been making edits also at the Santara dynasty page to promote Bunt caste again.(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santara_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1189309396 ) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santara_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1186336304 ) They have been making changes to the article stating that Santara dynasty was started by Bunts but the references they provide don’t make such claims, when asked to quote from their references to support their edits they are unable to do so. I suspect both are accounts of the same person based on pattern of edits. I have already requested an investigation for Anthrop2238 here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vicky4197 ) before TuluveRai123 became active on the page,

I would like administrators to kindly step in, restore page protection and prevent these users from removing well referenced content in the future. Thank you.

Shurpanakha (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

122.106.10.1 Poor edits

Almost every edit by 122.106.10.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contains some form of spelling, grammar, formatting, MOS, or content error. I and others have left talk page messages that have gone unanswered. In some cases they've made a combo re-revert + new error [221]. All of the diffs are listed on their talk page, but here are today's revert/fixes alone: [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230] Celjski Grad (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:122.106.10.1#Block. El_C 16:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This IP address needs to be sorted out.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2001:448A:3032:28B:3DBF:5DD2:412D:E28F (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can any patrolling admin block and slash out their disruptive/hate speech edits? Thanks. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem account in CTopic area (Ukraine)

Stanislawskachko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This users history needs to be reviewed for possible sanctions from disruptive POV editing:

• Addition of large amounts of unsourced content, mainly names of BLPs. [231], [232], [233]
• Edit warring of the name Kiev >> Kyiv. [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239],
• Moving "Grand Prince of Kiev" to "Grand Prince of Kyiv" [240], [241], [242] [243] I have no idea how to properly undue this move, hopefully someone here can assist in undoing the move.

They were left a CTtopics notice User talk:Stanislawskachko#Introduction to contentious topics by @Mellk:, the response they left to Melik ("how is it possible to be a extended confirmed ?") seems to contradict the knowledge needed to move pages as noted above, I think this may be an editor with more than 88 edits.

I have only gone through some of today's posts, there are undoubtably more, but the above should be enough for action. Since they have started to revert my changes [244], so I can do no more without trediing into EW/1RR territory in a CTopic area.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you say it's a WP:SPA for changing Kiev to Kyiv despite WP:KIEV? I noticed that the account was created all the way back in 2008 and is nearly 16 years old, yet 80 of its 88 edits are in 2023. (not an admin) JM (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear Timoty

All of the information that has been provided has sourced content. [26], [27], [28]

If any information do not have source - kindly ask to edit it, or discuss it in talk page.

Kindly ask do not remove all infroation at once as this is considered as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia As well as this page is frsh and under construction - more sources will be provided.

Wikipedia, has changed its spelling of Ukraine’s capital from Kiev to Kyiv, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba announced on Sept. 18. Kyiv is English & Ukrainian official transcription

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7799.

[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] [38]

Kiev - is is russian (moscovian) transcription stanislawskachko (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Continuing to ignore WP:KIEV is ill advised, as it is disruptive and could easily lead to an admin blocking you JM (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says historic things should be Kiev not Kyiv. Secretlondon (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is not RewritingHistoryPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Stanislawskachko, there are several problems with your edits. I will try to explain two of them to you so that you do not get into any more trouble.

1) Sources. You have repeatedly used an entity's own published materials to source content about that entity. This is not advisable, as an entity may very well be trying to portray itself in a better light, or puff itself. To give you an exaggerated example that you will probably understand very quickly, do you imagine us sourcing the article on the Russian government to the Kremlin's official website? There are very few scenarios where primary sources would be acceptable, and secondary or even tertiary sources are very much preferred - provided these secondary or tertiary sources are of good quality. For example, you have even used Facebook as a source in your edits. This is unacceptable. Other sources are not necessarily bad for minor edits, but they are "weak" when sourcing edits that can be considered controversial. You will eventually get the hang of what sources are good or bad by discussing stuff on talk pages.

2) Policies. What Dmytro Kuleba (or Vladimir Putin, or Joe Biden, or Taylor Swift, for that matter) has to say about almost anything matters very little to us. We are ruled by our own policies. WP:KIEV is one such policy. To sum it up: for topics that are unambiguously contemporary we use Kyiv, as it is the "modern" spelling in English-language media. Thus, if we are talking about an individual who died in 2017 we would say he died in Kyiv. For topics that are unambiguously historical, the rule is to stick to our Kievs, for instance, when talking about a Grand Prince of Kiev. If you want some sort of rule of thumb, for events after 1991 always use Kyiv, for pre-Soviet stuff stick to Kiev, and Soviet stuff is a bit of a grey area where context matters, but where nobody will complain if they see someone adding a Kyiv instead of a Kiev (at most they will revert and explain their reasoning). On a more general note, MOS:PLACE asks us to avoid anachronism, so we try to reflect the name a place had at the time of the events being described. For example, if something happened in 2020 in Dnipro we would use the current name, but for something that happened in 1950 we would use Dnipropetrovsk, and for the 19th century we would use Yekaterinoslav.

I hope this is clear to you. If there is anything you do not understand, you can ask. Just don't go around reverting or arguing with people if you are not aware of how the process works, or you will get yourself banned needlessly. I will also remove the pics you uploaded, as I consider I have answered why they are not relevant. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The user has less than 100 edits, and I do not see a single good one (did not look at all of them though). I would say block indef and forget, we do not have a shortage of quasi-Ukrainian edit-warriors in the topic area. Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I think you're overdoing your comments on supposed pro-Ukrainian POV-pushers and edit-warriors. In the section exactly above you made another such comment. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Good block, by the way. As a general comment for the thread. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Side point: Moving "Grand Prince of Kiev" to "Grand Prince of Kyiv" ... I have no idea how to properly undue this move, hopefully someone here can assist in undoing the move. It's already been fixed. For future reference, if you can't just revert an undiscussed move, due to an edited redirect, list it at WP:RM/TR, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves, and it'll be fixed quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the first edit of the user after this discussion got stalled was this, I block indef. If there are objections, feel free to unblock (or let me know, I will unblock).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If they were to be unblocked, they need a topic ban from EE minimum. Mellk (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This one not only suggests that they are here to WP:RGW, but also that they basically do not speak English. Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Could this user have been preventatively blocked even on a WP:COMPETENCE basis for not having an adequate grasp of the English language? JM (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Keremmaarda

I have been trying to avoid this, but here we are.

On two highly-visible articles (Siege of Svetigrad, Siege_of_Krujë_(1450)) @Keremmaarda has been trying to add WP:OFFTOPIC additions for the past days. After friendly reminding them that it's on them to prove that the content belongs to the article [1], he's still reverting. Only after opening a talkpage by myself, I managed to get a proper response. Their persistent WP:IDONTGETIT behavior throughout the talkpage discussion [2] is one thing, however, comments, such as "If you can't think enough to make context, that's your problem.", "stop bullshitting [2.5], and (the most recent) "You cannot change it as you wish without reaching a common idea." [3] (even though @Botushali has made an additional argument and Keremmaarda remained non-responsive on the talkpage). The content they are trying to add is not even relevant to the articles, and the user even wanted to include their own conclusions in highly-visible Wikipedia articles: "So the number 15,000 is more reliable" in this version [4]. Instead of responding to our observations regarding multiple issues in his edits, they continue to revert (and still ignoring the WP:RELEVANCE, WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING issues that have been brought up). You may take a look inside the talkpage comments and form your own opinion. He has been working on ambitious projects on this website, and as I've said, I tried to seek a resolution - unsuccessfully. Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, but can see plenty of edit-warring in the history of those articles. Both of you, just discuss your differences on the talk pages without performing any original research, including by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The only user who reverts even though multiple editors disagree is Keremmaarda, he is not focusing on my points on the talkpage and keeps bringing up that we should think logically. He continues to revert even though he remains non-responsive on the talkpage. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Keremmarda has made responses on the talk page discussion. He’s “remained unresponsive on the talk page” for 12 hours, which is not unreasonable. While as far as I can tell, you have remained civil and professional throughout the discussion while Keremmarda has not, you don’t need to demand an instant response and complain that “ Only after opening a talkpage (sic) by myself, I managed to get a proper response.” I would recommend you get a little more patient with the discussion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

He indeed remained non-responsive on the talkpage while he was reverting at the same time [1] and that's the point. It's on him to convince that the content he's added belongs to Wikipedia, which he has not done until I opened a talk page discussion. E.g. on Svetigrad, the dispute has been going on since 6th of December. My reaction is pretty substantiated. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. In the future maybe open up a talk page discussion earlier. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. In the future maybe open up a talk page discussion earlier. It's his responsibility, not mine (and on top of that, I've noticed it much later). So is this my fault?AlexBachmann (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, all the editors who object are Albanian. Are you practicing nationalism? And I will reply to your other comments in the morning, I am busy working at the moment, people can have private lives. <3 Keremmaarda (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

all the editors who object are Albanian. Are you practicing nationalism? Thank you for proving my point that you are not here to build a positive environment. I would really recommend you continue focusing on your real life. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I was trying hard to be even-handed here, but the comment by Keremmaarda that you quote is beyond the pale. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not the first time they’ve accused fellow editors of nationalism, either. I can provide diffs if need be, but they’ve already restated such here already. Botushali (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If you noticed, before I even responded, they changed the article again before a consensus was reached. Am I to blame here? Keremmaarda (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Who will correct you when you make vague claims about Mehmed the Conqueror and Ottoman? When I withdraw from wikipedia, will you change the articles according to your opinion? Keremmaarda (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Keremmarda has a bad habit of not assuming WP:GOODFAITH and does not follow WP:CIVIL. Regardless of the edit-warring, this type of behaviour should be addressed. It does not help to build a friendly environment here on Wikipedia. Botushali (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm tired of my sources constantly being deleted even though there is no consensus. And I just asked a question, I didn't accuse you of anything bad. Being a nationalist is prohibited on Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask. Keremmaarda (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith from your fellow editors is also prohibited, as is suggesting that their nationality should disqualify them from a topic area. I recommend you strike your comment and/or apologise. I would also recommend you step back from reverting a bit and, if you believe you have a valid point but are being ignored, ask for a third opinion. It should not be difficult to find uninvolved editors with no axe to grind for such a niche area, and although finding one with some background knowledge could be challenging, there are many generally educated people who can probably evaluate the reliability of a source and the merits of an edit. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Now tell those who deleted the same things before a consensus was reached. Thanks Keremmaarda (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

“Yes, I'm tired of my sources constantly being deleted even though there is no consensus” there is no consensus for your edits, not for restoring the WP:STABLE version. That’s a completely different thing. Apart of that, it’s not “your sources”, it’s “a source”. You have provided one claim that does not even relate to the article. I reverted because of their WP:IDONTGETIT behavior, he did not address the issues we have mentioned on the talk page. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like there is more than enough material in this very discussion for an admin to preventatively block Keremmaarda JM (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin but I agree ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, he indeed wants to contribute to this project, however, in a very uncivil manner. Let's wait for the admins ruling. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So can you count the materials? What rule did I break? Keremmaarda (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Keremmaarda's behaviour has been much worse than AlexBachmann's, but anyone can start a talk page discussion. If one isn't started then it's everyone's fault, not just one party's. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever page I edit, my sources are constantly deleted with excuses, and I usually see this in the edits I make on articles featuring Skanderbeg. When I add a source or try to fix something, it gets reverted and deleted over and over again by the same editors. I didn't use any slang words, I didn't make any insults, and I didn't break any rules. But the editor who complained about me constantly made references to me and I almost didn't even respond to them, but in the end, I was the one who spoke bad and slang(!) And there is nothing wrong with what I said, I said those who object are Albanians for some reason, I did not say anything like they should stay out of the discussion or not get involved. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reflect on why your edits are constantly challenged… Botushali (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Or you should also think about why you are running away from some facts... Keremmaarda (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Or you should also think about why you are running away from some facts... all the more evidence to indicate that you are not proving to be an able editor on Wikipedia… Botushali (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You actually did break rules on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in your text, but that's beside the point. If there is an issue, you need to go to the talk page and figure it out, not whine about other editors and accuse them of nationalism. There is no "right" way to edit a page, and you need to engage in a reasonable discussion. Just because you don't break any obvious rules doesn't mean you are always right. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 04:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You are not impartial. Keremmaarda (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If you noticed, the other editor told me to "take care of my private life (stay away from Wikipedia)" but this was never a problem. Is it his job to kick people out of here? You didn't mind anything he said, but my saying "nationalist" had a big impact. Very interesting. Keremmaarda (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

the other editor told me [...] but this was never a problem Just for the record, this was after you indirectly accused us of "practicing" nationalism. Also, I do not see the issue regarding the statement "I would really recommend you continue focusing on your real life.". I meant that real life is more important. I think that's a thing we all can agree upon. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting that your go-to is to accuse others of nationalism, rather than providing adequate sourcing for the edits you want to make. That's called WP:DISRUPTive, and can result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What I did cannot be called destructive editing, and there is a difference between asking questions and blaming. :D Keremmaarda (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I never used the words destructive editing, so that's got nothing to do with this. And yes, "just asking questions" can absolutely be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How can IPs with no previous edit still bypass a semi-protection?

This leaves me really puzzled. The article Shu Qi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is semi-protected until November 2024, and yet some IP just edited it, with the same birthdate change again that was the reason for the SP in the first place: [245]. How is that even technically possible?--Edelseider (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's because the protection in place is pending changes protection, which doesn't block IPs from performing edits, but they're hidden from unregistered readers. See WP:PCPP for more information. DonIago (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you DonIago! --Edelseider (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster

This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.

There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).

For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.

Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.

The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list. The list even has Zsa Zsa Gabor (!) as a "major figure from classical Hollywood cinema". Unbelievable.

It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.

This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.

If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established. Namwidow (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 07:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Namwidow, to use a word from the article title, this is a classical content dispute, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Your account has 16 edits to date, which includes filing duplicative reports about this article at four separate noticeboards. What was your previous account, please? Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the proper venue for dealing with a topic that is entirely subjective (PoV) and that cannot actually be encyclopedically defined, like "excellent baked goods", "most exciting video games", or (arguably) "classic[al] Hollywood cinema", is WP:AFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

While defining the term is easy -- "classic" anything pertains to whatever was prevalent in the speaker's earliest memories, and I'd expect that no one in any such debate has Mary Miles Minter or Werner Krauss in mind as "classic" film stars -- I agree with SMC that AFD is the appropriate venue. Ravenswing 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need this at Project:Administrators' Noticeboard#"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster, here, and Project:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster? Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone else dubious that a brand new account would name themselves "Nam widow" just to argue over classic Hollywood? Ring any bells? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

IP's edits on Jewish and Nazi Germany topics

Every edit so far by 120.18.172.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks WP:NOTHERE. First edit is whitewashing Nazi atrocities by claiming Zyklon B was merely used in the Holocaust as a delousing agent. Then: second and third edits claim that communist politicians were Jewish in their lead sections, with no sourcing (and in fact contrary to sources elsewhere in the article in the case of C. E. Ruthenberg). Fourth, inaccurately changes a quote by a history museum so it would instead call LGBT victims of the Nazis "degenerate". VintageVernacular (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week, if they reappear can be blocked again on sight. Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

RD55555 adding future film projects without sourcing

• RD55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

RD55555 has been adding future film projects to filmography tables of various Indian actors/filmmakers in contravention of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which states:

Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

Examples: [246] [247] [248] [249] [250]

Warnings: [251] [252] [253] [254]

The last warning (uw-unsourced4) was made 23:03, December 17, 2023‎. RD55555 made a subsequent contravening edit at 04:33, December 19, 2023

Updated (20:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)): to add that RD55555 has no non-mainspace edits.  — Archer (t·c) 20:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Trinitydevine disruption

Hello there. I am reporting User:Trinitydevine due to continued disruption despite fair and repeated warnings. This editor makes mass changes to info boxes on fictional characters. They have repeatedly creating new articles with copy and paste jobs, from list entries and make no effort to assert notability. This has resulted in numerous AFD discussions or merge discussions, which never had needed to occur if the editor was not copying sound information from contained lists of characters and passing them off as stand alone articles with merit. The editor has also received the appropriate warnings through out December but has not once replied, acknowledged or changed their behaviour. They also continually edit without an edit summary and can have problematic edit spurts in which they carry out mass changes. Some examples are:

• This creation resulted in this AFD and they restored it at a later date here and it has since been reverted by me.
• This creation resulted in this AFD.
• Trinitydevine acted against the result and recreated it once again and it was reverted by another editor.
• created this from this list and it has since been undone by myself.
• This creation was undone.
• This creation with the edit being undone which states info used without attribution
• This creation which was reverted by myself

Mass changes in December, adding unsourced episode numbers to info boxes - Newest to oldest, despite template warnings being issued here - and the final warning for disruption given since. Examples: [255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270]

Check their entire edit history for evidence of editing without edit summaries. With the user being disruptive you have to manually comb through every edit to ensure it is accurately sourced. Despite these repeated conflicts, the editor continues to wreak havoc and it is evident they feel no need to reply or face any reprimand.Rain the 1 21:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User disruption

User:Shohaim is not here to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Based on their contributions, it seems that their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to edit this page in bad faith. They have been warned previously.WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 22:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC).

Please remove my user groups

Thanks, I'm not going to be editing Wikipedia anymore. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for helping out and feel free to ping me if you change your mind later. jp×g🗯️ 05:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic trolling on Murder of Brianna Ghey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dinolondon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So this person has added conmmentary to Murder of Brianna Ghey, and I'm having trouble with this edit summary - where the murder victim is explicitly referred to as "he". I don't see how this blatant misgendering could be a mistake with the commentary they've added to the article afterwards. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Dinolondon1 was referring to Ghey with the "he". The edit involved changes to descriptions of the perpetrators, one of whom is a boy and one of whom is a girl. I agree the added commentary is problematic, but it's more directed at the perpetrators than at the victim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to that edit summary. The sentence being modified here refers to the perpetrators, who according to the article are "Two 15-year-old suspects, a boy from Leigh and a girl from Warrington". The edit summary says: You can not be "diagnosed with neurodiverse traits" - this is not a diagnosis that exists. She has traits of ADHD and autism, was not diagnosed. Only HE is diagnosed (for what it's worth, "diagnosed with neurodiverse traits" is indeed a ridiculous way to phrase that, for exactly the reasons they describe).

I do not really understand what you're talking about with respect to the commentary, either. While it's obviously unencyclopedic, and deserved to be removed, it is basically impossible for me to come up with a way to interpret this as reflecting hatred towards transgender individuals: "Although it must be said that losing your child because they are murdered and "losing" your child because you learn they are obsessed with killing and made a list of people to kill and acted on that is not a fair comparison." This is, again, referring to the perpetrators of the crime, and really doesn't seem to me like it has anything to do with the victim (other than to say that the murderers were losers and she deserved more sympathy than them).

Are you sure that you actually read the comments in question? jp×g🗯️ 04:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

...I might be stupid. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything here. I think the OP should withdraw and request a close as a gf mistake. The content issue was appropriately reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  05:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• @LilianaUwU: In the future, keep in mind before reporting someone to AN/I with accusations of misconduct, reading their comments first is an absolute bare minimum. Preferably, some attempt at resolving the problem (i.e. engaging with the editor, asking them what they meant by a comment, or asking them to stop) should be made prior to opening a noticeboard thread. jp×g🗯️ 05:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that was my mistake. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Uellatke

Hello, This user is raiding my talk page after i undid one of their vandalising edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geardona&diff=1191079203&oldid=1191079165 Thanks, Geardona (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Uellatke Blocked indefinitely. User talk:Geardona Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HTH. El_C 13:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Tintin Phoneix

Seeking assistance as I know those working in SPI are extremely busy. User:Tintin Phoneix was found to be a sock on the 18th based on this SPI. They are not blocked and still editing and was hoping a passing admin had time to take a look and place a block.

 Done. Deor (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Mullen Automotive

Help. Persistent promotion, socking, and copyright violations. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for three months due to a flood of promotional and copyvio edits in the past month by SPAs and likely undeclared paid editors. Let me know if autoconfirmed editors engage in disruption of this article, and I will use other tools to prevent disruptive promotional editing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

103.5.0.238

Resolved

I believe the recent edits from 103.5.0.238 (talk · contribs) are from the same editor as 103.5.1.210 (talk · contribs), who decided to continue making disruptive edits to airline-related articles from a different IP address after getting blocked. For example, a an unsourced claim that an airline ceased operations. A quick IP lookup shows both addresses are from the same country, region, and ISP. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 07:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Might be time for a range block. 103.5.0.0/23 maybe? @Materialscientist Nobody (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This IP belongs to a problematic range, hence rangeblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by Yasarhossain07

Yasarhossain07 (talk · contribs)

This editor called others low IQ clowns. He also accused User:Scu ba of Russophobia. Parham wiki (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This one was also not good and is at best an extreme POV pushing, in the worst case vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I see a couple of good edits among their total of 52, but generally I would not object against an indef. We have enough POV pushers (though mostly from the other side) and enough users who can not behave in this topic area. Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions, they certainly like to tackle some contentious issues! But until today they've been fairly civil. Today's edits definitely cross a line and are not acceptable. As this falls under WP:CTOP I'm minded to impose a short topic ban to give @Yasarhossain07 some time to cool off and reflect. Interested in what other admins have to say first though. WaggersTALK 10:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin, but they seem to have questionable edits on several topic areas (on top of Russia/Ukraine, they have this on a WW2 collaborationist formation and this on Maoris in NZ, both questionable and reverted). Maybe a more general short-term block as a wake-up call would be better? Say, a week or two to go for a walk and take in some fresh air? Ostalgia (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was going to issue them a warning about NPA, but see they have a history, I am unsure an idenf, yet. I think a short topic ban is the way to go, right now. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like whatever dispute this was got resolved as his message claiming I simply hate Russia was removed from my talk page by someone else, but yeah, a bit bizzare that they would go out of their way to do this, and their edit history doesn't especially help their case. Scu ba (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Resolved" in this context would mean they acknowledged that their behavior was not appropriate and pledge not to repeat. Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Acussations of hating countries and calling people with opposite views stupid clowns are pretty blatant personal attacks. I fail to see how this isn't worth at least a temporal block. The user's actions show they have not been capable of engaging in productive discussion with others. The behavioural issues are beyond the topic area. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Blocks are not punitive. WaggersTALK 15:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think S.D. is advocating for a punitive block. The user's actions show they have not been capable of engaging in productive discussion with others reads as advocacy for a preventative block. JM (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't someone going to do something? Parham wiki (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  We're discussing what to do right here. They've only made two edits since this discussion was opened so unless they suddenly up the pace, there's no rush.

  Having thought this through I favour a WP:ROPE approach here: warn and wait. If their behaviour doesn't improve it'll be clearer that a block is required. I no longer favour a topic ban as we've already seen problematic behaviour across multiple topics. WaggersTALK 14:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

2600:1015:a023:4a1a:f1f7:5f71:4582:e2d9

• This editor keeps making a number of edits with all sorts of insulting/foul language. [271][272].
• And this is despite being warned on their talk page: [273]

Any help is appreciated.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked 72h for personal attacks. jp×g🗯️ 18:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• An example of exactly how not to make an argument. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• The sad thing is that there are copious sources for the date that the IP address person was talking about. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears this person has now started a sock account. [274]Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Abuse from User:Szpity88

• Szpity88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What originally started as drunk banter between us has now morphed into verbal abuse found on my talk page and I thought I should bring it here before I retaliate and get myself in trouble too. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which started as verbal banter. Then there was vandalism, because you specifically deleted real information that I edited. Just because I didn't enter the averages? Why didn't you just type it in? Someone will type it in a few seconds anyway. In addition, I have no excuse for cursing, I apologize for being so quick, I will pay more attention to this in the future. Szpity88 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(not an admin) WP:DRUNKEDIT and WP:NOTFORUM. Why is a user talk page being used for "drunk banter"? Definitely not appropriate for the largest and most popular encyclopedia ever JM (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A perfectly logical question from you. I actually started writing there because mikey was passive aggressively messaging me on the darts championship edit page. Szpity88 (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarification, he was drunk, I was not. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to note that I do not drink alcohol because I have had cancer for more than 2 years. It says on your page that you are polite. I'm thinking how did you deserve this :) Szpity88 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you weren't drunk, then you were intentionally trolling his page with barely comprehensible nonsense. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone can make mistakes because we are human. I wasn't trolling, I was just too nervous. To be honest, I didn't see the good intentions in Mike's words, but I could learn from it. But I'm sure you know how it goes, I guess like no one else, you're not perfect either. Szpity88 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Posting don't worry baby, put this on your page too, just in case you learn it :) descending to what the hell are you doing idiot? isn't just a silly mistake, it's taunting and insulting. Trying to write it off as "no one is perfect" is not going to gain traction here.

Apologize and move on. That's your best bet to avoid admins taking action against you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, since then I am very sorry and have apologized. Happy Holidays! Szpity88 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User HumanxAnthro

BanjoxKazooie == HumanxAnthro

User left me a litany of vulgar messages as shown on my talk page after I reverted their edits due to the amount of unnecessary detail they put in as seen here: User_talk:PaulRKil#Hey_asshole!

Based on their interactions with other users, this seems to be par for the course for the user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRKil (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, here is the WP:Vandalism he committed that led to the response. Also, "vulgar", dude? Really? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

None of the details were "unnecessary". Stop lying in front of my face. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

People who think a section of part of an article is WP:TOOMUCH because they have a hard time reading it or do not personally care for it are part of the problem currently with this site, and a few years ago, you would been the people getting blocks for it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let the process play out and stop the harassing replies. You're not helping. PaulRKil (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Then quit messing with the Army Men article. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not the least of reasons why you were blocked was your apparent -- and erroneous -- belief that other editors are required to do your bidding before you'll deign to be civil to them. Ravenswing 23:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• It is never acceptable to start off a discussion with "Hey asshole". This is a shocking violation of WP:NPA. I just recently warned this same editor over WP:AGF issues where they accused an entire Wikiproject of being NOTHERE because they didn't agree with a two year old discussion long past. I cannot take action, as I am involved with a dispute with this editor elsewhere, but this sort of interpersonal communication is wildly inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you ever ask if it was appropriate for the people you are defending to do what they are doing? Nope, this is just tone policing, the thing moderates in the 1960s did to civil rights protestors. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) I would encourage you not to compare your manner of commenting with the plight of 1960's civil right protestors. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This is a gross, incoherent comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick review of HumanxAnthro's most recent edits shows a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in their manner of communication. On Army Men: Sarge's Heroes, HA's edit summary in their first revert of PaulRKil's edit was Reverting obviously ridiculous edit. Having a lot does not mean having WP:TOOMUCH., followed by Dude, fuck off with your bullshit. (Neither editor took it to the article talk page.) HA's subject heading for their post to Paul's talk page was Hey asshole!, and HA's comments throughout that thread are antagonistic. In addition, HA has bludgeoned this AfD. Started a hostile thread at WikiProject Albums, which includes Just, what the fuck, people? Are any of you even here to build an encyclopedia? (HA has been cautioned on both the AfD and Albums pages by Sergecross73.) HumanxAnthro doesn't appear ablewilling to work collegially with other editors and is uncivil. (Sorry for duplicating anything Sergecross73 wrote above, I was typing while that was posted.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do not work collegially with vandals, that is true. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No no, thank you very much for summarizing this so well. You've nailed it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a puritanical Catholic school. Just because I had the audacity to violate the feelings of evangelicals with words does not mean I broke any incivility policy. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In what world is referring to someone with "asshole" not a personal attack? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

They brought up examples of me using the F word. That is what I was referring to. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked HumanxAnthro for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Considering the response on his Talk page, I expect this to not go well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Would suggest an indef tbh Mach61 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've just upped it to an indef. Since their statement in response to the 72 hour block is they've done nothing wrong and basically refuse to follow our policies, there is no place for them here. They will need to file an unblock request and convince the community that their attitude will not be repeated in order to regain any editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  What a waste of an editor. He could've played this out nice and nothing would've happened. Instead, he did the opposite and tried to set a speedrun.com record for fastest time to get indefed, any percent. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  As I've mentioned on their talk page I don't believe indefinite is permanent. I just believe in situations like this editors shouldn't be able to just regain their editing privileges by sitting aside for the weekend, but they need to understand what they did, why it's not acceptable here and convince it all it will never happen again in order to regain their editing rights. However with their current comments on their talk page it seems unlikely that outcome will be achieved, but you never know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Personally, I see their comments to you alone as an indication that a talk page ban should be coming, and speaking on that, it's highly likely that this wind down in even more fury. This editor, while on the extreme side, isn't much different from other blocked editors I've seen in the past. When they submit an unblock request, only about 15% actually get unblocked, and the rest 85% boils down into the same problem: they never address the reason why they were unblocked, and some will even go as far as to blame other editors, pretty much where HumanxAnthro falls in. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty much. The ones who get unblocked are the ones who say "Alright, I see where I went off the rails. I apologize, I won't do it again, and I'll abide by the site rules." The ones who come back swinging fists are the other guys. You would think that anyone with as many brains as the gods bestowed upon a radish could figure that out, but it's not as if the Internet's short on "You can't tell me what to doooooooo!!!" Ravenswing 23:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that ballyhooing about the speedrun time of an indef-blocked user is a particularly productive use of the drama boards. They are clearly quite angry about this so it seems to me like making comments like this is unlikely to help the situation. jp×g🗯️ 04:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

124.254.86.126

This IP user makes vandalizing edits repeatedly. Multiple warnings given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.254.86.126

I think you forgot to sign your comment The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Post was made by User:Geardona and here is their talk page: User talk:Geardona I like Astatine (Talk to me) 04:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh mb Geardona (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:91.73.241.35

Good morning,

I report this user for various reasons, which I will summarize. The user has engaged in edit wars, added content without any sources, all while exhibiting a violation of the NPOV policy regarding certain jihadist groups.

To begin, their initial edits were on December 17th, on Jaysh al-Islam, an islamist group, where they increased the reported number of members without changing the previously used source.[1] The same pattern was observed on the page 2012–2013 escalation of the Syrian civil war, where they inflated the number of Islamist group members by 5,000,[2] placing it at the top of the infobox above other factions, all without altering the source.[3] All their edits follow a similar pattern: adding Islamist oriented info at the top of infoboxes and articles [5] without proper sourcing, receiving warnings, and then engaging in edit wars on each article by claiming the Arabic Wikipedia as the source,[6] even when nothing in the body of the English article supports this claim.

He also engaged in deleting content, such as the fact that certain militant groups or persons were Salafi/jihadist, as he did here.[7] [8]

Note that some of his edits are still in place, I reported him to the AIV but they told me it was better to come here, so I did. AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR and WP:NLT by NgarigoKnowledgeHolder

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

NgarigoKnowledgeHolder has violated WP:3RR at Ngarigo, and has made legal threats at his own user talk page and at my user talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well. actually No one made legal threats so lets get that out of the way, and secondly I was informing you of action my people are taking because in Australia it actually is illegal to attempt to erase Aboriginal history this includes notable people from those tribes. An seeing as Ngarigo is a endangered Tribe with endangered language and culture it is protected under the Australian Minister of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. NgarigoKnowledgeHolder (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked indefinitely: User talk:NgarigoKnowledgeHolder#Indefinite block. One cannot state that Wikipedia may be included in a lawsuit while still being permitted to edit Wikipedia itself. It's one or the other, but not both. El_C 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Let's add sockpuppetry to the list: [275]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-19T18:01:27 (UTC)

• Maker12345 (talk · contribs) and ThatAboriginalKid (talk · contribs) and 2403:5806:83A6:0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appear to pass the duck test. And it looks like there was a bogus copy-and-paste move from Ngarigo people to Ngarigo back in 2015. Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Why am I mentioned in this? Maker12345 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Maker12345: I suspect because NgarigoKnowledgeHolder had already engaged in sock puppetry, and a user noted that NKH was restoring an edit you had made to the page back in February. This is a typical behavior for sockpuppets, but it is not proof that you engaged in any wrongdoing. I wouldn't worry about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Actually User:Maker12345 in xyr very first edit restored Special:Diff/1112047714/1131746942 that was actually done by ThatAboriginalKid, who was tag-taming with NgarigoKnowledgeHolder last week (Special:Diff/1189346325 Special:Diff/1189478403) over this exact same content. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As NgarigoKnowlegeHolder has been indef blocked and the page protected, I don't think there's anything more to do here, and an admin can close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-19T23:08:24 (UTC)

• Well we could checkuser the three accounts, although as I said they do appear to pass the duck test. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ungle G: If there's a concern, I would recommend opening a WP:SPI case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 ThatAboriginalKid is the sockmaster, NgarigoKnowledgeHolder is CU confirmed, Maker12345 is  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me so also blocked. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThatAboriginalKid. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Their line of reasoning made no sense! El_C 13:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Entertainment Weekly by IPs and user

• 47.17.47.199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.113.203.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Rafaelsinger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1117#Brooklyn_IP_keeps_removing_Entertainment_Weekly_from_cites

The New York IP editor 47.17.47.199 was blocked three times, the most recent on September 3. Another New York IP showed the same behavior and was blocked September 4. The Rafaelsinger username was registered 15 years ago, but made its first edit one week after the IP blocks. All three were involved in removing and downplaying the magazine Entertainment Weekly, with this activity disguised as updates.

The typical edit is an update to the URL, ruining the archived URL, removal of the "magazine" parameter, and removal of the name Entertainment Weekly.[276][277][278][279] The template "cite magazine" is changed to "cite web". If there's an author link parameter, it is removed.[280] In other cases, the entire cite is removed, taking away support for the review score.[281][282][283] (As a side note, the archived links are often the only ones that show the review score as a letter grade such as B+. Quite often the new ew.com URL fails to show the review score at all.)

Rafaelsinger's prose writing style matches the first IP's.[284][285]

The interaction chart between these three may reveal additional intersections of interest.

The January 2023 ANI thread about this problem eventually resulted in the first block of IP 47.17.47.199 in February. Subsequent IP blocks have been lengthy. I am requesting an indefinite block on Rafaelsinger for block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Rafaelsinger for block evasion quite a few hours ago, and forgot to report it until now. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A user easily deleted the designs that I had spent hours on.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I spent hours designing several images for the article on this and this topic. I tried to make sure they were of very high quality, not repetitive, and actually added something new to Wikipedia. However, a day or two after adding these images to the articles, 2 users deleted my edits and when I asked one of them the reason for deleting my images, they said: Because the other illustrations were good enough. Did they have the right to delete the work I spent several hours on just because they said it was enough? If the opinion was that a new image in this article is superfluous, according to Wikipedia’s rules because my images were of better quality, they should have replaced the old images. My plan was to gradually design more images both in the field of sexual articles and for other articles that needed images, and I mentioned this on my user page and a user asked me to design for two other articles as well. I request one of the administrators to look into this case to see if what this user did was correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javadst (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTCENSORED but 3D pictures of sex are not needed. I have also notified the user who removed them. GiantSnowman 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

See also User:Javadst/My Illustrations. GiantSnowman 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that my design in this article has been removed as well. Javads 22:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that these images are redundant and, to be completely frank, aren't very good. The 3D rendering is okay, but they look like glamour models in unrealistic porn poses. The "lesbian sexual practices" images are particularly male gaze-y. Look, I'm no prude; I think we should include images of sexual practices, but they need to be encyclopedic and educational. These images do a disservice to our readers, akin to replacing images at man and woman with beefcake and pin-up photos. Woodroar (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Beyond the other comments, there's something useful to remember: ANY edit ANYone makes is subject to reversion, deletion or alteration. That someone spent "several hours" on any such edit is neither here nor there, and doesn't make subsequent edits any less or more egregious. Ravenswing 23:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

76.213.170.26

76.213.170.26 has been disruptive at article Lana (given name) after being warned multiple times. Please see the following diffs and accompanying edit summaries:

• Their first edit to the page
• After being reverted, replaces the deleted content with edit summary "killed the rapist".
• And here!

Additionally, their talk page at User talk:76.213.170.26 is certainly something. I will notify them after posting this. Thanks, let me know if this is the right place for these reports! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: since you left me a message on my talk page about this, I will explain this in my side:

I was patrolling for vandalism using Huggle, and have encountered this edit where an IP address claimed "cleaning up the issues to correct some lies in the previous article" using the edit summary, but they actually added disruptive commentary, and I have reverted it. They have added "severely heavy claimed to be" in the article lead, and I have reverted it here and warned them for the fourth time. Their edits were not actually vandalism, but rather disruptive as said edits were probably biased on the article. – 64andtim ^(talk) 04:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

At a holiday gathering without time or quiet to report this to WP:AIV directly, but User:Schrödinger's jellyfish appropriately spotted this issue. SJ, that noticeboard is your better first responder in the future, but thanks.

Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I can do so instead - not sure how to archive this, but will move my report over to there. Thank you both so much! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, SJ. – 64andtim ^(talk) 05:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lana_(given_name) is not looking good. Going to revert this edit they've made again. Someone else got to the AIV before I did. Is this appropriate to be deleted, or am I overreacting? Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Even through all of this anger the IP might do, we should remain calm. And it looks like they may not comment here, but rather disrupt that article's talk page. – 64andtim ^(talk) 05:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Swaminarayan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Dhaumyasharma has issued a WP:LEGAL threat at Talk:Swaminarayan#IF_THE_WORD_SUPREME_GOD_OR_GOD_WILL_BE_NOT_MEINTIONED_AN_REMOVAL_OF_WORD_YOGI_IN_THE_ARTICLE_THEN_WE_THE_PEOPLE_OF_SWAMIANARYAN_SAMPRADAYA_WILL_FILE_A_CASE_IN_INDIAN_COURT. Request admins to take appropriate action. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Dhaumyasharma for the clear-cut legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dumpygibed

This user caught my attention when they left what seemed to me a racist message at User talk:Asqueladd‎ (diff). Since I was too busy to do a full check at the time, I just CSD'ed their user page. Today I checked their contributions and noted that they've since created the following userboxes: User:Dumpygibed/Userboxes/ihatewikipedia and User:Dumpygibed/Userboxes/offender. While their initial contributions appear to be fine, their most recent ones show a pattern of WP:NOTHERE and trolling, and I'd like a second opinion of other editors here to see what should be done. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked, we don't need racist trolls here even if they make OK typo fixes sometimes. Spicy (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Spicy. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

User Polygnotus - Disruptive Editing and Strange Edit History

This user has been WP:edit warring on the Landmark Worldwide (27 edits) and Werner Erhard (33 edits) articles and posting extensively on the associated talk pages (66 and 41 edits respectively), amounting to a clear attempt to assert ownership over these articles. [286] [287] [288] [289] talk:Landmark Worldwide Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_32 [290] [291] [292] talk:Werner Erhard

Whenever an editor attempts to discuss matters with them, they respond with WP:aspersions and WP:personal attacks, both on the article talk pages, and on the editor's own talk page. [293] [294] [295]

The Landmark Worldwide article was the subject of an Arbitration case in 2014 [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide - Wikipedia ], where the findings of the Arbitrators included the following:

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. and Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.

Clearly Polygnotus is failing to abide by these findings.

Polygnotus first came to my attention when they posted a COI Template on my talk page in response to two small comments that I had made on the talk:Landmark Worldwide page. This seemed such an aggressive action that I took a closer look at this user's editing. The first thing I noticed was that the last few weeks of frenetic updates on the Landmark article (after eight years of relative stability following the Arbitration case and the imposition of discretionary sanctions) started immediately after a strange post that Polygnotus put on the NPOV noticeboard [296] which seemed to indicate a strongly held POV of their own. They have on several occasions denied personal interest or knowledge of the topic, but their actions clearly indicate otherwise. Their edits demonstrate an extensive (obsessive?) interest in Landmark and Erhard, as well as detailed knowledge of the Wikipedia editing history on these topics over many years.

With my interest piqued by this behavior, I took a look at their editing history, and it has a very strange pattern. On the face of it, they show up as an active Wikpedian with more than 3,800 edits over the 15 months since the account was created. However, on closer examination, it looks like a fairly sophisticated attempt to game the system by disguising a single purpose account. Around 3,100 of those edits were done in a six-week period over a year ago between September 8th and October 22nd, 2022, and are essentially trivial..[297] These were done in bursts of one to five hours per day at a rate of 6 - 10 edits per minute(!).

Then the account was largely inactive over the next 10 months, with just 18 edits in that time, followed by about 200 during August and early September this year.

Then following the post on the September 25th, 2023 on the NPOV noticeboard, another 300 edits in the nine week period to November 30th, the great majority of which (over two thirds) are on the articles or talk pages for either Landmark Worldwide or Werner Erhard, or related postings. [298] Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't even reply to this kinda stuff but...

TL;DR for those not in the know, Landmark is a weird "selfhelp" group started by a guru called John Paul Rosenberg who now uses the name Werner Erhard. Nowadays they are mostly focused on making money but back in the day it was pretty cultish. Various RS and "not-so-R" S-es reported on that and negative information made its way into the Wikipedia article. A group consisting of less than a handful of meatpuppets and a dozen or two sockpuppets have been WP:GAMING the system by WP:CPUSHing and WP:TAGTEAMing for about 2 decades. A bunch of the socks got blocked but not all of them. There was an ARBCOM case back in the day but that didn't solve the problem. I won't be surprised if there is another arbcom case soon.

This user has been WP:edit warring on the Landmark Worldwide (27 edits)

I only made 11 edits on that page. All of them were improvements.

and Werner Erhard (33 edits)

I only made 25 edits on that page? All of them were improvements.

posting extensively on the associated talk pages (66 and 41 edits respectively), amounting to a clear attempt to assert ownership over these articles

Making a bunch of edits on an article and its associated talkpage is not WP:OWNership. It is how Wikipedia users improve articles.

Whenever an editor attempts to discuss matters with them, they respond with WP:aspersions and WP:personal attacks, both on the article talk pages, and on the editor's own talk page.

Asking if someone has read WP:PAID or asking if someone can please stop posting on your talkpage or explaining what WP:COI means is not casting aspersions or a personal attack. Calling User:Example an asshole is a personal attack.

where the findings of the Arbitrators included the following....[snip]... Clearly Polygnotus is failing to abide by these findings.

Bit weird to blame the toxic atmosphere and editwarring on anyone other than those who have been fighting for literally decades to defend Landmark against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified.

Polygnotus first came to my attention when they posted a COI Template on my talk page

Actually our interaction started when you started falsely accusing me.

Unsurprisingly you have not answered the COI template.

This seemed such an aggressive action

Posting a template explaining the conflict of interest policy on Wikipedia is not an aggressive action.

hich seemed to indicate a strongly held POV of their own. They have on several occasions denied personal interest or knowledge of the topic, but their actions clearly indicate otherwise

Back when I posted on the NPOV board I knew very little about Landmark (but I knew it is a cult that uses tactics similar to Scientology because one of my books talks about it). My plan was to post on the NPOV board to let others know there was a problem and move on. But because of how I got treated I decided to read some more (on- and offwiki). The rabbit hole is really deep. I even ordered a book about Werner Erhard. I do know quite a bit about Scientology, because I know a family member of one of its victims.

disguising a single purpose account Brave move to so openly talk about what the pro-Landmark meat and sockpuppets have been doing. Badly.

essentially trivial Thats quite offensive actually. It is easy to waste everyones time with long rants on WP:ANI, but it is hard to actually find and improve problems in articles written by others.

So, in conclusion, have you ever been involved with, a customer, employee or volunteer of or for Landmark (in its various iterations)? Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: What was this? Here you added "vitality" to a list of things the organization trained people in. Some of these diffs are real head-scratchers. jp×g🗯️ 04:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: for the first one, see Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_31#Promotional_text. It took me several days to understand how the article arrived at the state it was at when I found it. Polygnotus (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the second one; I may have been under the impression that I was removing "vitality". I am not sure. As for the COI, see for example the comment by Astynax over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Proposed_sanctions_against_User:DaveApter Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As my name has been dragged into this mass of misdirection, I should clarify that the above "Proposed Sanctions" were suggestions from a group of editors from the "anti-Landmark faction", and that the Arbitrators did not see fit to even mention me in their findings or proposed remedies, much less even consider sanctioning me.

And @JPxG, the explanation for the puzzling insertion of 'vitality', was because I had removed it and Polygnotus was routinely reverting any change I made regardless of its merit.

And, while I am here I may as well make another couple of observations. I had been regarding Polygnotus as a mere irritant, but the edit history above is a real eye-opener. It is hardly usual behaviour for a new editor to spend several hours a day for a month creating a 'sleeper' account to be activated a year later. Furthermore, the protracted wikilawyering, and the very detailed knowledge of two decades of editing on these topics would be surprising in an editor with only a year's experience (especially one with less than 90 days actual editing). Is there any explanation other than that this is someone who has been here before? DaveApter (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dave, you still haven't admitted to having a COI after spending nearly 2 decades defending Landmark on Wikipedia (despite many conversations about it over the years). Soon after creating your account you openly declared your interest in Landmark and your intention to be a WP:SPA to defend the Landmark article. The way I was treated by you and others annoyed me. So I read some of the history of the article. Shocked by what I found I read more, and found more shocking stuff. Your attempts at intimidation and WP:CPUSHing resulted in me wasting more time on Landmark related topics. The arbcom-case made the pro-Landmark group bold; perhaps too bold. Now these 2 accounts are casting aspersions, while accusing me of doing that. I wonder which member of the group shows up next. We've seen this strategy before and it was succesful at AfD but it failed in a RfA. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: User:Gilbertine goldmark also had that remarkable combination of topics of interest: boardgames and Landmark. Polygnotus (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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

On October 7 of this year, I created a report ([299]) 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 [300]. 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. ([301] 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. ([302] 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 ([303]).

2) The only thing I removed from Juozas Ambrazevičius' article's main body was an unsourced claim about him being a war criminal [304] 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. ([305]) 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"([306]). 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)

My advice is to try to disangage and bury the hatchet. I am not impressed with behavior of some other named parties that you have identified, but WP:BOOMERANG is an issue you have to seriously consider, and is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Is it worth it for you to see several editors, including yourself, blocked? I do not like where this is going. I strongly suggest you focus on creating content and not on commenting about other editors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason for me to be sanctioned; I presented the case of distruptive conduct, as far as I can see many other users agree with my conclusions. I try not to comment about other editors, only about their conduct if I find it distruptive for the Wikipedia. I refrain from commenting further, it seems to me that I have already said everything. Marcelus (talk) 11:10, 14 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 ([307], [308]). 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.[309] 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 [310]. 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)

Unless procedures have changed yet again, I think the simplest approach would be to open a request at WP:ARCA seeking to have the WP:ARBAPL (Nazis and Poland) scope expanded to include either Lithuania or all of Eastern Europe, preferably the latter, based on evidence that is a well-diffed but very concise summary of the problematic behaviors in the dispute, and an observation of how similar they are to those in the Poland case (i.e., the disruption has simply moved one country over but is essentially the same Nazi-whitewashing issue).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue and SMcCandlish: Since User:Barkeep49 was one of the primary contributors to the original ArbCom case, I pestered them about this here and sure enough, ARCA is the answer. (Barkeep49 mentioned the possibility of such a request resulting in a review of this discussion and possible sanctions against editors because of their behavior here. Considering Marcelus is still lashing out all over this thread two weeks after starting it, that's a good thing.) Now I'm going to do the thing where, since I don't have a clue how to make an amendment request at ARCA, I quietly wait in the hopes one of you does it before I give it a shot. City of Silver 20:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Lashing out? I participate in the discussion, I respond to people who address me or talk about me, referring to everyone with respect. So far no one has been able to explain to me what the problem with me is, why I should be sanctioned. Now you are making an accusation out of the fact that I am participating in a discussion I started. I don't want to exaggerate, but I feel like I'm about to go crazy. Marcelus (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: First, look up the word "accusation" because going on this, you don't know what it means. If this goes to ARCA and an arbitrator looks at editors' behavior here for concerns, you're very likely to be sanctioned. The reason I know this is because I've read everything you've said here and I've read everything others have said about you here. Re-read these things but if you do that and conclude that you haven't done anything wrong, keep re-reading and when you do, try this: consider how others feel about the things you say about them. Because almost every message here from you that criticizes either Cukrakalnis or Elinruby violates WP:NPA, a policy you're required to follow no matter what. I mostly agree with you on the content here but it's clear that if I didn't, you'd report me to a bunch of different noticeboards in an effort to get me in trouble, use gentle words to call me a liar, kinda/sorta accuse me of acting in bad faith, and otherwise personally attack me. It's fine if you disagree because that'll just tell me that you haven't re-read the things you've said in this thread and tried to figure out how you would feel if others said those things about you. City of Silver 22:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The NPA allows me to defend myself and defend my good name. If Elinruby accuses me of things that are untrue, I have the right to state it and defend myself. This is the second discussion on the noticeboard (not counting other t/p) in which Elinruby accuses me of something without providing evidence in the form of diffs and links. And if there is anything WP:NPA forbids it is this: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Contrary to your allusion, I don't threaten to report people who disagree with me. I report people who accuse me of things I believe to be untrue without providing evidence. If I said anything negative about Cukrakalnis' activities, I also confirmed it with evidence.

And I don't need to figuring out anything really, because first Elinruby post in this thread contained things like: "Marcelus simply cannot leave Cukrakalnis alone, and has an extremely strong internalized historical narrative that Poles are not antisemites/collaborators", "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", "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"; that's very hurtful words, even more not backed up with any evidences. And completely misrepresenting my activities on Wikipedia. Only recently I greatly expanded article about the leader of Polish fascists Bolesław Piasecki. I also work on Draft:Antisemitism_in_Poland together with some other users (although it's abandoned work for some time, we should get back on this), I was also involved in helping to improve articles which were pointed out in Grabowski&Klein article (for example: Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 5#My comments on the objections made by Grabowski and Klein to this article and others).

I try not to be problematic, but I will resist attempts at bullying. As well, I will always defend the historical truth in articles against individuals, even if the end result is my ban. And now I really thank you, I'm tired, I've had enough. Marcelus (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the stress-coping "spoons" to deal with opening an ARCA case, honestly. There are various people who know the drill of how to do one; maye one of them will have the patience needed to build a diff list and summarize the dispute concisely (and concision in such matters is not my long suit).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that concision is not your long suit, but you are much better at it than a few of the editors involved in this discussion. I pity anyone who attempts to close it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've bit the bullet and opened the ARCA. I went for a "see the ANI thread which says it all" approach instead of trying to diff-farm about two particular editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I am really bad at noticeboard but I emphatically agree about extending the sourcing requirement to EE. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 18 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)

Allow me to clarify: I am not saying you broke the rules in the actual discussion itself, but that during these previous discussions it was agreed that you had breached the rules. Secondly, these discussions are not unrelated: they always involve you and Cukrakalnis accusing one another of... things. Often far less serious things than what's being implied (this holds true for the both of you). Finally, I am not raising the possibility of sanctioning [you] as a legitimate end to the discussion: I'm almost guaranteeing that at some point down the line you're both going to get blocked if no better solution can be found. It doesn't take Nostradamus to make this claim - you both have gotten pblocked twice already over your constant bickering. Any further questions I ask that you write in my tp and I'll gladly answer them. Ostalgia (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are forcefully building a narrative that my and Cukrakalnis' activities are identical, and you call our interaction "bickering". I believe that this narrative is false. Insinuating that I will or may be blocked for bringing serious rule violations to the attention of the community is, in my opinion, outrageous. Marcelus (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, for some, seeing both of you blocked is a good outcome. First, from the tired admin perspective, because it would bring peace and quiet to this thread and Wikipedia in general, and second, from the content perspective, because there are more than two parties to this content dispute, and silencing both of you is good for certain POVs. I strongly recommend all parties here try to disengage before it is too late. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus: Both Piotrus and Ostalgia are correct. You are being your own worst enemy right now, especially with this "What did I do wrong, huh? Prove it! PROVE IT!" act. Just engaging in WP:JERK behavior long and loud enough is in itself disruptive and thus grounds for action, even if you are right on sourceable facts on some content question (and it's not clear that you always have been in this subject area). While my general take on all this is that Cukrakalnis's behavior has been "less constructive" than your own, on the whole, that doesn't magically make you blameless. A number of us are supportive of putting this topic area under CTOP because the disputation level has become unmanageable without it, and that's not just on Cukrakalnis. (It's probably a good idea also because even if both of you were indeffed, others would fill your niche soon enough.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect from me. I'm also not sure why you're hyperbolizing my attitude. I think it's natural for me to expect a clear statement of how I broke Wikipedia's rules or the rules of cooperation. Several people are making the allusion that I should be punished in some way, without saying for what. Other users like @Elinruby accuse me of things that are simply not true. Now you are making comparisons on WP:JERK, I don't get it. At what point did I act like a jerk towards anyone?

This case is also not a simple content dispute, the issue here is that we are dealing with a certain pattern of action aimed at hiding the phenomenon of collaboration in Lithuania. In my opinion, @Cukrakalnis finds it difficult to be objective on this subject, which is somehow understandable to me, as a Lithuanian he has an emotional attitude to these issues. However, it does act to the detriment of Wikipedia as a project. I am not calling for C to be kicked out of the Wiki. Which may be hard to believe, but I really don't hold a grudge against him and believe that he is capable of giving a lot to the project in many fields. However, in this narrow topic, it seems to me that his freedom should be limited. Marcelus (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus, you could try reading the first paragraph of the "Coping with accusations of jerkitude" section of WP:JERK and substitute "If you have been criticised" for "If you've been labeled a jerk". TSventon (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The section you are talking about also begins with the question: Are you here to contribute and make the project good? And I can answer this question with full confidence: yes.

I just wish someone would understand my perspective. If I wanted to solve this problem myself, it would end with an edit warning at some point and a ban for me. If I wanted to discuss this on the talk page, it would go on forever, every source I cited would turn out to be imperfect for a million reasons. The moment I move this matter to a wider forum, it turns out to be "problematic". Just like during the discussion about Talk:258th Lithuanian Police Battalion, where my arguments were dismissed, ignored, even deleted. Until, under the influence of this discussion, GeeGee arrived and closed the topic with his learned answer. For this one reason, I believe that this discussion is not a waste of time. I'm really fed up with these constant discussions and apart from the topic of collaboration (precisely because it is niche but important and I feel that no one will deal with it), I avoid them.

If I seem problematic and someone who is lashing out, I'm sorry. Marcelus (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here, watching with horror as this interminable thread lurches on. This has gotten up over seventeen thousand words. Would it be possible for someone to just sum up -- without further editorializing -- the various options people want to see come out of this, vote on the damn thing, and put it to rest? Ravenswing 18:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Most important: The article about the prime minister definitely falls within the purview of "Poland in WW2 broadly construed since the material I have started to build in out of sheer exasperation will and definitely should include the rancorous border dispute over Vilnius/Wilno. Other good reasons probably exist. The existing sources do not come close to meeting the sourcing requirements of that decision and out of sheer exasperation I started working on both the articles myself, however more fundamental gaps in coverage keep appearing. I have been away for four days and have offline for two-- I will be adding extensive bibliographies in an hour or two.

  TL;DR baseless accusation that should not be here. War crime has a very specific definition. A Lithuanian archivist told an international commission that the 258th was one of the units that did NOT participate in the Holocaust. Link in a second. That's the heart of the matter as far as I can see. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Source: 258th did not participate in the Holocaust according to Bubnys A statement compiled historian Arūnas Bubnys for the Lithuanian Holocaust commission specifically lists the 258th, along with most others created that late in the war, as one of the 14 police battalions that had no involvement in the Holocaust. (Bubnys p.33)

Bubnys, Arūnas. “Lithuanian Police Battalions and the Holocaust (1941-1943).” The International Commission, 2001. https://www.komisija.lt/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Research-by-A.Bubnys-english.pdf. I will need to be afk for about three hours soon but I have a lot of content to add to the articles. Marcelus needs to talk to his mentor not this GeeGee person, who has given him misinformation. I think enforcing the sourcing requirement will clear much of this up. Elinruby (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby let me explain it to you again and I ask you to approach to what I say with good faith nad assumption that I know the matter at hand. Regarding the Lithuanian auxiliary police battalions in general and the 258th in particular, the issue of controversy was not whether they participated in the Holocaust or whether they were collaborators, but whether Cukrakalnis' removal of the "allegiance = Nazi Germany" parameter from the infobox is justified. What I was trying to clarify what GeeGee's statement confirmed, but which also follows directly from the content of the article: this parameter should be there because the police battalions were simply German military units, part of the Ordnungspolizei, recruited among the population of occupied countries. Some took part in the Holocaust of the Jewish population, some did not, but in general they carried out German orders like any other German unit. Even the source you cite, Prof. Bubnys, makes this point explicitly: It should be also added that the Lithuanian Police Battalions did not limit themselves only to taking part in the Holocaust. A considerable number of the Lithuanian Police Battalions did not take part in the maccarre of the Jews at all. Lithuanian Police Battalions were also used to guard military objects and prisoners of war, fight partisans; some of the battalions were even assigned to the front. However, this work views the history of the battalions in the light of the Holocaust. (p. 3) Moreover, no one, certainly not me, nor GeeGee in the course of the entire discussion, from its inception, has claimed that the 258th Battalion took part in the Holocaust. Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus the problem here is that {{let me explain this again}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No: I would say that the "most important" thing now is for all the principals to pipe down. You all have argued and argued and argued and argued at immense length, in numerous cases just repeating the same sentiments and the same pieces of evidence, in the apparent belief that the editor who proffers the most bytes of verbiage will be declared the winner. Hopefully the ARCA thread will provide the firm result that this ANI complaint has failed to deliver. Ravenswing 07:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting this thread get closed. It's been a long time since this discussion had potential to accomplish anything but in light of the request at ARCA, the value of keeping this open is now less than zero. If an uninvolved administrator is expected to trudge through this mess before closing it, I ask any such editor to please pretend to read all of this then put it out of its misery. City of Silver 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

ARCA thread now open: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland. Remember (or become aware for the first time, as the case may be) that WP:ARCA is not a free-for-all peanut gallery. If you're going to comment there about this, it needs to be concise, civil, and focused, and you're not allowed to engage in threaded discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Mass unsourced editing by 171 range from Bangkok

• 171.97.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Madame Tussauds, associated articles and lists of tall structures are currently favorite subjects. Most recent of many IPs used: 171.97.60.39 (talk · contribs). This is whack-a-mole business. More eyes requested, and thoughts on how best to handle this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

MaskedSinger

MaskedSinger is constantly updating Nick McKenzie with false information about Peter Schiff. He is obviously an activist user given that he refuses to allow correct reporting of clear judgements WRT a defamation lawsuit that Nick McKenzie along with a co defendant contested and lost. If Wikipedia fails to reflect facts and truth then what is the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MaskedSinger&target=MaskedSinger&offset=&limit=500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.198.0.191 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ANI you are required to notify the user on their talk page, which you have not done. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have notified MaskedSinger for the IP. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yes I have 51.198.0.191 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't. You do know that every edit is public and we can all see it yes? Anyway if you make an accusatory comment like this again you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

My own thread on the ANI board! My mother would be so proud. Ironic that you bring up false information as for the life of me, I can't find any shred of truth in the nonsense you wrote. One thing you are correct about is that I'm an activist. I'm an activist for upholding the Wikipedia standards and values. Something you couldn't care less about. If you think bullying and intimidation is going to stop me, you're wrong. To quote the great Coco Gauff, to those who thought they were putting water on my fire, you're really adding gas to it. And now I'm really burning so bright right now. Could someone please do Wikipedia a favor and block this troll? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you are dong a great job of showing the world how unstable you are.. why on earth they let people like you in I have no idea.. hopefully they will review their decision to allow you to moderate 51.198.0.191 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed on your own page that someone quite politely asked you a question you didn't like and you immediately accused him of being a 'sock puppet'.. this site doesn't need people like you 51.198.0.191 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you've crossed the line on WP:NPA. I strongly suggest you step back if you wish to continue editing here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't crossed any line.. you are attempting to muddy the waters with shrill cries in an attempt to influence onlookers to side with you. You are clearly not fit to moderate and are you are completely incapable of being objective and impartial. Your recent edits clearly indicate bias and probable personal issues WRT to Peter Schiff wiki page. People have tried to post factual information and you have repeatedly removed references to maintain your false narrative 51.198.0.191 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, given the above WP:NPA filled rant, I'd say this IP is WP:NOTHERE and needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope people can see how mentally unstable this joker sounds. Why Wikipedia is allowing people with mental issues to moderate is a mystery but it subtracts ever more credibility from the already questionable content. This user constantly calls for people to be banned; that should ring alarm bells right there. Shutting down inconvenient views is one thing but this joker actively conceals facts.. Straight out of the ministry of truth. Very Orwellian and very worrying 51.198.0.191 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You say that you aren't doing any personal attack of any kind, yet look at this, calling him a "joker" in front of everyone and assuming things without any evidence. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And admins aren't afraid to block you. Sure, both of you have been in a content dispute, but you took it too far and PA'd MaskedSinger in an attempt for him to back off and get him blocked, but YOU really are the one who's going to get blocked for NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for disruption. It's one thing to disagree, it's a whole other to continue to call people mentally unstable repeatedly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seriously looks like a content dispute with various parties pushing their WP:OR interpretation of primary source court records over secondary sources.

  As to reflect facts and truth, see WP:TRUTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  • If anything, it would be a Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as it is a bit of a tricky one. That said "you clearly are a whiny activist with an agenda" […] "deranged bias" and "how unstable you are" are a rapid means of convincing us that indeed someone's editing privileges need to be revoked, but it isn't MaskedSinger. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Can I get some more eyes on Nick McKenzie please. Accounts that are barely AC are at it now I don't want to risk getting close to 3RR territory. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The funny part is, the IP seems to not care who they insult. I've never edited the page, but they immediately accused me of having repeatedly removed references from it. Whoever this person is, they really need to calm down and step away from the keyboard. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, same here. When I warned them about the personal attacks, they immediately assumed that You are clearly personally involved in policing Peter Schiff's page,, apparently the truth hurts, even though I've never heard that name until joining the Battle of Berlin here. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Capitals00

On 10 November of this year, the user Capitals00 changed the result on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948 to "Indian victory", when it previously stated, "UN-mediated ceasefire". This update in the result, with the article being a contentious one, faced immediate backlash and high contention to the result on the article's talk page. This updated result did not comply with MOS:MIL, as it stated that India achieved its objectives in total victory, which is not true. Capitals used the basis that India had the upper hand strategically at the time of the ceasefire, but as emphasized on the talk page, victory and upper hand are not the same. Capitals had utilized sources aligning with WP:TERTIARY, before updating his list of citations when questioned on them. Capitals still failed to comply with MOS:MIL, and utilizing a basis that victory was asserted due to Pakistan failing to capture all of Jammu & Kashmir, which in itself is a fallacy when India failed to react to Major William Brown's accession of Gilgit Baltistan to Pakistan after a coup, and Pakistan's setting up of a provisional government in Muzaffarabad. Both of those regions remained with Pakistan as per the 1949 Karachi Agreement. By the time of the ceasefire, India had the upper hand strategically as it had repelled a Pakistani attempt to capture Leh and had maintained the Kashmir Valley, although, in the Spring of 1948, its attempts to advance into Pakistani-occupied Kashmir such as Muzaffarabad failed. In 2019, an attempt to change the results of both the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 in favor of India were formulated. In Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 debate raged on the result of these two wars, in which the scholarly consensus favored inconclusive results. The editing here by Capitals seems to be WP:CHERRYPICKING per utilizing sources that are not in agreement with the scholarly consensus on this war. When Capitals was again confronted on his sourcing and his failure to comply with MOS:MIL, he simply ignored the message, and the consensus on the talk page was against Indian victory and in favor of a UN-mediated ceasefire as the result. A total of 6 users reverted Capitals' edit in the infobox back to the scholarly consensus, with him repeatedly reverting it back to his edit, saying, "See talk page", when the talk page does not even agree with his assessment. This is obvious WP:DE. The result should state the UN-mediated ceasefire per the consensus and "See aftermath", per MOS:MIL. When Capitals was given this proposition, he simply stated, "Cannot do that.". I request action to be taken over this matter due to the high contention this result has brought. Thank you. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)MrGreen1163

This is a content dispute, and therefore not within the purview of ANI. I also note that Capitals00 has provided four sources -- which seem to me to be RS -- that support their edit. This needs to continue to be discussed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure persistent WP:DE is within the scope of this page. Bad conduct from an editor, and the number of citations provided does not qualify for reliability and an agreed upon scholarly consensus. The report was filed due to the editor in question refusing to resolve the issue in the scope of things such as MOS:MIL, WP:NPOV, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, etc. MrGreen1163 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was about to post similar, but reading further in, it appears they’ve already discussed it at the talk page and the user’s continued to be uncooperative, so at this point it’s a valid complaint. The Kip 03:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There is pretty clearly not consensus for Capitals00's edit, as no editors have come to its defense (other than one blocked sockpuppet) while several have objected by reversion or discussion. And while they've provided four sources, a prior discussion on this topic reviewed at least 20 to arrive at the "UN-mediated" version which was stable for many years. The prior version should be restored pending Capitals00 seeking consensus for the change. But I agree that this is a content dispute; start an RFC or try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It was developed with the discussion as per Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947–1948#Indian_Victory?? and MrGreen1163 was OP. I have consensus for my edits. See agreement from MBlaze Lightning[311] and Cinderella157.[312] MrGreen1163 has attempted to suppress the results by providing incoherent excuses despite the scholarly sources clearly supporting Indian victory in the war, yet he puts "Pakistani victory" on those pages where the sources don't even support anything like that. He went ahead to do that not only in India Vs Pakistan battle pages[313] but also in US vs Pakistan pages to make Pakistan look superior and victorious.[314][315] Safe to say, MrGreen1163 is a case of WP:NOTHERE and he is trying to mislead others with this frivolous report. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00: your edit wasn't developed from that discussion: you made the edit and then Izaan Iqbal (not MrGreen1163) started a discussion, in which MBlaze Lightning conveniently only addressed the sources you added. Cinderella157 is not agreeing with you, they're saying that declaring either side the victor isn't supported by reliable sources, on the basis of the older discussion. And only one of the diffs you posted for MrGreen1163 was actually made by that account, so perhaps your aspersions here are premature. The talk page does not support your position, and you repeatedly reverting ([316], [317], [318]) anyone who challenges your edit ([319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324]) is neither consensus nor a discussion, it's blatant POV pushing in a contentious topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Fixed the diff above. Izaan Iqbal is MrGreen1163.[325] Cinderella157 said here that they wanted more sources because "one source does not make a consensus among scholars". I responded to these concerns here and made the edit after some hours and nobody raised any objection.[326] Later on, this is confirmed by this message by Cinderella157 who said "The result of this suggestion was to find and cite multiple sources for claiming the result in the infobox to be an Indian victory..."[327] It is only MrGreen1163 who has been frequently disputing the results but he is not sensible with his explanations as confirmed by his excuses to ignore the academic sources. Capitals00 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Izaan Iqbal = MrGreen1163 link, but I still think you need to read more of Cinderella157's comment. After what you quoted, they went on to say "We now have a link to Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Result field which discusses not just that war but also the result of this war. It presents several sources that would assert the result here was inconclusive. Only presenting sources that support one particular view is not neutral. From the sources, India's entry into K&J was initially successful against the tribal uprising but, on formal involvement of Pakistan's military it was considered that they could not sustain the previous successes. Consequently, India petitioned the UN to mediate a ceasefire." (emphasis added) Maybe they can clarify, but I highlighted why I don't think they're agreeing with you. And saying "nobody raised any objection" when five other editors besides Cinderella157 and MrGreen1163 have undone your edit is not a realistic assessment of the situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not talking about those who made the revert and left the page. I was talking about who is "frequently disputing the results" and that is only MrGreen1163 despite being a party to the discussion that actually formed the infobox. Others are surely not interested in that. Capitals00 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To claim that I am "disrupting the result" is also incoherent. I haven't changed the result once, in fact I even filed a request for change to gain consensus with other editors in the matter. The fact 6 other editors have to revert your edit is making the attempt of POV pushing obvious. Your 4 cited sources that favor the result you put in place does not overrule the 20+ in favor of the UN-mediated ceasefire, which is the scholarly agreement. Your constant reversions makes your persistent disruptive editing obvious, hence the reason of this report. It went from an issue related solely on the result in the article to an issue involving bad conduct. MrGreen1163 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the pages relating to Pakistan-United States Skirmishes, and this was already brought up, these pages previously stated "Pakistan Army Victory", in which I simply changed it to "Pakistani victory" as a better style. The only case of me changing the actual result was in the Pakistan-United States Skirmishes page, in which that result was made based off the cited United States apology and the conclusion of these individual results, but unlike you, I came to a consensus with other users to which YOU removed the result entirely from the infobox. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Another article in which I changed the result (forgot to mention), was Operation Desert Hawk, which was properly cited and based off of the agreed consensus that recognized Pakistan’s success in achieving its objectives in the Rann of Kutch, before ultimately agreeing to a ceasefire under the mediation of the British government. Unlike you, I made mention of the ceasefire agreement in the result alongside the withdrawal of both countries, and the article already made mention of Pakistan's success in the Rann especially at posts like Kanjarkot. A resolution was formulated in the talk page due to contention on the topic, which unlike you, I agreed on, per MOS:MIL. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• I do not support the edit by Capitals00 to label the war as an Indian victory. I do not see how my position could reasonably be construed to say I do. From the text quoted by Ivanvector, my position should be clear. Misrepresenting my position is not WP:CIVIL. The result is nuanced (per sources) and should be left to prose; though the article needs to be developed in this respect. I do not see that there is a consensus for Indian victory from the TP discussion. The WP:ONUS has not been met. Continuing to reinstate Indian victory without consensus is disruptive. The article falls under a contentious topic (WP:CT/IPA). I believe that they are reasonably CT aware per here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

To echo what was already said –  looks like a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy thing. Indo-Pakistani conflicts are not an area of expertise for me, so I can't make the best comments with regard to it, but consensus does not seem to support Indian victory phrasing for now. My recommendation would be to get a few more opinions – this can be done through the dispute noticeboard WP:DRN, requests for comment @ WP:RFC, Third Opinions @ WP:3O, etc. I would only support sanctions against an editor if after these options have been exhausted and a consensus developed (or a no-consensus status quo enforcement) an editor continues to push for their version to be extant. It does not seem like that an RFC has been started. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page, thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Then I don't have any issue with the revert and reviewing the consensus on talk page. Capitals00 (talk)

User:President Loki

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

This editor's contributions came to my attention due to the sourcing problems at Battle of Beit Lahia and Battle of Jabalia.

Looking at their contribution history, I think the community should evaluate if this is gaming the system. They currently have 599 edits, I believe ~296 of which are wikilinking "genus" (eg:[328]), another ~53 are wikilinking "monotypic taxon" (eg:[329]).

This type of editing (wlinking) in this subject area (biology) continues until they are ECP on 9 December (see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/President_Loki)), from that point on they begin editing in the Israeli conflict area, with significant POV and sourcing issues (imo). See user contributions starting on 9 Dec, the stark change in editing I think is obvious.

Similar concerns have been raised by other editors, see User talk:Robertsky#Battle/Siege of Gaza City, courtesy pinging @WeatherWriter: and @Robertsky:.

Request the community evaluate this situation and determine if something needs done. If I'm wrong let me know, but I believe this person should not be ECP and editing in a CTopics area.  // Timothy :: talk  14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• (Seen via being pinged here): Is there a problem? Yes. However, I think this is an instance of WP:NOCLUE. I just realized that President Loki had not received a talk page CTOPS alert for Israel-Palestine. Noting for everyone I just gave them their first CTOPS alert for that minutes before this message. I do not think a block or anything is truly warranted, but I do think maybe a courtesy warning about staying away from CTOPS until they understand the basics of Wikipedia as well as creating an article may be best. One does have an argument for a little bit of gaming the system, however, since there was no CTOPS talk page alert given, even after the first CTOPS disagreement, one can assume NOCLUE. That said, they should have been a little bit aware of it since the previous CTOPS disagreement linked above {moved a highly contested page without any talk page agreement - Administrator moved the page back and directed them to the talk page for consensus}.

I do not think a true TBAN is needed, but I think one of two things should happen: (1) They see this AN discussion and agree to do a lot less CTOPS editing and more outside CTOPS to better understand how to edit Wikipedia (90% out-10% in) ratio & agree to not do any big moves or page creations for a while in CTOPS or (2) if they do not see this AN, then an administrator does a kindly worded message to them to get them editing things outside of CTOPS more than they edit inside CTOPS to gain experience. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think they were clearly gaming the 30/500 restriction on the topic area deliberately, though? Looking at their edit history, they edited normally early on (if intermittently and in another CTOP area, abortion), then made a bunch of edits to Module:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_detailed_map. Immediately after that, their flurry of wikilinking began and continued at a rapid pace until, five days and several hundred edits later, they were ECP confirmed and able to edit 30/500 articles, whereapon they stopped and haven't made any other of those wikilink-style edits. I don't see any other way to interpret this - when trying to move to other related articles from that module (which had been overlooked for ECP protection), they clearly discovered they were unable to edit ECP articles. That is, after all, a technical restriction that they would easily discover without having to be formally informed of it. After that they immediately set out to spam trivial edits until they were able to do so. I don't think any other interpretation of their behavior is reasonable. And I believe the message you get when trying to edit an ECP article without the necessary permissions makes the system clear, so they should have been aware that they were violating WP:PGAME. More generally, I've never heard anyone suggest that a formal notification before the flurry of editing is necessary to enforce PGAME - how would that possibly be workable? In the vast majority of cases, nobody would know they intended to edit a CTOP area until after, since they wouldn't be able to edit their desired area until after, making it impossible to warn them in advance. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't find any block evasion here, but I can confirm the President Loki account to a dormant Ybinstok. I'm inclined to pull the ECP flag at a minimum here. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Courcelles. Done, with a note to the user and without prejudice to further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC).

Am glad that I am not the only one who thinks that they are gaming for ECP. – robertsky (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP articles by User:Ramaprabha1

User:Ramaprabha1 has been creating completely unsourced BLP articles in the mainspace even after multiple warnings on their talk page asking not to do so. List of unreferenced articles created

• Prosper Tsvanhu
• Aravelly Avanish Rao
• Shubham Dhubey
• Rajan Kumar
• Saurav Chauhan

Previously created

• Sanapala Vallabha Rao
• Cyrus Poonawalla Group
• LNJ Bhilwara Group
• Lalbhai Group

They do not appear to respond on their talk page and have a history of removing AFD and BLPprod tags, ultimately increasing the workload of new page reviewers. While I don't believe there's a policy violation here that I can find. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Ramaprabha1 has created a new article for Prosper Tsvanhu after the old one was draftify'ed. - Draft:Prosper Tsvanhu. Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, they have removed the BLP Prod tag without addressing the issue. [330] Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Zero talk-page responses. No edit summaries. Wikipedia:Communication is required would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously unsourced or badly sourced articles moved to draft. At least one claims that the player has played in a league which they have not, so I have blocked the editor from article space until they communicate at the very least. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton and Nourerrahmane reported by 808 AD

I request the intervention of administrators on this matter. I came here after I mentally got tired from the behavior of those two editors. They couldn't collaborate in a civil manner with me lately during a discussion about the result of the so-called "Capture of Fez (1576)". Talk:Capture of Fez (1576)

Nourerrahmane: Regarding this editor, you can start reading this comment in which he says very dangerous things about me as well as how he is obssessed with the "Algerian identity" of Ottoman Algeria. And while we were through discussion about the result, they made an edit even if there was no consensus and the manner is still disputed. When I undid their edit, They recovered it with "Disruptive".

M.Bitton: Well, from where should I start? This editor doesn't seem to like my opinions and they always seem to be ready to disagree with me, their mind is always made up even before hearing what the other side have to say. M.Bitton proves my point here saying that "your[my] support is as irrelevant as your[my] oppose". Regarding the latest content dispute, they too made some edits despite the fact the the manner is still disputed in the talk page. They Changed here Morocco to Saadi Sultanate claiming that it is more precise, I recovered Morocco (and left link to Saadi sultanate) and told them that "the more you stick to the sources, the more precise it gets" as indeed the sources support it. In the same edit I fixed a reference as its link lead to a wrong source (the coreect one is the V3 o fthe Cambridge history of Africa and not the V5). They reverted my edit without any edit summary. Then they started other contentious edits. For exmaple they removed "Morocco" claiming that it's anachronism, in the same time, ironically, they support "Ottoman-Algerian victory" as a result, and mere "Algerian victory" in other articles (they contradicts themselves). 808 AD (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: there is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimoooIX (in case a CU is around). M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reminds me of this, coincidence ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Nourerrahmane: please add it to the SPI together with the diff that shows 808 AD's similar edit. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's weird. I don't know this account. But that proves how Wikipedia artciles become problematic when we don't consider neutrality. Let's see where this will lead us. 808 AD (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with M.Bitton's edits. That comment from Nourerrahmane strays into personal attack territory since it talks about the contributor rather than the contributions. It's still pretty mild and borderline though. I don't really see a need for admin intervention here but @Nourerrahmane please be careful with that in future. WaggersTALK 09:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers my apologies. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers Thanks for your inputs. But I think there has been violation of the consensus policy by both editors.@ 808 AD (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that I have now restored the stable version of Capture of Fez (1576) since the matter is still disputed (an Rfc is still open there). I did also correct a reference there (for the second time). There is no Wikipedia:Consensus yet. 808 AD (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As expected, he reverted it to include his POV by force. [331] and they really don't care whether a reference is corrected or not as long as his POV is there. Certainly an admin should do something about it. 808 AD (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest refraining from editing the page until you do have consensus. We don't want to have to protect the page. A bit more maturity is required here. WaggersTALK 13:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right, but other contentious edits were made there by M.Bitton and Nourerahmane despite the fact that there is an other editor (me) opposing them and the matter is still being dicussed (and an Rfc has been opened). The stable version should be restored. @Waggers what do you think? 808 AD (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In an edit war or content dispute, you won't generally find administrators taking sides. See WP:PREFER and M:WRONGVERSION. WaggersTALK 13:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, it makes sense, let's hope the intervention of a non-admin editor. And certainly the page now is in the wrong version. In case protection was required, it can't be still as it is. But if an admin can't do it, who would judge the violation of the rules of consensus? 808 AD (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Placing an RFC tag on a section that clearly isn't a valid RFC isn't going to help much. It certainly is not a method to force your preferred version of an article. The RFC tag ought to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. What's wrong with the RFC tag? Anyway, could you fix it? I can't see the problem. 808 AD (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFC is a formal process with very precise requirements. You shouldn't open one until you understand the formatting & scope of your request. Specifically, you violated the Statement should be neutral and brief requirement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds Yes, I think you're right. I should have put my opinion as a normal reply. What do you think now [332] is it fixed? 808 AD (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the reference to Cambridge History of Africa. Previous versions were each differently wrong. Folly Mox (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, WP:Canvassing, Offsite canvassing on a General sanctioned page and topic

I’ve been guided by another admin to report this here from this talk page. Can you all please look into the edits of this user on these General sanctioned subject like  1, 2??. The editor has been reverted twice for removing the lead of this GA article. The editor may also have been canvassed or is engaged in canvassing other people here for Wikipedia and in reddit. They are also engaged in spreading my username and making grandiose claims about my edits on social media like this. I also have suspicions about this IP address A, also editing per the request of this user. What is the point of general sanctions if such behavior is allowed to continue?TruthGuardians (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It is really noy accurate to say you were "guided by another admin" about that exchange. It is also not fair to make these accusations simply because you don't like the facts. Michael Jackson was accused by at least 8 people of abuse during their childhood and you or others repeatedly removed it from the lead. Take a look at the Talk:Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: Just for the record, two new editors 1, 2 who do not have a recent edit history or any previous edits on Jackson related topics appeared on the talk page. Possible more evidence of canvassing.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Truth Guardians, go to my talk page and look at what the user, User:NinjaRobotPirate you complained to wrote to me about me tagging that user I "know" from editing same topics over the years. Ninja explained to me "don't tag a user to weigh in because it looks like manipulation.. instead place a notice on the Neutral Noticeboard." And I wrote "thanks ok i will" and i did. So if new editors you dont know are suddenly coming to your MJ pages, it is probably from the neutral noticeboard. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC).

I am more concerned with adding protections and more invested in ensuring comprehensive safeguards are implemented for all articles related to Michael Jackson at this point in time. Currently, there is evident canvassing occurring within an anti-Jackson thread on Reddit. Notably, users in that thread share identical usernames with their Wikipedia accounts like DanieleJava, claiming they have been working working on Wikipedia to spread such accuser advocacy and propaganda. Furthermore, there seems to be a concerning doxing activity, with users attempting to identify me 1, 2,. Additionally, the editing patterns of some canvassed individuals suggest the presence of potential meat/sock puppet accounts. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I do think this is clear case of offsite canvassing and warrants a topic ban. There is also encouragement from others to do it when should of know the guidelines not getting encouraged by reddit users. The user did around 60 edits in less than 24 hours and continues WP:DISTRUPT on the article. Their activity on the above mentioned reddit sub shows he is not acting in good faith but wants to use wiki to display even the least credible accusations. Mr Boar1 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I never ever "canvassed" anyone EVER except on that talk page and User:NinjaRobotPirate already told me not to tag other users I know on my talk page. Come on. Look at the kind of well-sourced material you're deleting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson&oldid=1190795244 Wikipedia says you're supposed to IMPROVE the text, right? Not blanket delete.

Also this is all what I think is called "Forum Shopping" on wiki. You all know as do I that there are active conversations about the neutrality of edits on the talk page and on the "neutral board." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if I am allowed to paste this here, but here's an example of a mass swath of material posted by me to the page in question a couple hours ago and instantly mass deleted by User:Mr Boar1. No effort to improve, no effort to discuss the content, or add a "better citation needed" blurb or what have you or check out my talk page posts about the same. Just instant delete. This is not collaborative editing:

This did not need copy/pasted here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==== =Safechuck and Robson accusations ==== In 2013, dancer, choreographer and former child performer Wade Robson, who in 2005 testified that Jackson never molested him accused Jackson of sexual abuse during their friendship when Robson was a child. In a 2013 interview with the Today Show, Robson stated that the birth of his son two years prior had impacted his emotions regarding what he asserted he had endured as a child: "This is not a case of repressed memory," said Robson to host Matt Lauer. "I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse." Robson filed a late creditor's claim and civil lawsuit against the singer's estate. Jackson estate lawyer Howard Weizman called the Robson allegations pathetic and outrageous. In 2014, former child actor James Safechuck, who met Jackson in 1986 when co-starring in a Pepsi commercial, and also had previously denied he was molested also made sexual abuse claims against the singer. Safechuck asserted the sexual abuse began in June 1988 in a hotel room in Paris during a Jackson tour on which he had accompanied Jackson. Safechuck, too, filed late creditor's claims and a civil lawsuit against the estate. In their legal actions, Robson and Safechuck asserted that in the 1980s and 1990s, corporations owned by Jackson, operated "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known." Between 2015 and 2017 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff dismissed both the creditor claims and the lawsuits as too late. Following the dismissal Robson and Safechuck appealed and participated in the 2019 documentary film Leaving Neverland in which they described their accusations in detail. In 2020 the lawsuits were revived by legislative extensions of the statute of limitations. That year and in 2021 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young dismissed both lawsuits, partly on the ground that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they had the kind of legal relationship with the companies under tort law that would have required them to protect the boys and the companies had no ability to control Jackson, their sole owner. Safechuck and Robson appealed again. In 2022, Safechuck and Robson released the first episode in a podcast series hosted by the pair on recovering from childhood sexual abuse and other life trauma. In 2023, in a published opinion issued by Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes on behalf of a three-judge panel, the California Court of Appeal sent the Safechuck and Robson cases back to lower court for further proceedings. The panel ruled that, as a matter of law, corporations have a legal duty to protect minors allegedly in their care and control from sexual abuse, even if the alleged perpetrator is the sole owner. The matter is set for a pre-trial conference in February 2024. References

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, more on the saga here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerned that Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson lacks neutrality as it omits a number of sourced accusers Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening that discussion while you knew there was already one here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

[[User:HandsThatFeedsYou]] that isn't accurate. I was TOLD to open the neutral page discussion on my talk page when all this hullabaloo kicked off. Look at my talk page. I opened 2: one on a page I created about the 2023 ruling and AFTER that, after tons and tons of chatter on the "Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson," I told User:TruthGuardians and other users that "later on that day" I was going to open up a neutral post bc we were "going around in circles" over "Which Abusers To Include" - gate. TruthGuardians was cool with it although of course disagrees with me on substances. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:WALLOFTEXT , you can refer to your edits linking to the relevant part of the edit history. Posting your full edit here is spamming the noticeboard with references which have no relevance to this notice just to promote articles you want people to read and that smells like WP:ADVOCACY. castorbailey (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not accurate. Pasted to give color on the background of the edit warring. Not to "spam." Assume good faith, always. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good faith can only be extended so far, and we're rapidly running out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You reposted that entire section here with a long list of references that has no relevance to this notice. You also included inflammatory commentary ("we were grossed out" testimony) in another reference list where you also misrepresented what the source said to make it sound worse than it is. That's not good faith editing. castorbailey (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Jim that doesnt make any sense. You know full well there is a huge discussion on Star Arvizo on the talk page and numerous assertions that Star "never testified to abuse" when it is crystal clear that Star did so testify according to numerous credible media reports. The point of the quote was locate his words in the source. It feels to me like you're throwing anything to the wall that you can. Links to relevant discussions are on my talk page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps and Jim I went back and looked and realized something. You 'yourself wrote in one of your many revisions: "02:48, 12 December 2023 (seven is inaccurate, no source on Star Arvizo." That is one of thoae edits that triggered more of a deep dive into exactly what Star Arvizo testified according to Google News! So how can you delete my edits regarding Star Arvizo as an accuser, and then when I create a heavily sourced footnote with quotes and unpleasant detail, turn around and accuse me of being "inflammatory" and "salacious"? You are the very same editor who reverted more oblique edits about Star by me, denying that he was an alleged victim. You are the very audience for more detail on him being "grossed out" as a victim, not just a witness. This is not making any sense. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You decided to characterize that testimony as "we were grossed out" testimony, for no other reason but to include inflammatory language here. The source could have been included without it. You also made it looks like Star Arvizo alleged Jackson was masturbating in front of him during the alleged incident. He alleged no such thing. And you were told over and over again why Star Arvizo's claims did not rise to the level of sexual abuse under the law. If they had the notoriously anti-Jackson prosecutor wouldn't have missed an opportunity to charge Jackson for it. castorbailey (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Scrubbing reliable sourced text about Star Arvizo is a manipulation of the page to lower the accuser count. The sources about Star speak for themselves. Star did not allege he (Star) was touched sexually, true. But Star did allege in his testimony that Jackson walked into the room naked with an erection and discussed masturbation with Star and showed Star pornography." Your statement that the prosecution "would have prosecuted" for the Star abuse doesn't make sense to me. Jackson was prosecuted and acquitted for a sexually abusive relationship with older brother Gavin. Star was allegedly an eyewitness to those acts and Star so testified. Even if Star was abused in terms of indecent sexual displays by Jackson, charges are up to prosecutorial discretion. Would it ever make sense to risk overcharging Jackson when all that was alleged was indecent exposure and sexual conversation and showing material to younger brother Star, and when Gavin was the alleged primary victim? Would it make sense to charge Jackson for the Star abuse after Jackson was acquitted of much worse allegations of actual sexual contact? Of course not. That doesnt mean Star did not allege child sexual abuse. Scrubbing reliable sourced edits about Star is manipulation of the page to lower the accuser count. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether you are responsible for canvassing others to Wikipedia or if you yourself was canvassed is to be determined. However, your edits, along with the edits of a couple of other never before editors match what exactly is being canvassed on this Reddit thread. The Reddit thread is loaded with users with the same usernames here on Wikipedia who has attempted to edit Jackson topics. This is canvassing defined. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

T.G., I have to disagree. Look at "2BOARNOTOOB" one of the new editors you tag above as suspicious. He or she is stridently pro-Jackson-innocence in all things.

In fact the only person making ANY "unfavorable facts in eyes of the Jackson estate" edits is me that I can see. I'm the only one making edits akin to "Hey guys.... shouldnt we list ALL the accusers? Right?" is me. At least on "Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson" page. If there are all these "anti-Jacksonists" spamming Wikipedia, Im the only one i have seen.

It isnt a plot. I like to edit articles about Black musicians and, separately, "true crime" sometimes,i read the new decisio, and noticed the pages, to me, look skewed. That's all. No evil plot here. And I tend to edit on my phone so lots of typos I go back to fix, which is why so many edits. I also tend to forget to add edit summaries bc usually no one cares about the pages I edit. Inalso dont have a fancy "about me" page so maybe I looked like a nefarious random, but I have been editing a lot over thr yrars with no axcusations of disruption Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I also constantly forget my reading glasses, which creates typos, which means more edits. Again, nothing shady. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

On December 3, you make your first edit on the Wikipedia article at the center of the dispute. December 9, you started to heavily make changes to the article. December 11, there was a Reddit thread created based on the same topics as your attempted edits. The same day, December 11th, you attempted to make the proposed edits in the Reddit thread here on Wikipedia. Coincidence? Unlikely. The suspicion is that you tried to canvas people to support your effort to include those “accusers,” and I use that term quite loosely. The suspicion is based on the above cited reddit thread. As I see you have not denied your involvement in that Reddit thread. So either you are the creator of the thread attempting to canvass others, or you yourself have been canvassed as a spectator of that thread. Comments like this one from that Reddit thread results in canvassing or people being canvassed: “ETA: if anyone wants to edit, then I suggest they try the non-English pages first. They aren't restricted like the English version.” TruthGuardians (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians you filed 3 attacks on me in three different "forums" within probably hours of me making edits you don't like. Here, with NinjaRobotPirate, and on "Request for page protection," which you presumably deleted when you didn't get the answer you wanted. The links are now on my talk page. Only fleetingly did you engage with me on the talk page and only to make disingenuous arguments about how the page was in Good Article.Status (in 2008!) so, by definition, my edits are disruptive.

My only request to any admin reading this is to look at my edits and look at the text of the page. They speak for themselves. Take a hard look at the actual edits I made and their revisions. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also looks like I created a page on "Michael" the bio film back in Feb looking at my talk apge- I had forgotten. Apologies. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate the user continues to ping other users in an on wiki canvassing attempt in tantrums even though you have warned the editor against this behavior. He is also using the talk pages like a fan forum, blog or his Reddit page as you can see here and the Wikipedia:Wall of text is becoming a little too much here. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry you don't want your disruptive, combative bad faith history called up, TruthGuardians. Those editors are the very same who have admonished you in the past regarding your obsession with proving Michael Jackson innocent in lieu of maybe actually working with others in building an encyclopedia. One of them built.a chart on your alleged canvassing in June of 2022 with JimBailey / CastorBailey. Stop using "wikilawyering" in multiple fora to silence anyone who doesn't want to see the encyclopedia twisted into a bad faith temple to Michael Jackson's virtue. The only reason the page is on a sanctions list is because of passionate pro-Jackson spam. Stop wikilawyering and engage with the substantive glaring biases of the page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That is MY user talk page, TruthGuardians. Not "a talk page." Stop misleading admins Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:OWNTALK User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines. While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is literally a timeline of what actually happened between us. I would have posted it here but then you'd berate me for walls of text. No one trying to bring those pages into good standing can win with you. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

And again this comment accusing me of canvassing is agaiin another bad-faith performative deceptive post in the hope of snookering some admin into banning me from editing your personal temple to Jackson's virtue. You know those "pings" are in reply to your own post on my page where NinjaRobotPirate is already tagged in your very post. This is a performance. You're hoping that you say enough things about me that might hoodwink enough admins, you will get to preserve your Jackson Was Innocent purity temple masquerading as a "Good Article." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of personal attacks leveled in those posts, I think Bhdshoes2 needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here the editor is calling those that oppose them “rabid Michael Jackson fans” TruthGuardians (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope only one thing. That general sanction rules are followed. Your attacks against me means nothing. Your false accusations about me doesn’t move me. The timeline posted above with the evidence provided is classic case of canvassing as I see it and that’s why I reported the incident here. No conspiracy at all. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, yet again you make false statements. Just as the pages you edit clearly mislead readers, which is why I'm here, your posts here also mislead. That edit said that the REASON the page was under sanctions, put in place years ago, was because of rabid fans. Nothing about you being a rabid fan. The true timeline is on my talk page which you also twist. I can only say 1200 times i wasn't one of the many handles attacking your Jackson enthusiasm on social media. But you already know that. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I never said the username you use here was on Reddit. However, there are users in that thread that has matching usernames here on Wikipedia and has edit Jackson pages. Usernames don’t have to match for attempted canvassing or being canvassed to be proven. Your comments on the talk pages and editing on Michael Jackson-related pages are identical to the Reddit user that started the thread there. Sure we can call this a coincidence that in the same day and week there is a similar discussion started on reddit and Wikipedia on this topic and attacking editors involved here on Wikipedia. The discussion suddenly stopped once I took this issue to the noticeboard. The way you are editing and using talk pages clearly shows you are not here to build encyclopedia but partake in WP:ADVOCACY. Do not make wikipedia a WP:BATTLEFIELD to prove your arguments on Reddit. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Show me one inaccurate edit I have ever made. Why did you edit the page to say that Jason Francia alleged "tickling" and omit the part of his testimony about genital touching? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to prove to you that I "stopped beating my wife" when I have been editing for years. It looks to me like numerous Reddit people are talking smack about your user name and inappropriate reversions on Reddit which is obnoxious doxxing and I would never be a part of such a thing. The real question is why you falsely said you were "directed" to make a complaint here? Why did you delete so much well-sourced text? Why have you been repeatedly brought up to admins since at least 2019, heavily in June 2022 for problematic single-view-point editing. Of course the "page didn't see much editing" before me because I'm an extended user and shenanigans from the Fandom have prevented the page from being open for editors. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ninja suggested that I report the canvassing here when I took the issue to her talk page as the Admin didn’t have the bandwidth to deal with it right then and there. So I did. I don’t owe you any explanations for my past edits which has been in complete alignment with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If I mess up somewhere, another editor points out my mistake and I go in and fix it myself if they hadn’t already. Also, I can’t control past editors going to admin board with false accusations that never amounted to anything. Furthermore, until recently, I can’t ever recall editing the page that you have attempted edit, which by the way was last protected (semi) in April 2020 by QEDK for three months. The protections have expired and has since been open to all editors. It is quite normal to protect pages when there is disruptive editing, which I feel your comments is a direct insult to the admins that protect the page. You’ve been asked to stop referring to editors as fans, rabid fans, or being part of a fandom. Be it the case or not, it’s not WP:CIVIL. Just because you just don’t like someone’s edits or there’s a disagreement of sorts, civility should not be abandoned. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

TS Made

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TS Made (talk · contribs) The account is very obviously a sockpuppet that's used for trolling purposes. It has made ten edits since 21 December, and it has immediately entered into an edit war in the Wankel engine article. Whoever operates the account has a very good understanding of formatting text and talk pages on Wikipedia, so I'd argue that it passes the duck test. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally, this kind of suspicion goes nowhere, at least not at WP:ANI. That said, I noticed a couple of things. First, there is this other new editor, Steven Enlarger, who has intersected on two articles with TS Made. In Maia Sandu, SE removed some material from the article (along with an edit summary that is a WP:BLP violation), which was reverted by another editor, and then restored by TS Made. In Bad Blood (Bastille album), SE made a change to the article, which TS Made reverted. What are the odds that two editors should edit the same rather different articles in opposite directions?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive trolling and personal attacks

Gross personal attacks and disruptive soapboxing + deliberate misrepresentation of facts by claming that only India sources describe the subject as a militant when numerous university presses have been cited. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not having that. Indefinitely blocked. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Banned editor canvassing for an RfC

I have begun an RfC on page Lucy Letby. There is a history of that page being disrupted by banned editor User:MeltingDistrict, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:BarehamOliver. The editor has a history of IP socking, and also of socking at RfCs (see particularly Talk:Michael Stone (criminal)#RfC - See also section, and the struck through sections). The editor has a vendetta against Richard Gill and perceives the Lucy Letby page as a battleground for that vendetta. I was thus expecting IP socking at the RfC, but the sockpuppet has become a little more clever and instead has been canvassing some well reputed editors, based on views they have previously expressed. See: Special:Contributions/213.31.104.198. Grateful if an admin could take appropriate action to protect the integrity of this RfC. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To add, some history of this sock puppet's ban evasion and trolling of Gill: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Ban Evasion - Trolling IP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sirfurboy, first of all you MUST notify any user you start a discussion about on here - it says that clearly multiple times. You have failed to notify me and I only saw this from your contributions which isn't on. You must notify any editors you start a discussion about on this page. Secondly, I have always been open that I am a Twitter follower of that banned user Melting District and it was them that brought my attention to this whole issue in the first place (and, btw, BEFORE they were blocked and I even knew they were socking). I have never denied this and indeed told you it, and I AM NOT MELTING DISTRICT. You don't like that I am a Twitter follower of a now-banned editor, yet when another user who was banned for pro-Letby advocacy - Richard D. Gill - clearly came back as an act of ban evasion onto the Lucy Letby page and demanded that his preferred pro-Letby intro was instated [333] - the one that he'd LITERALLY spelt out was his version on his own Twitter page: [334], your response was "Thanks for bringing the tweet to our attention, but it seems to me it is less likely Gill than one of his twitter followers". So for some reason it's fine for you for a Twitter follower of one banned user to come on here and edit on behalf of him, but when I come on here after being notified via Twitter of the discussion by a different now-banned user, that's unacceptable? You do realise that people can tell Twitter followers of their editing, right? Well of course you do - since you said that's fine for banned Richard Gill to do. But not anyone else!

If I am breaking the rules by being here after being notified by a now-banned editor via social media, then absolutely fine I'll leave and not bother. But let’s not have double standards and have one rule for one banned editor and his Twitter followers, yet have another for another banned editor and their Twitter followers. 213.31.104.198 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, I have always been open that I am a Twitter follower of that banned user Melting District and it was them that brought my attention to this whole issue - Admission of meatpuppetry. Although as for all the other times, if this isn't MeltingDistrict in person then I am a purple banana. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy if I am a meat puppet, then why did you not report and strikeout the comments of the editor who you claimed was a follower of Richard Gill when they appeared on the Letby page? They must also be a meat puppet? The one you said was likely a Twitter follower of Richard Gill? How can you justify asking one banned editor’s Twitter follower to be blocked but not the other? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• For more background to this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Number of concerns on a COI editor. The content dispute reduces to an attempt to remove the words "serial killer" from the first sentence of Lucy Letby, and would benefit from uninvolved eyes on it.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, you have no right to strike out a non-blocked editors comments. @S Marshall: surely this should not be allowed? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is how Banned user MeltingDistrict wrote it on your talk page, yes. He said, inter alia, ... So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But what he placed in quotation marks is nothing to do woth the nominatiopn and neither is it an accurate summary. The phrasing retains the sense of serial killer (serial murders) and wikilinks to that. It is not removed. The question is whether, in wikivoce we say she is a serial killer or whether she is convicted of being a serial killer. That is a subject that can see perfectly legitimate difference of opinion, and I have stated my opinion and why. I won't relitigate it here. What is extremely frustrating is that this sockpuppet, who has a history of attacking anything to do with Gill, and of changing pages of those found to be innocent of murder to place them in a bad light (e.g. [335]) just to get at Gill, has now succeeded in bringing in a very large number of editors who wrongly suppose that the issue is to remove "serial killer" from the page. It is not, and it never was. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal removes the words "serial killer" in the first sentence. If that wasn't your intent, then I suggest you amend your proposal.—S Marshall T/C 20:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week for either block evasion or meat puppetry. Six of one, half dozen of another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't mind talk page messages along the lines of "You were a participant in X conversation, and it's started up again, let us know what you think." I very much mind talk page messages that pitch a strongly partisan POV, such as this one [336], and invite me to jump on the bandwagon. Ravenswing 11:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Othmas biaggio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs) recently appeared and has a wonderful log of mass removal of content, edit warring, and disingenuous Talk messages (presenting false translations). I warned them and reached out to two other admins who know the topic area already, but the editor is continuing to revert. Can another admin please examine this and intervene? --Joy (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is this 'wonderful log' of mass removal? I have edited a whole whopping four articles in total. Naturally I reverted your edit and even stated why I did so, because the content was already discussed and agreed upon with another moderator. Your edit, on the other hand, showed signs of subjective pushing of bias, which is quite concerning since you seem to be very active and have been so for a long time. I wouldn't expect anyone with your track record to use a Google search result with 67 matches as a source as seen here:/ Talk:Slava Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The first 4 edits this user did were in Human rights in Serbia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077275638
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077276893
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1114652954
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1115508786

This is not normal. --Joy (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You must be absolutely kidding me - the state of the article is what prompted me to create my account in the first place. Let's go through the edits one by one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077275638

Dead links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077276893

Dead link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1114652954

The section is based on a 12-line summary and includes stuff never mentioned in the sourced material such as this line from the previous edit: "and faulty asylum protections (particularly for children)". The source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1115508786

Explained in the Talk section here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_in_Serbia

Are you even checking the edits you're listing as disruptive? How can anyone have edited articles since the beginning of the 2000s, two decades, apparently being well-versed in the rules of Wikipedia having a moderator position be this amateurish? Your own edit as a revision to my, based on bogus claims of "censorship" uses a Google search result with 67 matching pages as a source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191260586

This is utter insanity. Othmas biaggio (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't finish the 3rd paragraph. The source doesn't even mention anything in regards to what is being written in the article. Othmas biaggio (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't attack other editors or you're going to find yourself blocked for incivility. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The removed source in Joy's first link is Wayback Machine-accessible, so it certainly isn't a deadlink, just needs to be merely noted as archived, so removal of these sources is not justified unless it absolutely isn't archived. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So because one link exists on Wayback it suddenly constitutes as proof for the collective four edits being unsubstantial? Furthermore, can a political declaration and document account for proof of anything? The Declaration itself is based on a flawed pretext of Vlachs and Romanians being considered as one people and claiming this is a political move from Serbia. This is completely false as I am Vlach myself - these claims are usually postulated by Romanian ultra-nationalists trying to group us into being Romanians.

Objectively, though, the source can stay for all that matters, but the clear and unhinged bias must be mentioned in the article. Nobody Vlach in Timok consider themselves to be Romanian, which is the presumption of the sham Declaration - this would be akin to someone denying others of their ethnicity or saying it doesn't exist propagated as being objective.

This is getting interesting for what can really be used as a source? Joy is using a Google Search result with 62 matching results, where it is solely mentioning the tradition of Slava in a historic and unrelated context to the pertaining article (Slava), as evidence for explicitly including Croats as contemporarily celebrating Slava despite arguing with an absolute degree of uncertainty on the Talk page. How is this not considered agenda pushing? The article prior to the edit even mentions it is practiced "to a much lesser extent amongst Catholic and Muslim ethnicities in the region".

Lastly, let's analyze what Joy is saying:

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs) recently appeared and has a wonderful log of mass removal of content, edit warring, and disingenuous Talk messages (presenting false translations).

Where is this wonderful log of mass removal? I have edited a total of four articles in the span of more than a year and explained with reasons in all of my edits other than in the recent Ottoman_defter_of_The_District_of_Branković_(1455), where my edits almost solely consisted of formatting and adding pictures. My edits were discussed on the Slava article with Jingiby and we reached a collective consensus and agreement. Is it really relevant to, once again, discuss and alter content when one could simply read the Talk page and comment in there before changing anything? The way I see it is we're allowing Joy to edit freely without questioning using Google Search, while we must question the documented and summarized edits of others? I believe that doesn't make sense nor is it justifiable in any way whatsoever. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadlinks are a reasont to find an archive or a new source, not for removing content. If you're unable to find a source you coild use {{citation needed}}. Also the diff you presented of Joy's was to Croatian Encyclopedia not Google search results. Did you provide the right link? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit on the Slava page, where Joy uses a Google Search result as a source or as substantial evidence for his claims:

Talk:Slava

The edit in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191276425

Not only does he or she uses a Google Search result as a source, but claims I am 'censoring text' despite the mentioned edits even having been discussed and a concensus reached with a previous moderator being Jingiby. Joy could have simply read the Talk page instead of once again churning settled content and editing using Google Search as a source. I am referring to the edit, where Joy argues on the notion of uncertainty and Google Search results being evidence. The "real" source is the link to a Croatian Encyclopedia followed by Joy pointing to Google Search results. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, you have countless of sources stating Slava is indeed a Serbian tradition here, but I guess one could always cherrypick using things like national encyclopedias and Google Search results to include subjective and biased edits. Isn't this especially concerning when the one doing it is a moderator?

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/slava-celebration-of-family-saint-patron-s-day-01010

In Serbia, Orthodox Christian families celebrate an important holiday in honour of the patron saint, Slava, who is believed to be their protector and provider of welfare..

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326252390_The_Slava_Celebration_A_Private_and_a_Public_Matter (by Bosniak author Sabina Hadzibulic)

A family celebration named the slava or krsna slava (celebration/ glorification or christened celebration) is a unique custom within the tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church when each family annually celebrates its patron saint.

It seems only on Wikipedia commonly held notions are up for discussion - especially on pages related to the Balkans. Despite the above sources a consensus was even reached earlier with Jingiby to include Muslim and Catholic ethnicities, but still Joy feels the abosolute need to explicitly mention Croatia and Croats. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere in that diff of Google search results, nothing, not in the references which is for Croatian Encyclopedia or in the edit summary. Note whether this is a Serbian or Croatian tradition has zero to do with this board, and this board doesn't deal with content issues. Also how does this specific issue relate to you removing details of human rights issues? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs), a couple of things. First of all, this combative attitude, please drop it. I need you to stop yelling at other editors, and using their "moderator" status to strengthen that personal attack just makes it worse. Second, please use regular layout, instead of responding in paragraphs with extra line breaks--Microsoft Word's extra line after a paragraph has done the world more harm than good. Finally, like ActivelyDisinterested I can't really figure out what you are trying to argue here, but if you are going to make some point about content you shouldn't cite a UNESCO website--and of course we don't handle content discussions here. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two articles in question: Slava and Human Rights in Serbia. I am simply linebreaking to separate my content and make it easier digestible.

Regarding Slava - Joy has reverted an edit of mine as seen in the Talk page, where the user argues on behalf of Google Search results and voids earlier discussion pertaining to the same subject calling my edit "censorship". Scroll to the bottom of the Talk page. You would have to ask Joy specifically what is referred to by the "wonderful log of mass removal of content" comment.

Regarding Human Rights in Serbia I have explained all my edits here and in the original edits and on the Talk page. So I can't site a UNESCO website, but Joy can cite a Croatian Encyclopedia consisting of 3 lines and a Google Search result? So what has this discussion been about then? Or was it simply invoked in a wrongly manner by a moderator? I am simply responding to the incident created by Joy. I believe all my edits are just and contributing, but understand I should be more careful with removal of content in the future and don't remove dead links or citations. Othmas biaggio (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Othmas biaggio, please stop misrepresenting Joy's statement on Talk:Slava (tradition). Joy pointed to a search result string to demonstrate the existence of sources ("Try doing for example a https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahrcak.srce.hr+hrvati+krsna+slava and see a bunch of scholarly references to it."). Joy has not cited Google Search. Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Joy cites a Croatian Encyclopedia consisting of 3-4 lines supporting it by using a Google Search result. The whole previous section revolves around discussing this exact phrasing and whether or not to include that particular sentence and how to phrase it - a consensus was reached. Instead of simply reverting the edit based on the Talk-page discussion, meaning the content was actively agreed upon by two parts, he could simply had commented on the Talk page. You can't seriously be saying pointing to something makes something valid- then I could simply index a search result based on my own specific keywords on any given encyclopedia entry and point to that. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, calling it a simple "Google Search result" is only partially true, as it is a search on a specific website ([337]), as you can see in the URL. This is only to establish that sources mentioning this claim exist on this specific site. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So since it's partially true why isn't Joy providing a specific source rather than pointing to a collection of works containing his specific own personal tags in a Google Search result? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A source was literally given in Joy's edit. This search is just to show that the topic of this celebration among Croats is well-described in scholarly articles, beyond that one specific source. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A source being a national encyclopedia entry. Is this seriously considered valid as a source? Like I stated I could just take anything from any encyclopedia, look up some tags in a Google Search result and add them as an argument. Real historic dissection addresses bias and even encyclopedias hold biases. Everything has a bias and something is not necessarily true because a specific encyclopedia says so. If he was really adamant on including the paragraph couldn't he simply have used on the "numerous" sources he pointed to? Furthermore, like I already stated, pointing to a Google Search result isn't equal to something being "well-described in scholarly articles". The one specific source he mentions isn't even a scholarly article. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is literally a search on a specific website, which happens to be the Portal of Croatian scientific and professional journals. In other words, yes, it is literally a search among scholarly articles. An additional source could have been added, yes, but this search was there to establish that these sources exist. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So what? Would you trust a Turkish encyclopedia on Armenians or Greeks? A Greek encyclopedia on Turkey and Turks? An Azeri encyclopedia on Armenians? An Armenian encyclopedia on Azeris? National disputes and nationally produced material are not clear of bias and just because something is institutionally produced doesn't make it more objective. Especially not if it should be used in a broader sense when writing articles pertaining to a larger audience trying to grasp a subject at surface level. Would Thanksgiving be a Mexican tradition if a Mexican encyclopedia said so? Would Chinese New Year be a Japanese tradition if a Japanese encyclopedia said so? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing two articles - Joy has reverted one of my edits, which to I was given an unwarranted, in my opinion, warning and now he or she refers to another article in here. I guess we'll have to ask Joy to make him clarify what this is really about. Othmas biaggio (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

In this edit[338] you removed criticism of Serbia's human rights record by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe because you believe the assembly is wrong and it has a deadlink, neither are a valid reason for removal.
And in this edit[339] you removed criticism of Serbia's human rights record by Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament because of a dead link, again not a valid reason to remove it.
When asked why you removed these you stated deadlinks and have tried to shift the discussion to a different discussion that wasn't part of the original complaint. A discussion in which you continue to misrepresent what Joy has done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No I haven't - I have been given a warning and had this incident made by Joy. I am addressing both. There is no shifting of discussion here. Many of these articles pertaining to the Balkans are extremely biased - one of the edits, as an example, proposes my ethnicity, Vlach, doesn't exist and that we are simply Romanians. This edit and including of information was clearly not checked in the first place. Would you find it suitable having an article stating your ethnicity is the extension of another without addressing the inherent bias of the Declaration? But I see your point - I should instead have added the citation needed tags to the edit despite it stating my ethnicity doesn't exist. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your ethnicity has absolutely nothing to with it, try reading WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. You personal opinion is not applicable, only what is verifiable through reliable sources. And none of that explains why you were removing records of human right abuses by Serbian. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It has much to do with it as the removed text centers around a premise of my ethnicity not existing. The bias of the 'reliable source' wasn't mentioned in any way whatsoever, which led med to questioning whether the edit was indeed done in bad faith - what is this? Kindergarden history? You can't simply say something is reliable and thus the objective truth - this is one of the core principles of history as a subject being everything having a bias. Just because something has EU plastered over it doesn't necessarily removes the inherit bias of both the institution it is being channeled through nor the bias of the underlying authors. I am astonished this isn't being even remotely considered here - all politics regarding the Balkans is politically toxic and that goes for all sides. I could simply had put a citation needed tag - what then? The reader would be left in a void of thinking Vlachs are indeed Romanians, which is propagated solely by Romanians. Also, according to the article I would not only be Romanian, but also oppressed. We could reverse the article with the Wayback source, but then we would have to address the information further. Also let's really look at what's going on here - four edits are posted as evidence for a supposed claim from Joy of a wonderful log of mass removal of content. I have edited a total of four articles, I repeatedly mention again and again, in the span of a year and a half. This is clearly a witch-hunt by the moderator who posted these edits and gave me a warning and undid my edit on the Slava page based the information not suiting his bias. Do you think the claims of Joy are justifiable - are my four edits done more than a year ago and the rest of my edits on four articles proof of a wonderful log of mass removal of content? This discussion really proves some moderators are cherrypicking sources and information to their liking and leveraging their position to have the articles suit their personal bias and actively blocking other users. Othmas biaggio (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous, I just checked the Slava page and as it just so happens someone undid his revision again to make it appear I did it from an outside IP. This is getting more and more crazy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191404120

The edit has the text lol a croatian source, be serious - totally written by me. This should probe into further investigation into Joy. Joy, being a Debian dev and having plenty of IT experience, naturally made it to look like I did it even further by spoofing his IP, which is geolocated in most Southern part of Serbia. The thing is, not only am I not from that part as stated by my personal user page since Vlachs are from Timok but I ain't even writing from Serbia. I call upon Jingiby to notify I didn't do that edit. I can't belive this is seriously happening - this guy has over 20 years of edits with the status of a moderator acting like a spoiled brat. Othmas biaggio (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The IP is a VPN! Just as I suspected:

https://www.ipqualityscore.com/vpn-ip-address-check/lookup/91.148.114.224 Othmas biaggio (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The same VPN IP-address furthermore undoes another one of Joy's edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia_and_Montenegro_at_the_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1191403910

This simply can't be real. Othmas biaggio (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If memory serves me there is an LTA that likes to do that with open ANI cases, its just someone being a jerk. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So you seriously believe someone random, while this discussion is ongoing, would use a VPN to undo two of Joy's revisions? You must be kidding me. Othmas biaggio (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a quite common trolling behavior here at ANI. The best way to counteract it is to ignore it and adopt a calmer approach to discussion: the targets are people who seem likely to get very worked up / lose their cool / etc. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is getting 'worked up', but this is clearly targeted at me to make it look like I did those revisions. How could it even be random common trolling behavior? This is seriously concerning - you have moderators reporting others on unsubstantial claims of having wonderful logs of mass removal despite having edited only four articles in the span of one and a half year, handing out unwarranted warnings and harassing other contributors actively gatekeeping articles and their contents. Othmas biaggio (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: the way this particular kind of trolling works, the troll picks someone and impersonates them, hoping to get them blocked / get them worked up. What can I say -- there are a lot of pathetic losers on the internet who think riling people up is fun. The way you should combat it is by being less riled up -- for example, people who are calm don't feel the need to add lots of emphasis to their comments, repeat themselves, and spend so much time explaining what is wrong with other editors without listening to advice and taking on board comments about their own behavior. (In case it is not obvious, I have no power whatsoever to affect any part of this situation, and no knowledge of or interest in the underlying dispute -- but it will obviously have a better outcome if you chill out and devote more of you energy to hearing what other people are saying.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no trolling here - there is only Joy trying to make it look like I am doing revisions from a VPN. This kind of behavior belongs in a kindergarden - nobody is being riled up, but this is simply unacceptable and astonishingly being done by a moderator with over 20 years of activity. I even see my edits were noticed by another moderator being Vanjagenije all the way back in January 2023 welcoming me as a new editor with no mention whatsoever regarding any of my edits. Othmas biaggio (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable sources disagree with you, that's all that matters not you personal feelings or opinions about the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Which many reliable sources? feel free to list them here. This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal feelings, but regarding what's objective or what's not. Othmas biaggio (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have to agree with Joy on the "disingenuous" quality of talk page discussions. I'm looking over Talk:Slava (tradition), where Othmas is waging a kind of war over "occasionally among Croats", which they removed here (without any kind of explanation) and elsewhere. In that talk page discussion it's noteworthy that Othmas seems at pains to not address the matter of Croats honoring this custom, and takes issue with Joy bringing it up--and then takes issue with Joy's citation from the Croatian Encyclopedia. Joy defends the citation and says "look, it makes sense that they're saying this since it is true--look at these results", but is then accused of using a Google search as if he were defending an article it: but Joy was explaining why a citation made sense. Yes, that's disingenuous, or at least very confused. Finally, there's this: "I propose we discard your edit as the content has already been discussed. There is no need to go over content, which was already agreed upon in the first place"--well, "we" is two people, which is of course the minimum, and "agreed-upon content" is not set in stone, though that's precisely what Othmas is trying to do here. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What is "disingenuous" here? Me disagreeing? There is no war being waged here - the tradition is Serbian as pointed to in here and by countless of other sources and I even agreed to say the custom was being honored by Muslim and Catholic communities in the region. Slava isn't being celebrated in Croatia. That's akin to saying Thanksgiving is being celebrated in Mexico. Naturally so information isn't set in stone, but the topic at hand has once before been discussed. Why is the subject suddenly being opened again? Joy could simply have commented on the Talk page if he was to add or remove something previously discussed by respect of the other users as one can clearly see there was a civil discussion on the topic. I could also simply extend the matter and add the sources stating the tradition, as I already did in here, is inherently tied to Serbs and the Serbian Orthodox Church, which it is, but wouldn't that be considered editing in bad faith? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, even Joy argues with uncertainty saying something is "likely" - with that he really just said he doesn't know. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding things. The "likely" in Joy's answer doesn't mean what you claim it means, and you keep arguing here about whether something is exclusively Serbian or not, and you claim that you know damn well that it is and everyone else is wrong, but what is at stake here is your behavior. Please familiarize yourself with the expression "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Drmies (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you think I am arguing whether something is 'exclusively Serbian or not' then you haven't gotten a clue what we're discussing or talking about at all. Would it be objectively false for the Wikipedia article for, let's say, Dia de Los Muertos to state it is a Mexican tradition, which it is? You think this is a one against many case of argument and you're totally missing the point at hand being writing a quality article with the information being as objective as possible directed towards people who perhaps don't know about the subject at hand. It definitely signifies a degree of uncertainty by this is even besides the point also being he uses a Croatian encyclopedia being written as a three-liner on the subject further pointing to a Google Search result with no direct source reference whatsoever - a purely amateurish move with one not even being able to provide a direct source reference to the claim. You can't say something can't be defined just because it doesn't encompasses something else - then it wouldn't be definable in the first place. I have provided multiple sources stating the traditions is inherently tied to Serbs and the Serbian Orthodox Church, it is without a reason of doubt whatsoever this is the case, but still even though this is the case, the original edit mentioned Muslim and Catholic communities practicing Slava to a lesser extent. Nobody is digging any holes other than Joy claiming I have a wonderful log of mass removal of content without any shred of evidence whatsoever with me having edited solely four articles in the last year and a half. I challenge you to find any shred, even the slightest smallest speck of evidence, of ethnic Catholic Croats celebrating Slava. It doesn't exist. You have page up, page down, videos, official church material, practically anything on the subject on the internet, specifically stating this is a Serb tradition. I seriously can't believe this is even being debated - it would be equal to saying Christians practice Hajj. And with a moderator opening the discussion clearly agenda pushing his own subjective views trying to leverage his position of power. Othmas biaggio (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I just handled a request to semi-protect Slava (tradition) and noticed the discussion on its talk. You may be right (I have no idea) but I can say that regardless of that, you will be blocked if you do not immediately dial back the attitude. Think about it—Wikipedia has six million articles covering every known contentious topic and it is not feasible for the community to tolerate ongoing belligerence. Focus on article content and the reliable sources supporting it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no attitude, but this incident has evolved since Joy being a moderator and in a position of power decided to mask outside revisions by VPN to make it look like I did them. This whole incident and warning I was given is based on the subjective bias of the moderator attempting to push his agenda by the above mentioned means. All the edits in question, being from several months to more than a year old, had previously been acknowledged by several moderators and I have edited a grand total of four articles in total with the content in question relating to only two articles. Yet he claims I am mass removing content or being "disingenuous" after respectfully ending a Talk-topic on the article in question you semi-protected by now. This was months ago. Not to mention the fact that these insane accusations and spoof VPN edits are being done by an actual moderator. Othmas biaggio (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence to support the accusation that "spoof VPN edits are being done by an actual moderator"? Brunton (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thou dost protest too much, methinks, or, if you prefer, WP:BLUDGEON. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a lot of noise from someone who has less than 30 edits to mainspace, ever. Heat to light ratio needs to be considered at some point, especially given the explicit allegation that a 'moderator' is using VPN to edit in breach of our sockpuppetry policy with no evidence presented to support the allegation. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Amazing. This whole debated was opened by Joy who has since the evolved discussion not said a single word in here. I don't get why you people think I am making noise or getting riled up - I have edited a total of four articles in the span of over a year and here comes a moderator accusing me of three massively unsubstantiated claims on old edits because it doesn't suits his narrative and subjective bias. I stand by my position and will answer every, single comment in here since this is unjust behavior by a person in a position of power abusing it to push his agenda and harassing newer contributors. Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you look at my previous user page edited months ago it clearly states I am located in Denmark. Now why would anyone edit the revisions of a moderator with a spoofed VPN from Serbia? Naturally so if the user, here a Croatian mod, would think I am in Serbia cause I have mainly edited articles, here a whole whopping two articles in total in the past year and a half, pertaining to Serbia. This all begun after this incident evolved and I believe Joy simply thought I wouldn't protest against his unsubstantiated claims. Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You've just doubled down and repeated the allegation regarding a 'moderator' engaging in unregistered editing using a VPN, again with no evidence. Please provide evidence immediately, or go back and withdraw those remarks unequivocally. Daniel (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I refer to my answer to Phil:

"If you look at my previous user page edited months ago it clearly states I am located in Denmark. Now why would anyone edit the revisions of a moderator with a spoofed VPN from Serbia? Naturally so if the user, here a Croatian mod, would think I am in Serbia cause I have mainly edited articles, here a whole whopping two articles in total in the past year and a half, pertaining to Serbia. This all begun after this incident evolved and I believe Joy simply thought I wouldn't protest against his unsubstantiated claims."

Naturally so I wouldn't be able to withdraw any of these remarks as these are clear signs of a moderator heavily abusing his position to push his own personal agenda. I believe I am generally a fair person and especially with my edits, but abuseable actions by people in positions of power is of utmost importance and must be addressed, so naturally I would like to call for a sock puppet investigation into the edits and the IP. Othmas biaggio (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I have blocked this editor indefinitely for disruption, namely consistently making unfounded sockpuppetry allegations at ANI and refusing to withdraw, battleground behaviour, and failure to drop the stick. In my opinion they are a net negative to the project at this point. Happy for review of the block as always, and any administrator is free to overturn if they wish to. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that they are now tripling-down on their talk page (permalink) and insistent that Joy is sockpuppeting with an open proxy, despite it clearly being explained to them above how this often happens with people trolling open ANI discussions. Daniel (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've declined their unblock request and revoked TPA. My reasoning @User talk:Othmas biaggio#Unblock request. El_C 20:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, obviously supportive of this action as they wouldn't cease their disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.