Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive, redundant and unexplained changes to thumbnail sizes by User:Mndata2

MOS:UPRIGHT explains how upright= should be used, specifying the circumstances where it might be reasonable to choose a thumbnail size other than the default. User:Mndata2 has visited dozens of articles, inserting upright tags without any evident logic and ignoring requests to use edit summaries to explain their reasoning. Multiple attempts on their talk page to address the issue have received no response whatever:

• First friendly advice: user talk:Mndata2#Unexplained addition of upright tags to thumbnails. No response. User started to provide terse edit summaries but continued to add unexplained upright= tags.
  • Advice reiterated by user:Pyrope. No response
• Mndata ignored the polite requests and continued disruptive editing: given a uw-disruptive2. No response.
• Disruptive editing continued, given a uw-disruptive3. No response.
• Disruptive editing continued, given a second uw-disruptive3 warning. No response.
• Disruptive editing continued: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] [24]. Given a uw-disruptive4 final warning.
  • Request reiterated by user:Murgatroyd49. No response.
• Disruption continued next day: [25], [26], [27] (twice).

WP:Communication is required. I suggest that this editor be blocked from editing until they show willing to engage in dispute resolution mechanisms. (A make-weight I know, but they also ignore notifications from DPL bot too, leaving it to others to clean up their errors.)

Is that enough? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate and wasting others time with unexplained small edits contrary to established WP:MOS means I support a block since that seems to be what it will take for Mndata2 to respond to the many concerns. TylerBurden (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mndata2 has continued to edit since the ANI reference, continues to make unexplained changes to thumbnail sizes (upright=1.1! seriously?), such as [28], [29] and [30].

All their editing is on mobile, afaics. Does that mean that they are not actually seeing any pings that there are messages on their talk page? If so, then a temporary block must be the only way to grab their attention. What do I need to do to get an administrator to intervene? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well posting here I would say was sensible since this is the definition of a chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem that requires administrator intervention since the editor either is unable or unwilling to listen to anyone else. Hopefully one will intervene before the thread is archived, otherwise perhaps an administrator could be contacted directly. TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

For science, I momentarily disabled "Advanced mode" in my preferences, and confirm that the notification icon is still visible at the top of every screen. All mobile editors would appear to receive notifications now. Folly Mox (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Out of their 21k+ editing history, they've only made two edits outside of mainspace. Two. Once on Talk:Michael Collins (astronaut) in 2021 and once on their own talk page in 2022. It is also worth raising the issue that their edit summaries are not representative of their changes. "Added comma" also changed the upright, but made no mention of it. Same with "Added link". They need to WP:ENGAGE, and it seems like after over a week of trying to get their attention, they are not responding. SWinxy (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

They're back at it after a four day break. Folly Mox (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Mndata2 (talk · contribs) now has an indefinite partial block to prevent further disruption in articles. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq. SWinxy (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:FuzzyMagma and close paraphrasing

TL;DR: Not only does FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have an extensive track record close paraphrasing, but they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes.

Summary

• FuzzyMagma has previously been warned for copyright issues (see section "Copyright problem: Republican Palace (Sudan)").
• I first noticed their edits when dying posted an extensive cross examination at WT:DYK, as part of a dispute over a DYK nomination (see first collapsible section below).
• FuzzyMagma's response was one of open contempt: "I saw the name dying and stopped reading tbh."
• Because of the clear close paraphrasing and refusal to acknowledge fault, I gave them a warning on their talk page. They immediately reverted with the edit summary "Don’t spam my talk with rubbish".
• In the five days since that warning, they have continued to add close paraphrasing to articles (see second collapsible section below).
• Yesterday, theleekycauldron opened a CCI to discuss FuzzyMagma's edits. FM's response focuses predominantly on other editors' conduct, insinuating that dying had not randomly selected the article Kalakla to look at, and only vaguely addressing the masses of close paraphrasing in their own edits: I am not saying that I have not made mistakes, I have made plenty but ...

Part of dying's source-text analysis, originally without tables at WT:DYK (20/11/2023)

Source September 1983 laws "Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by ... al-Turabi [and] allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activity. The latter took advantage of the opportunity in order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and took out massive marches in support of the move. It also provided its political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organizations, and voluntary organizations, as well as its cadres of judges ... such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi." "Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by al-Turabi and allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activities. The Brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and had massive marches in support of the move. It also provided political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organisations, and voluntary organisations, as well as its cadres of judges such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi." Source September 1983 laws "... as many as 300 Sudanese who have lost one or more limbs .... Emergency courts routinely ordered amputations for people found guilty of stealing property worth $40 or more. For those who received such punishment, stares, accusations and harassment are constant. Employment is, for them, an ever-diminishing expectation. ... Their severed limbs represent badges of criminal guilt ..., making ... wrongful arrest common. They are taunted .... The punishments sometimes brought an end to family life; to go home without a limb would mean shame .... The amputees have formed a self-help association ... to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. ... Peter Anton von Arnim ... said the Government's arguments ... included accusations that it would be a front for criminals, and that would upset Moslems who favored the Sudan's form of Islamic justice." "As many as 300 Sudanese endured the painful amputation of limbs. These punishments, administered by emergency courts, were inflicted on those found guilty of stealing property worth over $40. These amputees faced constant social stigma and accusations, making it increasingly challenging to secure employment. Their severed limbs were perceived as marks of criminality, leading to wrongful arrests and a life of taunts as they walked the streets. In many cases, these punishments shattered family lives, as returning home without a limb brought shame. ... However, they rallied together to form a self-help association, aiming to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. They ... faced opposition from the government, citing concerns that it might be used as a front for criminals and disrupt the Sudan's form of Islamic justice." Source September 1983 laws "Then, in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing draft broad constitutional amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic Republic" ( Article 1 of the draft amendments ) and for the President of the Republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" ( Article 80 of the draft amendments ), and for the sources of Sharia to be It is the law and custom that does not conflict with it ( Article 59 of the draft amendments ). Then the 1998 Constitution came to glorify the religious foundation by introducing a text on "the nature of the state," which stipulated that governance in the state belongs to God, the Creator of human beings ( Article 4 ). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation ( Article 65 ), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over the aspects of public life." " Also in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing broad constitutional draft amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic republic" (article 1 of the draft amendments), and for the president of the republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" (article 80 of the draft amendments), and for the sources of Sharia to be it is the law and custom that does not conflict with it (article 59 of the draft amendments). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation (article 65), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over aspects of public life." Source Islamism in Sudan "After the overthrow of Numeiri's rule, Al-Turabi and his men founded the "National Islamic Front," which ran in the elections for the Constituent Assembly and won third place after the two historical parties, with 54 seats, which made it the leader of the opposition. Al-Turabi succeeded once again in acting as a pressing opposition party, disrupting the attempt of Sadiq al-Mahdi, the prime minister and majority leader in parliament, to suspend the controversial September laws and initiate peace negotiations with the south." "Following the fall of Nimeiri's regime, al-Turabi and his associates established the "Islamic National Front." This newly formed group participated in the Constituent Assembly elections and secured the third position, amassing 54 seats. This achievement positioned them as the leading opposition force. Al-Turabi once again excelled in playing the role of a influential opposition party, effectively thwarting Sadiq al-Mahdi's endeavor—head of the government and the parliamentary majority—to suspend the contentious September laws and push forward peace negotiations with the southern region." Source Kalakla "The history of Al-Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kannah .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi ... came in the same era to this spot ... and the two intermarried, so the name (Al-Kalakla) came to be included in them. The ancient Kalakla migrated from Al-Manjara to the land of gravel, which is the area south of Al-Hamdab and Al-Shajara .... The Kalakla worked in agriculture, cutting trees ...." "The history of Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kanna .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi also came to the region in the same era .... The two intermarried and the name Kalakla came to include all of them. The ancient Kalakla people migrated from Al-Manjara to the today's Kalakla, an area located south of Al-Hammadab and Al-Shajara. The Kalakla people worked in agriculture, and cutting trees and lumber." and more, smaller examples. References

Post-warning close paraphrasing (21–25/11/2023)

Source War crimes during the War in Sudan (2023) "Scores of women and girls, some as young as 12, have been subjected to sexual violence - including rape - by members of the warring sides. Some were held for days in conditions of sexual slavery." "Numerous females, including girls as young as 12, have endured sexual violence, including rape, at the hands of combatants from opposing factions. Certain individuals were forcibly detained for extended periods in situations tantamount to sexual slavery." Source, Malik Maaza "He worked at universities throughout Europe and Asia before coming to South Africa as a senior lecturer at Wits University in 1997, where he became Research Group leader for the Advanced Nano-Materials and Nano-Scale Physics Lab. He has co-initiated the African Laser Centre and the South African Nanotechnology Initiative ... he initiated the Nanosciences African Network" "Maaza’s research covers not only photonics but materials science at the nano-scale for different applications such as selective solar absorbers for solar energy harvesting and conversion, Nanofluids for enhanced heat transfer in concentrated solar power (CSP) and other renewable energy technologies." "After working across universities in Europe and Asia, Maaza joined University of the Witwatersrand in 1997 as a senior lecturer and later led the Advanced Nano-Materials and Nano-Scale Physics Lab. He co-found the African Laser Centre and South African Nanotechnology Initiative that was launched in 2001 and spearheaded the Nanosciences African Network." "His research spans photonics and nano-scale materials science, targeting diverse applications like selective solar absorbers, nanofluids for enhanced heat transfer in solar power, and renewable energy technologies." References

Thus, I have no confidence that FuzzyMagma understands their mistakes or wants to fix them. This is a shame, because they are an editor who clearly cares greatly about fixing the systemic bias on the project. Hopefully, this thread conveys something of that nature to them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like I am being targeted for the same issue at two different places. Have a look here Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#FuzzyMagma.

It’s amazing that two different people (not dying) are investing time reporting this. Again not the one who claim to found something but two who sided with dying from the beginning.

Talking about systemic bias ok! You told my to drop the stick and once I pointed out that I was not the one with the stick you went quiet, and gave me a warning on my talk and now this.

At least the other admin did the decent thing and let someone impartial have a look. That is how you at least solve systemic bias.

Anyway, read my reply at CCI. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

“have an extensive track record close paraphrasing, but they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes.” do not state opinion as a fact, wait for the CCI outcome or at least read my rebuttal and don’t put your “feeling” about my rebuttal but summarise what was said using an impartial language. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How did you conclude that Malik Maaza is WP:close paraphrasing?!

please just wait for CCI, your whole summary of the incident is unfair/skewed and for some reason you want close this by providing - what you think - as more evidence FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the ongoing CCI report above FuzzyMagma; this ANI report is letting impartial administrators have a look to decide whether action needs to be taken now. If you are unable to see the clearly-outlined close paraphrasing at Malik Maaza, that may be evidence in that direction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions about why you summairsed they CCI in the way that you did. Did you read that you need to give a a brief neutral description of the dispute. What you did is not neutral.

As for Malik Maaza, I truly do not see it. How would you arrange someone early life, PhD and then date of birth? These are typical article sentence structure. and I understand that you might not be a scientist but you cannot paraphrase technical terms words like "heat transfer" and "selective solar absorbers" although I did try. They do not fit the WP:close paraphrasing (see WP:LIMITED) even when you apply earwig, it detect these names but still give 7% similarity. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma, Dying, Theleekycauldron, Rjjiii, Viriditas, and Diannaa: editors mentioned or previously involved with DYK nom or copyright; talk page notification to come shortly.

• Despite everything, I'm going to plead for leniency on FuzzyMagma's behalf. For starters – and this is partially my fault – dying's concerns at the original WT:DYK thread and the nomination discussion were communicated incredibly poorly. The first example dying cited turned out to be a dud, leading FuzzyMagma to think that they were out of the woods. dying did not clearly identify all of the sources the submitted article was copied from, within Wikipedia or otherwise, which they implied after the fact was an intentional choice on their part to spare FuzzyMagma the criticism. That led to example after example of source material and conflicting quotes from the DYK rules being thrown at FuzzyMagma, with them being tasked with sorting all of it out without a clear picture of what was going on and under the time pressure of the hook already being queued to appear on the Main Page. I hope dying's takeaway from this thread is that, though they remained civil, that choice made the thread much longer and more painful than it needed to be. None of this excuses FuzzyMagma's behavior towards dying, and it especially doesn't excuse the very legitimate copyright concerns, but I can certainly understand their frustration with this entire process, which revolves around the application of niche and esoteric DYK procedural rules designed to prevent newness-by-copying and was not explained well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have no doubt that FuzzyMagma was frustrated by the discussion at DYK, theleekycauldron. My concerns are with the ongoing addition of close paraphrasing, even after they have been explicitly warned and after you opened the CCI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If we assume everything said about the situation under discussion is true, what about a simple solution that temporarily restricts the user to draft space, where their work can be checked by interested parties, and they can demonstrate how to paraphrase appropriately? Perhaps combining this with a mentorship would be best? This would allow the user to continue their work just as they doing now, with the only difference that it would have to be checked and approved before going to main space. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The tables above show clear copyright violations and they are not permitted anywhere. I have not investigated this issue but taking the tables at face value and regardless of how poor earlier communication was, FuzzyMagma has to avoid similar edits because repeated problems of this nature have to result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The pre-warning examples are a bit long to meet WP:LIMITED IMO, but the post-warning examples are fine per WP:LIMITED. No mentorship or other action seems needed here, the "warning" seems to have worked. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A GA review of Horses in Sudan was started by A455bcd9 since the last post in this thread. After initially being put on hold, the GA review was failed the same day for OR, SYNTH, verifiability and editorialising issues with some strong criticism from a455bcd9 and also from Grorp. Grorp's changes to the article note that:

• these two sources fail to verify. the first is clear that it rarely occurred, the second is about dung as fuel (not meat), and also that
• Grorp "replaced a tertiary source (okstate) and an unreliable source containing gibberish (horseranger)".

A response from FM says that

• "what [a455bcd9] call[ed] failed verification [FM has] showed to be a failure of understanding how summaries works",
• a455bcd9 "either didn’t read ny rebuttal or choose to ignore it" (hardly AGFing), and
• advises a455bcd9 that "when you are challenged, you should normally seek a second opinion not just stick to yours"... all whils FM maintains sticking with their opinion.

Though the issue here is not COPYVIO or close paraphrasing, it is a sourcing issue and struggling to see issues in one's own work, etc. I thought a455bcd9 or Grorp might like to comment on this thread, and that perhaps further / broader consideration is needed of the issues connected with FM's editing. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I am loath to dig much deeper than what I already have done for the GA review of Horses in Sudan. In short, it seems FM copied info and [at least] 4 citations from the French-wiki and from another poorly-cited English-wiki article without checking the sources for reliability or suitability.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes: based on my only interaction with them (Talk:Horses in Sudan/GA1) I'd say this as well. After this GAN review, I wanted to check their edits as I was concerned about the (lack of) quality of their edits and their reaction to my feedback. It looks like I'm not the only one to be worried about this contributor... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Unbelievable! I stand corrected, having just discovered that the unreliable citations FuzzyMagma 'allegedly copied' from Tawleed... he put there in both articles! [31] [32] It makes me angry that I posted giving him the benefit of the doubt, just to discover that he knowingly chose crappy citations... and then defended his position in a GA review. Now evaluating his edit in Tawleed [33] and comparing the content FM added against the 3 sources he cited (to see if he might have closely paraphrased) instead I find FM made it all up; it's all WP:OR. There is nothing in those citations to support the content he added to the Tawleed article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The far paraphrasing is a much bigger problem than the close paraphrasing. Levivich (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• text: The Tawleed horse breed originated in the Khartoum region of Sudan. It is a unique breed known for its strength, endurance, and suitability as a riding horse. The breed was developed by cross-breeding native Sudan Country-Bred horses with an exotic breed, primarily Thoroughbred, which contributed to its riding qualities

• source: The Tawleed was developed in the Khartoum region of Sudan as a riding horse. It was formed by upgrading Sudan Country-Bred horses with exotic breed, primarily Thoroughbred.

• text: Tawleed horses are characterised by their sturdiness and excellent endurance, making them ideal riding horses. They are often described as strong and easy keepers, capable of thriving on meager rations.

... Despite being less renowned for its appearance compared to some other breeds, the Tawleed horse possesses qualities like stamina, endurance, and a gentle nature. These attributes, combined with its strong, short-coupled body

• source: What is known about the Tawleed horse breed is that it is used by the indigenous people of the Sudan in the mountanous areas. The breed is an extremely easy keeper. They are strong and sturdy with excellent endurance. These horses are good riding horses. The horse's gaits are not known nor are the color variations. However, it is thought that the breed will be able to be DNA traced to Thoroughbred blood.

• These attributes, combined with its strong, short-coupled body, made it suitable for various equestrian disciplines, including dressage.

• source: It is mainly intended for equestrian sport , namely races in the Khartoum region (citing Delachaux et Niestlé. p.412,

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I generally try to address the substance rather than how it is phrased but saying that "giving him the benefit of the doubt" is not true. See our first encounter Template:Horse topics#Unchecked expansion when you complained that the "evolution and history" has been expanded with CONTEMPORARY (you used all caps) articles because I added Sudan and Togo next to the United States. Later you made a new template while including the same articles you labelled as "evolution and history" with the "CONTEMPORARY" without seeing the irony.

Also at Talk:Horses in Sudan/GA1 you said that my articles related to Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics. two notes

• if you have a comment be constructive, you do not need to use gatekeeping antics. Just address the issue and leave
• Sudan in Africa, and I have never created any article about "Muslim" (or Islam) topics but I did create plenty about materials science, and plenty of other topics. In many of these topics, most editors are kind enough to give a constructive feedback; however, you choose to alienate [me].

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 there is nothing wrong about being challenged and requesting a 3O. here is an example of why I challenged you

You stated ", I could not verify the following statements using the following ref: * Sudan's horse culture dates back centuries, with horses being highly prized and associated with wealth and power. [5]; I pointed out that is a summary as the source mentions

• The families renowned for horse breeding and horsemanship in Khartoum include those of Imam Al-Mahdi, late statesman Al-Azhary, Mamoun Ahmed Mekky, Muntasir Abdul A'al, Kaboky, al-Waleed Madibo and many other families." these are wealth and powerful families
• In Darfur, the famous families connected with horses include those of Mohamed Hamid Al-Jailany (Abu Garjah), Fadul Hamdan, Ibrahim Obaid Tairab, Gony Mukhtar and others.
• strong passion for horses and they often mention those domesticated animals in their traditional ardent poems and songs gleefully listened to by every Sudanese.
• They constitute an historic legacy
• The young horseman said, after winning a championship equestrian and Presidential Assistant Abdul Rahman al-Mahdi offered him a cap and a neck-tie as a present as an incentive and promised to equip his new horse a saddle, reins, other accessories and a costume.

a 3O came and sided with you. Case closed, move on ... FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• General note: not sure where to put this, but I am getting busy in "real life" and will disappear until Xmas; thus, I might not be able to reply but at the same time I won't edit Wikipedia, except on the 9/12 for event. I hope there is no deadline for me to clarify why I did something that might be preserved as "not understanding my mistakes or want to fix them" when I think that I am trying to do that as much as I can. I work between "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it" and "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted" from Wikipedia:Be bold FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma: Do you think we're that gullible? You just gave 3 dishonest examples! Now it's my turn. Using this diff which shows your actual edit in Tawleed; you added content and cited 3 sources, and I'll mention them in order just like you did.

1. You added the content It is a unique breed known for its strength, endurance, and suitability as which is not reflected in the 1st source.

2. The 2nd source does not support this content you added: capable of thriving on meager rations. This breed has historical significance, and its development played a role in the evolution of other horse breeds, including the Andalusian and even Western Hemisphere breeds like the American Quarter Horse and Appaloosa.

3. You just now cite French Wikipedia, which isn't what you actually cited in your edit; and by the way, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. You instead had cited this blog as your 3rd source which contains none of the content you added, "Despite being less renowned for its appearance compared to some other breeds, the Tawleed horse possesses qualities like stamina, endurance, and a gentle nature. These attributes, combined with its strong, short-coupled body, made it suitable for various equestrian disciplines, including dressage."

To those reading this thread here on ANI, this is a perfect example of "does not properly acknowledge their mistakes," but instead has dishonestly tried to convince the readers otherwise.

And while I was drafting this note, FuzzyMagma wrote more screed about this or that, just more reactive pushback that I won't bother to address, except for this: FuzzyMagma, my point about related to Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics was to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not a horse-topic editor and might have gotten it wrong because of your lack of experience on the topic. The word 'muslim' was because your edit history shows you created a lot of BLPs of muslim-type-named persons. Maybe I should have used a different word, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter and was only pointing out you don't edit horse articles!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma: no horses being highly prized and associated with wealth and power cannot be backed by the source saying "The families renowned for horse breeding and horsemanship in Khartoum include those of Imam Al-Mahdi, late statesman Al-Azhary, Mamoun Ahmed Mekky, Muntasir Abdul A'al, Kaboky, al-Waleed Madibo and many other families." and YOU guessing because you know/think/consider that "these are wealth and powerful families". This is WP:OR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If some people want to dig deeper: FM has 12 articles waiting for review at WP:GAN. (Including Islamic Sharia laws in Sudan, a Sudanese Islamic leader, and Islamic school in Sudan: so I'm surprised that FM denied contributing to "Muslim" (or Islam) topics. There's nothing wrong about these topics, just weird to deny this unobjectionable fact...). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s weird that you are changing the name of these articles to justify [not sure what to call it]

And Just drop the stick and go annoy someone else, you clearly don’t understand the difference between summaries and WP:OR, and don’t understand that I put these articles to be reviewed 🤦‍♂️ FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the wrong approach. Aside from the close paraphrasing issue -- there are still articles, like Islamism in Sudan, which are almost entirely close paraphrasing of one or two sources (e.g. the Google translation of ref #5 in that article), which alone is enough to get you kicked out of here -- there is the separate, and in my view worse, problem that some of the stuff you're writing is completely failing verification; it seems like you just made it up. Examples are given in this thread above and in the Horses in Sudan GA, but just to pick three, "capable of thriving on meager rations," "which still races on the Khartoum racecourse," and "being highly prized and associated with wealth and power." Your explanations above are original research--your own interpretation of the sources or of picture you've seen or whatever, but not something actually verified by the sources. None of those three quotes are verified by the sources.

Both the "close paraphrasing" and the "far paraphrasing" are very serious issues. You should go through your work, check everything for close paraphrasing and re-word it, check everything for failed verification and fix it up, so that no one else has to do that. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

ok will do that starting with Islamism in Sudan. I will do it in few weeks FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you really think that I did not know what WP:GAN was @FuzzyMagma? I pointed out to these 12 articles precisely because you put these articles to be reviewed. It means that you consider them good. So they may represent the best of your edits and the community could look at them to check whether your best meets Wikipedia requirements. The article I reviewed (Horses in Sudan) unfortunately showed a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic policies (OR, Verifiability, and RS). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Really! Have a look again. I have more articles of BLP with non “muslim-type” name. See these for example: James Marrow, Fionn Dunne, Angus Kirkland, David Dye, Dierk Raabe, Archie Mafeje, Bona Malwal,Godwin Obasi, Edemariam Tsega, Livingstone Mqotsi,Eugene Aujaleu, Marcin Kacprzak, Anne Ormisson, Handojo Tjandrakusuma, Francesco Pocchiari, Mário Barbosa,Francisco Cambournac, Werner Pinzner and many many more!

they cover different topics but no one tried to alienate me during writing them. Many editors came, provided good advise, good mentorship and walked through stuff and I did the same whatever I could. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the tldr at the top of this thread, FuzzyMagma actively dismiss[es] any warnings about their editing and do[es] not properly acknowledge their mistakes, with a link provided to WP:Disruptive editing § Failure or refusal to "get the point". Very apropos. Levivich is also right; "close paraphrasing" is too narrow a focus for the real problem we're looking at.

Fuzzy defends their actions rather than just fix the problem. They are not listening to the community when the community says they want to see better judgment skills for sourcing and creating content. For example, in this ANI thread, no one but Fuzzy cares that I used the word "muslim" in Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics and yet Fuzzy went on to repeatedly focus on and resist the word "muslim"; but it's irrelevant to what we're trying to discuss (Red herring). Another example, in response to one of my comments above, Fuzzy goes on and on about some horsey template we'd both edited (I didn't even remember it was Fuzzy who created the mess I cleaned up) and tried to turn the focus on me and my editing, which isn't at issue in this ANI thread (Whataboutism). These are examples of "not listening" and not addressing the actual issues being brought up.

To sum it up, we have an editor here who has shown repeatedly that he includes close paraphrasing (copyright issues), adds original research, uses unreliable and inadequate sources in an attempt to hide OR, pushes back against those who point out something wrong, doesn't change his method of dealing with other editors, and hasn't over many months (despite it being pointed out) corrected his sourcing and content-creation issues.

Some of this would be excusable for a new editor, but FuzzyMagma is not a new editor: a year of heavy editing, 24,000 edits, 200 mainspace articles created. We are long past the stage when a new editor should have learned how to identify a reliable source, and how to use a source to create content. We shouldn't still be seeing these fundamental content issues this far into FuzzyMagma's editing history. That tells me this editor is absolutely disruptive to the project. It's not just about 'refusal to get the point'; see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, especially point #2: Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of Doug Coldwell. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Crorp, these are your words. if you want a focused discussion then do not use them. just focus on commenting on the issue not my credentials or personality or your feelings.

Falsely categorising my work as "Sudan/Africa/Muslim" is your doing not mine, and not sure why you did it. as I said from the beginning, you can make your point without pushing a false narrative. You also did not need to paint yourself as good by saying "giving him the benefit of the doubt", And now you also making the same mistake by saying "We are long past the stage when a new editor should have learned how to identify a reliable source, nothing here is about that! no one is talking about reliable sources, non of your examples talk about that. Again just focus on the problem that you want to address, say your piece and leave.

I can also tag 10s of editors who can attest that their experience with myself was good but that is beside the point. This is not about how editors "felt" when they discussed issues with me, this is about me failing to acknowledge my mistakes and failing to fix them, two accusation that can end my work here, so I am not going to take them lightly.

Again, I have not tag any1 that I believe can support my case or discussion where I did "acknowledge my mistakes and fixed them" and I truly have plenty. I am trying to defend my case as it stands while also fix the problems that are genuine, and leave it to uninvolved parties to weigh in, and respect whatever decision they reach. Take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

no one is talking about reliable sources: of course we're talking about this as well, as you keep citing poor quality blogs and even Wikipedia. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I do quite admire FuzzyMagma's commitment to trying to remain in control of the discussion by not addressing any of the relevant details: as I said a week ago they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes. All along, this discussion has been about FM's inability to use sources correctly. As they are, by their own admission, very busy until Christmas, one might think that they use what little time they have to address these issues. But do they? Absolutely not. They are far more concerned with other issues—they love accusing others of "using their own words" (ironic, really), or false/biased/skewed/unfair reasoning, or perhaps "forgetting" that they cited French Wikipedia or a random blog while complaining that others need to focus on the problems.

Of course, they aren't taking these accusations lightly, so they're making sure to acknowledge their errors, through comments like And Just drop the stick and go annoy someone else, you clearly don’t understand the difference between summaries and WP:OR, and don’t understand that I put these articles to be reviewed 🤦‍♂️ or if you have a comment be constructive, you do not need to use gatekeeping antics. Just address the issue and leave.

Levivich is absolutely right; this is a mini-Doug Coldwell situation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope this will be my last response. I realise that my request for time may be seen as an ANI flu, but it has allowed me to reflect on the meaning of this ANI and consider whether I want to continue editing. I do want to continue.

Yesterday, I was watching Plagiarism and You(Tube) and it hit me like a ton of bricks that I truly done f'd up things here. I acknowledge that I’ve made errors, taken shortcuts in some articles, and not taken things as seriously as I should have. I am an academic and for some reason it did not click in my mind that things here was as important as in "real life". It was wrong

I apologise to the editors who have lost faith in me and may be reading this with skepticism. I promise to review my work where I know the quality was lacking and make necessary corrections. It’s unfortunate that I know where I’ve cut corners, especially since I didn’t do so with the ‘September 1983 laws’ article, which started all this. I trivialised the importance of maintaining high editorial standards here and didn’t take responsibility for my mistakes.

I plan to take some time off to clear my head and think about how to rectify the situation. I still want to continue editing because I believe I can contribute positively, but I understand if this message is ignored and I end up being blocked. I accept that it’s my fault. I should have admitted my mistakes and taken time to reflect instead of reacting. I shouldn’t have been defensive and should have used this as a learning opportunity but I did not and I am sorry for that! take care .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tbf, that's a good acknowledgement/apology. Thanks for your response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, thanks @FuzzyMagma. Actions speak louder than words though. The first step may be to go through your WP:GAN nominations and withdraw those for which you may have any doubts to work on them and re-nominate them later (unless you think they're good to go and in that's case, that's fine). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the statement above that FuzzyMamga is taking a break and there being no editing since then, I have removed the current GAN nominations. This does not mean they can not be renominated if there are no issues, although perhaps renomination should not happen if the CCI case is accepted until that process has concluded. CMD (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Really glad to see FuzzyMagma's message above. @Chipmunkdavis: do you plan to do put up for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment his current GA-rated articles? For reference, they are:

• Mohamed El-Amin Ahmed El-Tom
• 475 °C embrittlement
• Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan
• El Hadi Ahmed El Sheikh
• Electron backscatter diffraction
• Kandake of the Sudanese Revolution
• Mansour Ali Haseeb
• Mike Wingfield

If so, could you ping me when you begin? And also, FuzzyMagma, would you have a preference on order of reassessment if you want to participate in that process? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As a CCI has been requested, opening separate GARs might duplicate processes. My feeling is that if problems are found in the CCI a GAR can point to that, if no problems are found during the CCI then a GAR might not be needed. CMD (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I just looked at the first one, and tagged one paragraph cited to ref 10 as fv, the paragraph cited to ref 41 looks like clop, the next paragraph cited to 42 seems to mis-state which entities signed the MOU. I stopped checking after finding these (and only tagged the first one), so I don't know if there are others. That article was reviewed by a non-EC editor (we allow non-EC editors to do GA reviews???). The others on the list were reviewed by more experienced editors. Levivich (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Stonewalling by Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 ([34] and [35]).

I suspect, based on previous reverts ([36]) 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: [37] (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.[38][39] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alomomola and common names of fish

User:Alomomola has repeatedly created articles about fish species with invented common names. The scientific name named in the article will be correct, but the common name false. Both I and User:Skarmory tried to engage with them at User_talk:Alomomola#Paracheilinus_amanda, first by asking politely where they found the name, and gradually escalating, but there's been zero communication back from them. They briefly backed off after the warnings, and resumed creating several legitimate articles under the scientific names of species for the title, but they have now resumed inventing common names like Easter Island infantfish and Rapa Nui infantfish for Schindleria squirei. Not a trace of either name can be found online. Puerto Rico grunt will need to be moved by an admin to species name Rhonciscus pauco, without redirect: the only reference I could find for that common name was from iNaturalist.nz, which turned out to be a WP mirror. Since they never bothered to communicate back about it, it's hard to tell if they're simply having fun inventing common names, or are just making honestly mistaken inferences from misreading something online. Some admin intervention would be helpful. Wikishovel (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, redirects deleted, page moved as requested. Let me know if you need anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I've started moving some more: could you please delete the made-up common names at redirects Great deep-water cardinalfish, Whipfin bass, Coral Sea slimehead, Shinyscale fairy basslet, Shiny-lined grunt. This could well take a while. Maybe I should post a list of these to your talk page? Wikishovel (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That would work. I'll be around for the next couple hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been going on since July, and is a big cleanup job, needing not just moves and deletion of bad redirects, but also reverts of vandalism to fish articles (mostly sourced by inaturalist.nz mirrors of the vandalism). I'll ask for help over at WikiProject Fishes, and then come back to you with a list ASAP, so I won't need to dripfeed you the requests. Thanks again for your help with this. Wikishovel (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. This definitely isn't my field or I'd offer to help some more, but at least I can do the deletion and moving part wherever needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it is over-enthusiasm rather than deliberate vandalism. Schindleria squirei is a newly described species of infantfish from around Easter Island (Rapa Nui) so it is not unreasonable to refer to it as the Easter Island infantfish, although that doesn't make it the common name (especially in the Wikipedia sense). For another example, Abudefduf conformis, the paper originally describing the fish (see [40]) mentions "the color pattern of this Marquesan damselfish", meaning a damselfish from the Marquesa Islands rather a fish with the vernacular name "Marquesan damselfish". The names certainly shouldn't be added as vernacular names until other sources use them, and the lack of engagement is an obvious problem, but the creation of new articles for newly described fish seems a genuine effort to contribution to the encyclopaedia. I'm not questioning the block, just suggesting that Alomomola shouldn't be treated as a vandal if they do reach out in an attempt to return. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Jts1882: your WP:AGF is admirable, but the sheer weight of previously unknown common names added, all sourced to iNaturalist mirrors of the WP articles in question, leads me to believe that they either thought it was OK to make up common names, or that these are deliberate hoaxes. If you can find a RS for any of these, I'd be grateful, and will use the RS to recreate anything that's been removed. Wikishovel (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: it turns out that WikiProject Fishes is a lightly monitored project, so I've gone ahead and fixed the problems myself, though I haven't yet dug for mentions of these fake common names in other fish articles. Thanks to User:Valereee for deleting the first five fake common names listed above.

Can you please also delete these fake common name redirects:

• Kuroiwa's goby
• Drag chromis
• Shade damselfish
• Honeytail demoiselle
• Nipponic blenny
• Parrot wrasse
• Tapanahoni Pleco
• Creole pleco
• Rigid spiny pleco
• Beige stream pleco
• Pauya pleco
• Erica's pleco
• Wood-sucker pleco
• Starry pleco
• Cordova pleco
• Rock pleco
• Bolivian stream pleco
• Black-dotted pleco
• Painted spiny pleco
• Iguazu spotted pleco
• Brazilian stream pleco
• Mud black pleco
• Palauan anthias
• Mato Grosso astyanax
• Naked moray
• Flame hogfish
• Barrier Reef flasher wrasse
• Javanese blaasop
• Red Sea deep-water toby
• Glassy goby
• Natal dartfish
• Kleinenberg's morid
• Agassiz's flapjack octopus
• Noronha dragonfish

I've moved some of the articles above, where permissions allowed, to their correct scientific names. The remaining three titles will need page mover permissions to fix, so can you please:

• move Atoll demoiselle to Pomacentrus xanthocercus without leaving a redirect
• move Island cusk-eel to Ophidion zavalai without leaving a redirect
• move Fukui's candy hogfish to Terelabrus zonalis without leaving a redirect; then I can point the existing correct common name redirect Striped hogfish to Terelabrus zonalis

Many thanks again for the help. Wikishovel (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be all set there, Animum's mass delete tool is a godsend. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, that's a new one for me! Valereee (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to spread it around! I remember it took me a few minutes to figure out how to get to the interface, but those few minutes have probably saved me hours over the years. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you found refrename yet? It goes through and changes all the VisEd ":2" refnames to something readable by humans. Fabulous. Valereee (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not... until now! Thanks for the tip, could definitely use that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Indian king mackerel and Mediterranean Pygmy Goby are two more common names invented by Alomomola that needs to be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Dragfish is another of theirs that needs its redirect removed. Averixus (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, could you please also delete these two three redirects? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

User:WMrapids (blanking)

The editor WMrapids has repeatedly blanked sourced content from articles:[41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Despite having warned against this several times ([48][49][50][51]) (and admittedly restoring the removal in the Colectivo (Venezuela) article), WMrapids has continued with these removals: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. In the case of the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article, the editor dropped a WP:TAGBOMB and a lot of inline tags in the content that they wished to remove: [59]

This has been part of a complex problem that has been ongoing for months. Very briefly, after a heated move discussion, WMrapids shifted from editing in articles about Peru to those about Venezuela around May 2023, mostly politics and current events. Their pattern has consisted mostly in repeatedly reinstating disputed content, discussing about the issues while the content is present, not when it has been removed (contrary to WP:BRD). Said articles include Operation Gideon (2020), Nelson Bocaranda and others about Venezuelan media outlets, among others. This has included long-term edit warring, and it should be noted that WMrapids was already blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia in April for this before switching to Venezuelan topics. When the editor has failed to add desired content, they have resorted to include it in recently created articles as a sort of POV fork. For example, disputed or rephrased content in La Salida article was added in the Guarimba#La Salida section (portraying the 2014 Venezuelan protests as mostly violent), while the one that has been objected in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources and related media outlets was added in the Venezuelan opposition#Media section of the recently created page (portraying independent outlets as part of the Venezuelan opposition).

I started the Guarimba and Venezuelan opposition threads in the NPOV noticeboard to explain these problems further, and even further content can be found at "WMrapids reported by Alejandro Basombrio (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)", "WMrapids reported by NoonIcarus (Result: No violation)" and "User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS". The behavior has led many editors to become tired and frustrated with the discussions. ReyHahn, originally active at the Operation Gideon talk page, decided to simply stop participating weeks ago, while SandyGeorgia has explicitly said that she has unwatched related articles because they prove too exhausting to keep up ([60][61][62][63]). I personally can say, too, that at this point it seems just better to stop editing in these articles for being so stressful and that any discussion has proven fruitless.

While this behavior may not fit neatly into a single pattern, it is clear that it is disruptive. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been a consistent issue of limited participation in Venezuelan topics. As NoonIcarus mentions, our interactions began during discussion on the 2022 Peruvian coup attempt article. After they raised comparisons to the topic and Venezuelan events, I reviewed Venezuelan topics in general. After W1tchkr4ft 00 said that Venezuelan topics have continuous, uninviting NPOV conflicts, I explained my involvement in Venezuelan topics to them in this discussion: "I also didn't want to get involved in [Venezuelan] topics either since I was immediately barraged with reverts and threats of blocks, but I saw a need and had to fill it. Overall, we need more participation on Venezuelan articles because they are very controversial and have some fairly blatant POV issues. If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments." Upon my entry into the subject, I endured tag team editing and hounding against concerns I raised, including from NoonIcarus. Compared to other users involved in Venezuelan topics, there is no desire for me to have Venezuelan articles to have bias leaning one way or another (prior to this the was only and interest in Michigan and Peru topics) since the issues concerning the topic approached me instead of the other way around. As W1tchkr4ft 00 said in our discussion "the usual thoughts and feelings around such articles that any changes towards neutrality will be an uphill battle with the so called people who inhabit this space ... all stresses that make it more often than not simply - to me at least, i am sure to others too though - not worth attempting". So NoonIcarus' attempts to blame me for users disengaging is not the case; the main issue is that we have a controversial articles with limited participation. Sure, other users can come forward and say they took a break because they were frustrated with my edits, but I can say the same with other users too when I took some time off. It is important and healthy for all of us to disengage from controversial topics sometimes.

About the previous block on Spanish Wikipedia regarding these edits, I was unaware of edit warring behavior (new to controversial topics) and the user who I was edit warring with has been blocked indefinitely for English Wikipedia for... edit warring. So I admittedly fell into their trap.

Regarding allegations of blanking, if there were issues present, then of course I would attempt to remove them. NoonIcarus uses an argument of "stable version" to support the inclusion of contested material consistently, which I will address later. For instance, in the article Bolivarian propaganda, I removed a multitude of BLP violations, original research and inappropriate usage of primary sources that was placed targeting alleged supporters of the Venezuelan government. For NoonIcarus and similar users, there were no apparent issues with the Bolivarian propaganda article as they permitted the inappropriate information on the article for years. There was also my removal of POV material from Colectivo (Venezuela) (it previously described the groups as "terrorists" three times without attributing the political position of the National Assembly), which was reverted by NoonIcarus who simply said in an edit summary "Not a reason to delete the whole content", blanket reverting my good faith edits. Another case was the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article, where a single source provides the majority of the information; I was admittedly not aware of WP:TAGBOMB as my intentions were genuinely to attribute information and tag concerns present in the article. I innocently thought that placing such tags was appropriate after NoonIcarus and a separate user did so on Venezuelan opposition[64][65], Guarimba[66][67] and other articles. Burrobert has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging behavior here and here. NoonIcarus has participated in possible blanking themself, also on Venezuelan opposition[68][69][70][71][72][73][74] and Guarimba[75][76]. Some significant blanking by NoonIcarus involved removing controversial information related to the Venezuelan opposition, specifically Globovisión[77][78] and Alberto Federico Ravell[79]. La Salida is also another article where NoonIcarus participated in stonewalling to remove information that the Venezuelan opposition attempted to remove Maduro through protests; this required my inclusion of multiple sources while NoonIcarus frequently moved the goalposts and participated in sealioning, demanding evidence. Per WP:SATISFY, this behavior by NoonIcarus can result with a ban.

As for NoonIcarus, they have participated on the project with concerning behavior since their first edits on English Wikipedia during the 2014 Venezuelan protests. Shortly after our first encounters, I noticed that NoonIcarus was previously using an essay that they primarily created, WP:VENRS, to inappropriately remove large amounts of material through hundreds of edits. After months of editing, earlier this month, I raised concerns about NoonIcarus' potential advocacy edits on their talk page after seeing images that they were involved in protests against the Venezuelan government. This is no attempt to out NoonIcarus since I am not including personal information; I have reviewed the previous behavior towards them which was completely unacceptable and I would not want to experience that myself. But NoonIcarus has been present beside armed protesters on various occasions and among top Venezuelan opposition leaders. One can say this is an association fallacy, but if it looks like a duck (physically beside opposition leaders and protesters) and acts like a duck (participates in edits supporting Venezuelan opposition POV), then it's probably a duck.

Now returning to the "stable version" concerns; this was raised in the same post on their talk page regarding my thoughts on potential advocacy. NoonIcarus would inappropriately use the "stable version" argument while reverting edit summaries without explanation, doing so after this concern was raised. It appears that their behavior has improved somewhat as they continued to threaten me with blocks and prepared this ANI.

Overall, Venezuelan topics will remain controversial and with limited participation, the few users who stick around become fixated on what they interpret is "stable", with or without their bias glasses on. As I said above regarding Venezuelan topics, "If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments". While I could probably make further complaints about NoonIcarus' behavior, I hold no ill will towards them since I understand that we are stuck in a controversial topic where circular (sometimes heated) arguments may occur. As always, I'm open to listen to any concerns and learn how my behavior can be rectified for the future. WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We can all agree that there are appropriate removals of content, such as vandalism, "BLP violations, original research and inappropriate usage of primary sources".

This complaint is not about that. I'm not citing "legitimate" or possibly debatable removals, but rather disruptive and persistent ones that WMrapids has not addressed here. These have been characterized by 1) Removal of appropriately sourced content, 2) opposition by involved users and 3) sometimes, edit warring. Getting more detailed:

Examples of blanking

Most recently, at the Rupununi Rebellion, WMrapids has repeatedly removed information about extrajudicial killings: 1 2 3 4. They have said that it is because of failed verification and because the source was unreliable, respectively. I have pointed out that old information might be kept, just like with dead links (WP:KDL), and asked for further information, but haven't received it for the moment. WMrapids has also cited WP:WEIGHT for some of these removals (not only reliance on a single source, as it is the case with the 2002 coup article): 5 6 7 8 9 10. This has included the implementation of the crowd control Plan Ávila and the cleanup of a shootout scene, which I'm baffled of how it can be considered undue weight for the article, and at times has included edit warring: 11 12. Regarding the Colectivo (Venezuela) article, the editor has not explained why they removed information about the groups presence in the country:13 (even when I acknowledge that this was placed back after I objected to it 14). Same with the Venezuelan oil shipments at the Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis: 15. Just like with the examples above, it is not a "BLP violation, original research" or a "inappropriate use of primary sources". Removals have included content sourced by La Patilla, for instance: 16 17 18, whose reliability was questioned by WMrapids but said assessment is disputed. Its current WP:RSP entry is "No consensus". This is one of the "grey areas" that I'm referring to, but plenty of these times I easily found the information covered by another source and it's worth mentioning regardless.

Most of the removals that removals that WMrapids is referring to is recently added controversial content by them. In many cases several editors opposed the chances at the same time, explanations ranging from original research to veracity (not just for the sake of only a consensus or the stable version) have been provided and there have been countless discussions on the matter: Talk:Guarimba#Tags, Talk:Guarimba#Gara, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#POV, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Media section and Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Scholars opinions, just to mention a few and the ones that the user cited. Plenty of this content has been tagged to prevent edit warring, hence the tags. This is different from WMrapids' removals: usually they are the only editor supporting them and many times there has been insistance in the removal, the Rupununi Rebellion article being the last case. I just noticed that some of the examples of "blanking" are just content moves to other articles:[80][81]; I frankly find the comparison dishonest and would like it to be corrected.

As for other accusations, I already provided a response that I will stick to, in few words: To anyone interested: I don't belong and have not belonged to any political party (nor I wish to), and I have avoided editing about any notable people that I might have a relation with, however small it might be. I'm from Venezuela, and that's something that both I have been open about and that can be easily confirmed by visiting my user page. I have likewise been editing for almost ten years now, and I have been a member of Wikimedia Venezuela for several years as well. It's only natural that I'm interested and knowledgeable about edition about my home country. In the last ANI I said that if personal attacks stopped, I said that no action would be needed, but they have continued:[82] Helping Commons to have media with Creative Commons licenses should barely count as "advocacy", and the removal in "hundred of edits" mostly consisted in the removal of the sources and not the material, which included Correo del Orinoco, now considered an unreliable source in WP:RSP. This should not distract from the issue at hand.

All of this should be a reminder that this is an intersectional issue, and should be evaluated as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, there appears to be a double standard on your part. The "stable versions" of multiple articles that you supported were undue and you create the excuse that "it's been this way for (X amount of time), so you can't remove it". If it's undue and inappropriate, then yes, it should be removed. It's not my fault that other users are scared away from editing a controversial topic like Venezuela and don't review the broad range of issues still present in the topic.

Here is a short response to your "examples":

1. You can see in my most recent edits that the reports of "extrajudicial killings" were exaggerated according to a more reputable source. I'll provide a response later, but as for now, I'm stuck here with this...
2. Yes. Having 60 citations from a single source as the framework for 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt (with the author happening to be a fiction writer with little previous experience) is undue weight in support of that source. As for the clear POV section that you created (cleanup of a shootout scene), it was created by you using only the disputed author as a source. I thoroughly explained this when I removed this.
3. It was an article by an opposition media mogul of El Nacional (Venezuela) that only had the "colectivo" word mentioned in an image caption, which wasn't clear.
4. What Venezuela does with its money is not relevant to shortages in the country (nations have financial/agreement obligations, you know). The information you were supporting was not relevant, was synthesis and was undue in an apparent attempt to lead readers.
5. Again, the conclusion of the La Patilla RfC could have been more clear; it says "Avoid use in contentious topics", yet even though Venezuela is an obviously "contentious topic", it is not labeled as so in WP:CTOP. Maybe Venezuela should be included.

About your accusation that "several editors opposed", there was you and another user who were mostly active on Venezuelan topics in the last month. That is it. So such claims are misleading.

Regarding your possible advocacy, one can look at the article Venezuelan opposition that opposing the government is less party/ideological (as you argue) than it is just being united in opposition to the Venezuelan government. I'm not going to badger you about whether or not you were protesting or not, but your bias in support of the Venezuelan opposition is clear and present.

For your claim that your edits "consisted in the removal of the sources and not the material", that is false. In a previous RSN discussion, I outlined how you would remove a source per your WP:VENRS essay (even if it were properly attributed), mark it as "citation needed" and then later remove the material since it no longer had a source (after you removed the source). Regarding the 2002 coup article, I also detailed how you cited your essay while blanking information from the article, including author Bart Jones, without explanation. I placed back much of this information, which you also left with "citation needed" tags after you removed the original sources, leading one to think that you may have repeated your similar behavior of remove source, tag and then remove material. Without a thorough review of your edits, one cannot know how much material you have removed from Wikipedia using this method.

So, recognizing that it takes two to edit war, you can plaster templates on my wall, but it is only inflaming the situation when you yourself are performing disruptive edits that the community has to deal with, possibly years later as you maintain your "stable version". I've made multiple attempts to encourage more inclusion and to avoid heated disputes in Venezuelan topics, including RfCs. Despite our conflicting edits, the lack of participation in Venezuelan topics is the main issue that I'm seeing here. WMrapids (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also want to bring attention to NoonIcarus casting aspersions and accusing me of placing misinformation, yet NoonIcarus cites a self-described nation with links to the Venezuelan government for controversial claims about Guyana committing killings. NoonIcarus appears determined to include fringe information supported by Venezuela that these killings took place; academics state that only 2-3 deaths occurred and described higher numbers as "rumors". Looking at the history of NoonIcarus, they have previously participated in blanking on Rupununi uprising as well,[83][84][85][86] in an apparent attempt of advocating for rebel positions and the Venezuelan claims of the Guayana Esequiba.--WMrapids (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids filed a request at DRN for moderated dispute resolution at 00:14, 2 December, about twelve hours after NoonIcarus filed this report. I closed the report at DRN because the dispute was already pending in another forum, here. It appears that this dispute is not being addressed here, but maybe I am being either too optimistic or too pessimistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

While this report may bring some admin eyes, more content eyes from those with a bit of time would be useful on the Guayana Esequiba article. There have been a lot of changes during the past few days of heavy recent attention, including at some point the name "Essequibo" which seems used across English sources being removed from the lead. CMD (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

IP Seasons

• 75.39.37.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:284C:859:A7D4:4F5D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:8F9:7068:FBD4:E0BE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:95C0:C699:5241:1031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:3D4F:A901:6049:ACFE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These IPs are insistent at adding seasons behind show names in the 2nd Children's and Family Emmy Awards article. Can somebody please block them for distruptive editing? Scoophole2021 (talk). 13:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

2601:408:C500:2000:B599:1A1C:C1FD:A4C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one too! Scoophole2021 (talk). 02:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

2601:408:C500:2000:ED87:830F:6E4F:B3A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And also this one Scoophole2021 (talk). 11:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2601:408:C500:2000:C4:7E1:79A7:DDC8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oh yeah, this one too (this is getting monotonous) Scoophole2021 (talk). 00:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Azmarai76

User:Azmarai76 has been repeatedly edit warring and making a series of unconstructive edits to Swati tribe[87][88][89][90][91], adding self-published tags over sources published by Duke University and ISMEO, the basis of which being the claim that they got printed by Pashtun fascists.[92] The user has not provided a single source in the support of the claims they want to get added, even after being asked many times to do so at talk page.[93][94][95] Instead, they just have been adding irrelevant wikipedia guidelines links inspite of being requested to not do so.

Azmarai76 has been already warned by User:Fayenatic london multiple times to stop removing references and to adhere with WP:NPOV. [96][97] Sutyarashi (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going through some of their recent work now. The issue isn't only that they're tagging things that shouldn't be tagged, they're also not using tags properly. They're doing things like inserting "WP:INTEGRITY" directly in the article beside statements they don't like, and "WP:RSPIMPROVE" directly in front of references they think need to be improved. They aren't even the right guidelines for their arguments. In other instances they add malformed tags like "{citation needed}}" (often in front of a source which already supports the statement they're demanding a citation for) or they just write in the text that the proper tag would produce, like "[unreliable source"]. Some of this may be because they are editing very rapidly and may not be checking their work, but it's highly disruptive regardless.

After Fayenatic London's warning about NPOV they responded "Yes brother I know these NGO guys and their ways to make foriegners believe what they say", which is not a promising response for neutrality. They do have a point about the Wemountains source, it has been suspended by its hosting provider but archives do strongly suggest it hosted user-generated content. It's also very difficult to follow their arguments because of their odd indentation style and lack of command of English, but it does seem to me that while they're challenging and removing sources they disagree with, they have yet to provide any source to back up their own arguments, instead just insisting that they are correct. This seems like a WP:CIR block situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources even the genetic studies I provided, and even modern historians like Haroon ur Rashed weren't accepted by Sutyarashi and he threatened me thrice. He called Raverty and Dorn B. As British servants and wants to keep Leitner in support of Dards despite the fact Leitner was also RAJ times. He also misquoted Angluish that Sultanate of Swat was collection of dardic states which the author never wrote. Moreover, Sutayarshi wants Tajiks category be changed to Dards on the basis of one reference which isn't correct but misleading for Wikipedia readers. He is ready to take definition of the term Dardestan from Iranica. Com but denies to consider the definition of dehgan from iranica. He simply wants the misleading material to spread across Wikipedia and still wants it to look genuine. Regards Azmarai76

Azmarai76 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Provide any diff about with what or where did I threaten you. About rest of para, well, what can I say. Even during talk page discussion it was almost impossible to know what exactly were your objections over the sources or what changes you wanted to make, especially since you didn't provide any source, reliable or otherwise, over there. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore Angluish never gave any sounds or alphabets to Gabri language rather his opinion that the language was dardic. He didn't have anything in support of his assertion. I fail to understand if we have to keep Wikipedia clean and avoid falsifications or otherwise.

Sutyarashi is constantly negating all references and even genetic studies as Primary Sources or RAJ. He has threatened me thrice and made disruptive edits to three pages Sultanate of Swat, Swati tribe and even Pashtunization process. He has passed on derogatory remarks on authors like Raverty, Elphinstone, Dorn B., Haroon ur Raseed and others on one basis or other while is ready to keep a RAJ author Leitner as a source without whom Dard term would never have come into existence as he was the first to have come up with this term. Similarly, he is ready to undo all Wikipedia policies on source integrity to online verification of sources to Tabloid Journalism to assert his point of view on other editors and also Wikipedia readers. Regards

Azmarai76 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Provide evidence that I threatened you anywhere, passed any derogatory remarks on anyone or undid "Wikipedia policies on source integrity". Otherwise they are just baseless accusations, and probably even constitute personal attack. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Propose indef for Azmarai76: I read through the talk page discussion and it was painful. Azmarai has failed to provide any sources to back up their claims and repeatedly claimed that Sutyarashi is threatening them. The first time was in response to this warning not to edit war, which wasn't a threat. I was unable to find anything else that could constitute a threat. This, combined with the mentioned weird indentation and difficult in making themselves understood, makes me think a WP:CIR block may be in order. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Propose indef for Azmarai76: Agree with EducatedRedneck and Ivanvector about the possible WP:CIR block. Especially seeing how they have failed to give even a single evidence of their repeated accusations against me, and that they did not provide a single reference during the entire talk page discussion, and just kept on claiming that they are somehow more credible than the references present, I have very little confidence in that they can contribute to wikipedia constructively. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if it's directly relevant to the current issue, but Azmarai76 has been blocked once for personal attacks and edit warring at the very same page. This suggests that it is somewhat a deep-rooted behavioural issue, especially since their recent conduct is not any better. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Dani and Haroon ur Rasheed were the references that I provided which you dont want to accept. Similarly you still need to tell us all where has Angluish written in his book that Sultanate of Swat was collection of many Dardic states??... Do tell all that what you said about British authors not WP:RAJ but "British Servants" and deleted your comment. Didnt you?? Do tell others how you were reported on these pages for sockpuppetry also.Azmarai76

You nowhere provided reference of Dani, and I told about Haroon ur Rasheed that he is not expert. I have nowhere deleted my any comment and never once I have been reported at ANI "for sockpuppetry". Your replies and accusations (without providing a single piece of evidence) make me think that now WP:CIR block maybe even necessary, especially after seeing that all of your edits are in contentious topics under WP:ARBIP.

@Ivanvector: can you please check the replies Azmarai76 has so far made? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Do remember you did tell me that user Huzaifa reported you for sockpuppetry...and were angry with it. Are you going to tell me Angluish never mentioned Sultanate of Swat was a collection of Dardic states where did these sentences come from??? If we stick to academic discourse we can improve these pages otherwise no advantage. Azmarai76

No, I have never been reported for sockpuppetry by some user Huzaifa. This is yet another lie you have made up on the spot. I wish administrators just see into this matter. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support block of appropriate length; editor is clearly on a WP:RGW mission. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I really wish someone could tell me how to stop falisfication of certain editors on Wikipedia. Especially, ones with little will to keep records straight. ~~ Azmarai76

Commenting to keep it from being archived. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi

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

---

User:Sutayarshi is constantly negating all references and even genetic studies as Primary Sources or RAJ. He has threatened me thrice and made disruptive edits to three pages Sultanate of Swat, Swati tribe and even Pashtunization process. He has passed on derogatory remarks on authors like Raverty, Elphinstone, Dorn B., Haroon ur Raseed and others on one basis or other while is ready to keep a RAJ author Leitner as a source without whom Dard term would never have come into existence as he was the first to have come up with this term. Similarly, he is ready to undo all Wikipedia policies on source integrity to online verification of sources to Tabloid Journalism to assert his point of view on other editors and readers. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You have not notified Sutayarshi, as is required, by following the instructions at the top of the page. Please do so immediately. Please also provide specific diffs to back up each of your claims. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. You should never have opened this thread. The discussion is taking place immediately above. Please keep your discussions there. --Yamla (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Bilgiljilll - Disruptive editing at the article Cheerappanchira

The user Bilgiljilll is engaging in a disruptive sourced content removal from the article Cheerappanchira like he did multiple times [98],[99],[100].

The user Bilgiljilll, suspecting has a vested interest on some particular caste from south Kerala , wanted to remove the connection of the Cheerappanchira family with north Kerala, where one particular caste is absent. Suspecting he has his own vested interested to keep the family belong to a particular caste origin and region. He has been doing removal of the sourced content relating to the origin of the family multiple times

The place of origin is mentioned in the two reliable sources from leading news channels from Kerala , by the family headmen itself. In the 2 news channel video it is correctly saying by cheerappanchira panicker that 'cheerappanchira panicker went to moolatharawad at Kadathanadu and thus explaining the story of body armor of Ayyappan. Mathrubhumi video on 1:50 , also Asianet (TV channel)(acv) at 3:13 Cheerappanchira panicker says about their family origin from Kadathanad and the story of Ayyappan's body armor when the headmen of the family returned to his family origin (Moolasthana in Malayalam) at Kadathanadu.

Non-Malayalam speaker can clearly hear the word 'Kadathanad' , also they can just translate to see from Malayalam to English

Afv12e (talk)

Really @Afv12e , Instead i should bring you here , you added unrelated topics to the page just like you did previously to other pages like kalarippayattu , i intiated a talk section and asked you to solve the dispute , when did i recently edited the page, i only maintained a stable version of it  ? None of the sources you mentioned says anything regarding what you wrote . You cannot use vedio sources to interpret things in your own way , when written sources say otherwise , even the vedio sources dont say anything regarding that. I already did intiate a talk section in your page regatding the source politely ,instead you did this ??As per WP:VIDEOLINK ,"If the material in a video only available on YouTube and includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be inappropriate for Wikipedia" thats why i intiated a talk section regarding what you added in your page .Because noone of the written sources or primary sources says so. Infact You are disruptively adding things , you added it again now without even minding to solve the dispute and you are calling me disruptive ?? Also you have clearly violated WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL ,I had intiated a talk section regatding the diapute and I was about to ping an uninvolved one to solve the concern, however seems like you dont even mind to solve it, you added the same thing again to the page Cheerppanchira , A summary of incidents happended here: You added some disputed contents to the page , i moved the page back to the previous version and intiated a talk section , you added the disputed content back ,bought me to ani and giving me threats and personal attack and abusing me clearly shows who is disruptive ?? The content you have added was previously added multiple times starting from dec 2016 ,which was removed by multiple editors thus as an editor who is watching the page since a long time, i intiated a talk section , however you were repeatedly adding it back without a proper source . —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilgiljilll (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How can you say the two reliable sources where the cheerappanchira panicker himself explaining about 'going to mool tharawad (family origin) at kadathanad' make you see that i'm INTREPRETING when he is explicitly telling the facts out in the two reliable sources from leading news channels in Kerala. It is not just a YouTube video, but aired channel content of the leading two channels in Kerala.

What do you hear in Mathrubhumi video on 1:50 , also Asianet (TV channel)(acv) at 3:13 ? Tell me what he is saying at these time frames from 2 channel videos.

Anyone with an average eye and ear can tell what he is saying in these 2 videos.

I cannot make someone understand things who is acting like a blind and deaf , just for the sake of time wasting

Afv12e (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You said "I will kick you out" in the page cheerappanchira , and now "Blind and deaf" ?? You seriously do not have the patience to even discuss it you are desperate , you dont want to expose yourself for a verification regatding what you have added. Instead you want to kick me (who politely asked for a source) out , so that you can escape from the check ?? I thoroughly did check the relaible written sources added in the page, why nothing related to this is present there ? This makes me raise the concern Bilgiljilll (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also the content you added is completely absent from any written and verifiable sources , (like this from the page ) but it only appears in a regional vedio? interestingly similar claims are being removed from the page as per the history of the page from 2016 ownawards . Also I dont tolerate abuses and threats. Bilgiljilll (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You have now turned your plate and pointing out saying that I have said that 'i will kick you out' , which is 100% lie.

You want to confuse the moderatos and other people here turning your plates here and there.

This is what i ahve added in the summary and anyone can read that :

'stop your 'vested interest' distruptive editing. In the 2 news channal video it is corectly saying by cheerappanchira pancker that 'cheerappanchira panicker went to moolatharawad at kadathanad' and the story of body armour of ayyappa. i know you are a malayali editor , keep on disruptive editing will get you out of wikipedia'

Wondering why people want to keep on lying

Also there is no rule that all sources in Wikipedia must be written sources, you want to stick with with this baseless argument again and again because you want to remove the reliable sources which explicitly saying the origin of family (moola sthana tharawad) is in Kadathanad.

Note : Don't add your contents between the discussion like you were doing to confuse people. Add your contents only under the last discussion

Afv12e (talk) Afv12e (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability English sources are usually preffered over non english sources ,here the source is a vedio in non English language , where the content is completely absent in the the written english sources ,In addition to that I can see this was removed multiple times from the history of the page , thus as a responsible editor i have thw right to raise a concern , i stick to it . Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability has nothing to do this as these are leading news channels from Kerala and is publicly available. Ayone has the access.

You being a Malayali editor , who knows Malayalam how can you say that you cannot verify this ?

Also it doesn't matter whether it is removed multiple times or not, when someone is coming with 2 new reliable sources, where previously no sources have been produced in Wikipedia for the claim. Afv12e (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability have nothing to do with this ?? When u are dealing exclusively with a non english language , that too interpretated from a non english vedio ? Well I can understand certain south indian as well south asian languages(with an above average or intermediate proficiency ).I did watch the vedio after you gave a timeline here, the vedio seems like a conversation beetween 2 people , that too in non english language, interpretation from such sources , completely without the lack of any written or english sources that supports this is a against WP:VIDEOLINK as well as WP:Verifiability. The possible reason i believe it got removed by other users earlier and the reason for me raising a concern over its credibility or its interpretation , i have no problem if you add it with proper sourcing but from the alleged vedio alone (interpretating from conversation) while its absent in all written documents , and by the way i have no affiliation or connection with the temple/family /religion/caste/region (i saw you were continuously making this argument) , my pov is neutral, i have contributed to pages of multiple religions/caste/regions/personalities/celebrities/regions/languages mainly based on south asia , thus please avoid any personal attacks on me let us talk about editing here. Lack of Proper sourcing is the sole problem here. Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also the fact is that all of the written sources by the same media houses you mentioned given in the page as well as from outside do not talk anything about this. have not even mentioned the claim in their article. So how the alleged conversation in the vedio alone can be a source ?? Bilgiljilll (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also , you instead of doing a dispute resolution seems to be more interested in calling me blind ,deaf, WP:NPA (personal attack against a person or a group of disabled people) and giving me threats that you will get me out of here , so that you dont need to answer to the objections anymore, above all of that you immediately added the disputed content back to the page Cheerappanchira ?? Literally none of the written sources i found , which are produced by the same media houses you mentioned about the same topic ,supports your interpretation from the particular conversation from the non english vedio , this is violating WP:VIDEOLINK . Bilgiljilll (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So you have not checked the source earlier and removed sourced content multiple times from the article like you did here[101] [102][103] citing that 'source does not contain anything like this'. You are now saying that, after I have given the time frame you now went and checked the videos now and found that the claim exists.

This is the proof that you have been into disruptive 'vested' interest editing in Wikipedia.

You were removing sourced contents without even checking the source. You were clearing into disruptive editing multiple times until I report this here.

Your claims of 'non english' , 'written references', 'threating' (Lol, warning some guys about their distruptive editing is threating ?) doesn't hold here and you cannot put that all here to make a cloud out of it and confuse the people here.

You were into disruptive editing and you have admitted that here , you have only checked the video reference only after I reported here , giving you time frames from the video, meaning you have targeted in removing that particular part with vested interest.

For your information, it is not a conversation between some random dudes in the video, being a Malayali you knew it. It is between the news reporter and the Cheerappachira family head/member himself talking. In the article it is added as such 'according to their family history' Afv12e (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Kindly go through my previous reply again , the vedio(mathrubhimi) which you posted at that time with time line is a small converstion and they dont even mention the vast majority of the words like "kadathanad'in their conversation which you added to the page .Secondly the same words are absent from any written and relaible sources published by the same media company also the vedio is in non english language when relaible written sources are used in the article and the thing you claimed is completely absent from the sources, in addition to that none of the written sources even mentions anything related to that ,thats why i asked you to provide a source in your talk section and you replied with things like vested interest, blind , deaf , regionalist etc WP:APA , I already replied to this very clearly , you are not even bothering to find a resolution rather you desperately added it back ? , I am again repeating , kindly do check WP:VIDEOLINK-- Very clearly the content you added is no where available in the written sources published by the same media(means they didnt interepreted your claim from the vedio published by they themselves. In addition to that i also did check other sources available in the page as well as from outside and the mythical family roots claim is completely absent there too , why so it appears only in the alleged conversations(if there ) ? and check WP:Verifiability and reply based on the guidelines if you have a point other than personally attacking me . Also i jist noted that , You removed clearly verifivale sourced content from the page cheerappanchira with a clear english source and citation , before adding this disputed content back , shows who is disruptive in editing . Bilgiljilll (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You removed sourced content from the page(while a source in english is available which was previously available in the page since years ) cheerappanchira and added the alleged youtube vedio referenced thing(in non english language) in a regional language over  : AccordingThe toCheerappanchira mythologyfamily, Lordaccording Ayyappato wastheir learningfamily martialhistory, artsoriginates from Guru[[Kadathanadu]] Panickarand atwere theknown Cheerappanchirafor Kalaritheir proficiency in Muhamma,[[Kalaripayattu]].Lord whereAyyappan hecame here to learn Kalaripayattu.He was livingintroduced by a person named 'Vellutha' as Manikandan,his close relative because the KingCheerappanchira ofPanickers Pandalamm'swere adoptivenot sonwilling to train someone from outside their country. They were focused on training soldiers from their own kingdom. Ayyappan started his martial arts training in Cheerappanchira Kalari hiding his true identity as the Prince of Pandalam. [10] while there is a discussion in your talk section as well as here, clearly disruptive , also when there are written english sources which says so . Also the interesting fact that you added the same written sources also as a reference to your content while you argue that how the regional vedio source is important over the written english source is really interesting.just take a look at the source and WP:VIDEOLINK Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

They did mention about the place of origin 'kadathanad' starting from the time frame I have given and you have accepted that saying above as : 'written sources are not available even though it is there in the video' . You are now concerned about written sources. WP:VIDEOLINK doesn't says that it need a written reference for a reliable video source like of news channels. Also I have used 2 references from leading news channels from Kerala , they are not just YouTube videos, it is of leading Kerala news channel videos aired, if you are sticking to any other argument.

Also don't come up every time with new new tricks, first you came with saying 'you have checked the source and no where it is saying about the place of family origin (moola tharawad) as kadathanad' , later you changed and said above 'you have only checked those videos only after i provided the time frame of the video reference here' , then you go on telling about non-english reference, threating you , now you have come with your new trick that I have removed sourced content. I have restored the version previously removing your disruptive edits and nothing important got removed. Here is my edit , anyone can verify

Also there is no discussion going on my talk page, it is regarding your disruptive editing.

I'm done talking here, let moderators and admins decide. Afv12e (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Also summarising,- All the concerns I raised are purely based on the guidelines i provided, whereas you initiated by personally attacking me WP:NPA, Violated WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL(didn't even bother to answer the talk before this) the words you used against me: 'deaf', 'blind' (insulting any person or a group of people with a severe level of medical concerns or disabilities), 'vested interest', '"get you out of Wikipedia "(threat). The language you used right from the beginning (both in my page , your page as well as here ) is extremely hurtful and informal mixed with slurs and abuses, just letting you know that I do not wish to tolerate this from my side. Here we are talking about sources, content, and its reliability, so I request you to focus on the same rather than abusing me personally or using derogatory remarks about me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the content you added by removing the written english sourced content (actual version) :

The Cheerappanchira family, according to their family history, originates from Kadathanadu and were known for their proficiency in Kalaripayattu.Lord Ayyappan came here to learn Kalaripayattu.He was introduced by a person named 'Vellutha' as his close relative because the Cheerappanchira Panickers were not willing to train someone from outside their country. They were focused on training soldiers from their own kingdom.

You have clearly added the english and writtten sources along with your with vedio as a source to support your claim(using wrong reference,as the written reference do not talk anything regarding to the content you added ) while you removed the actual content according to the written reference , and here you are arguing how the alleged vedio is preffered over the written reference ? You yourself believe in those written sources ,or you need that ? Claims like "They were focused on training soldiers from their own kingdom. " Why the written and verifiable sources published by the same media house says nothing about kadathanad ? Can you atleast present one formally written source? Atleast one ? The history part you added is your own interpretation of two conversations from two different vedios (each vedio for each claim ) , and this is completely absent in any formally written sources WP:VIDEOLINK, and i intiated a talk regarding the same after i reverted it back , you show no interest in exposing yourself for a fact check , and you call me desruptive ? Bilgiljilll (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

My points are : The alleged content you added is not present in any (atleast one ) written sources, the sources by the same media houses also have COMPLETELY avoided the alleged conversations . Multiple vedios are required to verify(wheather possible or not) your claims and interpretations . Regarding the vedio(in non english language), you are claiming that different words are said during certain timelines (one at this timeline and one at another timeline in another vedio, as per you said ) , so can that proves the entire interpretation (3 paragraphs) which is completely absent in all sources (my main concern is relaibility) ?? WP:VIDEOLINK clearly states if it is solely available only online in a youtube video(as per you claim) where there is no formally written edvidence , it is inappropriate . I throughly did check the all of the written sources by the 'same media house' and it is not even(or anything related to the claim) are present there. My question is ,this is regarding the history of the family (as per the addition) and why this is completely absent in all those sources???, that too published by the same media houses  ??? Also i wonder how non english youtube vedio interpretations are entirely preffered for the whole arguement, when multiple written english sources are available , (i)that too to make changes regarding the 'history' or origins, (ii)that too when this is completely absent in sources published by the same publishers (both) and in all other sources .Interestingly the same claim was removed by multiple editors starting from Dec 2016 onwards. (can check the references and sources) WP:Verifiability WP:VIDEOLINK. You should not use ANI to escape from being questioned related to what you have added(the disputed content )without proper source, tht too when i have intiated a talk section in your page and asked for atleast one relaible source , way before that. Bilgiljilll (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the talk section of the page cheerappanchira is untouched regarding the dispute, I am initiating a talk section on the main page. Bilgiljilll (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the topic and have no opinion on your content dispute, but I do know that this page isn't intended for you to continue arguing back and forth. Please stop. Neither one of you looks good.--Onorem (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Bilgiljilll as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that explains the previous disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Repeated and misleading edit summaries

• EdwinAlden.1995 (talk · contribs)

That much is obvious, per a view of the edit history and a comparison with the edits themselves [104]. ‎Improved overall readability and consistency is the current default summary; previously Reviewed and refined the text to enhance its lucidity and rectified any errors in spelling, grammar, and external links as well as eliminated any extraneous Wikilinks was favored. User was notified of this in October User talk:EdwinAlden.1995#Reviewed and refined the text to enhance its lucidity and rectified any errors in spelling, grammar, and external links as well as eliminated any extraneous Wikilinks, to no avail. Which is a surprise, given their industriousness in creating and sourcing articles, especially for underrepresented subjects. Using these boilerplate summaries hundreds of times is kind of a red flag. I've begun to address this at their talk page, along with concerns about paraphrased content and npov, but that isn't going well, either User talk:EdwinAlden.1995#Edit history. It's not clear that they understood the edit summary concern in October, or now. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hey @2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

  Thank you for addressing the issue. After going through my edit summaries two hours, I recognized the same identical verbiage in most of them. When a fellow Wikipedian drew attention to this issue, I first thought he was talking about the external and extraneous Wikilinks in the article, as seen in my response. I responded to him without addressing his edit summary suggestion, assuming he was talking about the article summary style and its external and extraneous Wiki links. Similarly, When you left a notice a few hours ago, I responded to you in the same vein, assuming your concern was also about external and extraneous Wiki links. Hence, my responses were directed towards the article writing summary style rather than your edit summary suggestion. I now understand your points in more detail (indicated in italics), and I apologize for any inconvenience. I’m not saying this just because you brought up the issue here, but it stems from a conscientious reflection of my actions and also my apologies for those injudicious remarks on my talk page. Thanks for the heads-up! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  • ANI responses written by ChatGPT (or equivalent) are never charming. 50.235.11.61 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah, Sherlock, you've uncovered the literary culprit! It seems ChatGPT's fingerprints are all over this text! I hope your charm doesn't get lost in the syntax. Nobody wants any codependent relationships! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Based on the above, I'd say Indef on EdwinAlden for using ChatGPT to write, based on WP:CIR. If you have to resort to using an LLM to reply & make contributions, you aren't competent to edit here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
        • mmh, no, i don't think that's the work of chatgpt. ltbdl (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
        • I asked Bing's LLM "Should a Wikipedia editor who uses sarcasm be indefinitely blocked for using ChatGPT?" and it decided to repeat our ChatGPT article at me. Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• To be honest, they're a lot better than some long-time editors' edit summaries. They could do with being a little less repetitive and more individual, but I think that just a second person saying that is all that's needed here. I rather like the ones written in the first person describing the action. Don't go overboard on the whimsy, but Special:Diff/1169327249 gave me a smile. Well done for not being the sort of person who attempts to use edit summaries as some sort of chat message system. Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 5 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)

References

User:JackkBrown

User was blocked for 72 hours on November 15th by Tamzin for disruptive editing. Once the block expired, user returned to making disruptive edits and engaging in uncivil discussion on talk pages, as can be see in the sections following User talk:JackkBrown § November 2023 2. Persistent editing issues include a refusal to use edit summaries, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. If he responds to criticism, it's WP:DONTGETIT. Apocheir (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Apocheir: good evening gentle user, where are destructive edits? I have been told to avoid removing superfluous spaces, etc. (and that I can only do so if this "correction" is part of an edit that includes much more important changes) and I haven't done it again, and I have never responded uncivilly but always politely; I honestly don't understand all this fury about me. In any case, I apologise, although I don't quite understand where I went wrong this time (I was also warned not to impose lowercase letters in paragraph titles, and since I have been warned I haven't done it again). JackkBrown (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Apocheir: however, you wrote me "like an upset child", I simply replied that it's not nice to write something like that. JackkBrown (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown, please use the preview button when editing. You did not need to use 15 separate edits to write this. – bradv 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv: you are right and I take note, unfortunately operating from a mobile phone it's difficult to make a single edit, as it could happen that I lose connection or the page is automatically reloaded and I would lose all my changes (speaking of changes to pages, not discussion pages). JackkBrown (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

JackkBrown, I too edit from a mobile phone. You can always draft a lenghthy response in your sandbox space, making 15 edits or as many as you want, saving frequently, proofreading it as you go, and then copying and pasting it to the right place when it is ready for other people to read. Just a suggestion. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown:, you are continuing to make edit after edit after edit, even after being warned for doing so. You've been told that using a mobile phone isn't an excuse for doing this, yet you continue. You've been given an alternative. Please refrain from doing this any further. It's disruptive. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As Apocheir rightly noted, I have not compiled the summary of changes lately. In all the changes made tonight/evening, I have explained all the changes. I realised I made a (not small) mistake and I regret that I have created additional work for those who check users' changes. JackkBrown (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See their talk for reference. Maliner (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I want to note that this user was warned multiple times by Jean-de-Nivelle, SMcCandlish, Jonesey95, Tamzin and others. I am also suspecting abuse of multiple accounts (not sure though). Please see this edit. Maybe a CheckUser can help us. Thanks. Maliner (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Behaviorally, Jack and MrFlyingPies23 are very different. If you look two comments above the one you linked, I believe MrFlyingPies23 wasn't replying to you, but rather attempting to follow up on their own message. Or they thought that your warning was a reply to them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 10:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  My feeling is that JackkBrown is very much here to build an encyclopedia, and is usually acting in good faith, and while I can see that aspects of his behaviour are problematic, I also admire his energy, his commitment to consistency, and his ability to recruit other editors to help make positive changes to articles. I do see that sometimes that takes the form of drawing in other editors to fix the problems that his edits create, but the overall effect is to improve the articles he works on. He's not a very experienced editor yet (and neither am I) but I feel it would be wrong to deny him the opportunity to become one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• This report is rather short on diffs, so it's not clear what problem edits we're supposed to be aware of. I have my own issues with the editor in question. JackkBrown has shown a very strong desire to "correct" italicization, either to or away from italics, of loanwords that English has absorbed to different extents from other languages, and trying to help the editor learn how to do this right has sucked up a great deal of my time over the last few weeks (JackkBrown being a multiple-times-per-day visitor to my talk page), and in the end I do not think the editor has the English-language competency, or understanding of our guidelines and templates, to do this properly, and I've said so about 5 times. I have not checked in the last 2 days I think, but the editor was still at this activity recently, and it necessitated a lot of cleanup work on my part later. But that's not grounds for an indef (maybe something like a topic-ban from changing italicization). Early on I gave JackkBrown a new-editor-encouragement barnstar for actually helpful work on cleaning up image captions. And I've since seen various constructive edits, though also ones that seemed to mean well but were not compliant with some guideline or other. As with many new users, they racked up a long string of "you're not doing it right" templates and posts on their talk page (several from me), but that's not in and of itself proof of not improving, since they're not about the same thing. The failure to get the point about italics did strike me as a WP:DONTGETIT issue, but it seemed rather topic-specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• As someone who left a warning on his talk page and reverted him at least a couple of dozen times (especially when he was tag-bombing almost every Italy-related page with inappropriate "expand-Italian" tags) I think JackkBrown is in good faith (among other things he often posts at Help Desk, looking for a clarification or a feedback or trying to help), the main problem with is that when he gets convinced something is right, he immediately starts to edit literally hundreds of pages in a very short time. Errors can go unnoticed for days, as he mainly edits niche pages related to Italy, and the lack of immediate negative feedback gives him the impression that he's doing the right thing. Then when an error emerges, it's up to others to review, fix and possibly revert his edits (eg.) So he should slow down, ALWAYS ask for clarification BEFORE starting mass editing and/or asking for a feedback immediately after the first mass edit he plans to do, and spend more time in revisiting/fixing previous mistakes. Cavarrone 09:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• I do not (yet) support an indefinite block, but I think the tolerance shown so far (just one short-term block, which seemed to have little effect) is running out. I agree entirely with Cavarrone, and with SMcCandish's comments above. It's not just clogging up watchlists with irrelevant mark-up edits (such as removing spaces from section headers), it's constant questions about things (usually on the Help Desk) which have been answered numerous times before, refusal to respect guidelines or adhere to policy in the MOS, ignoring gentle and not-so-gentle advice, and the large amount of work to clear up messes (sometime at their insistence). I get the bit about being well-meaning (some of the time), and signs of improvement in some attitudes, but they've made enough edits now (which seems to be a target in itself) to not be doing this all the time. (17:04, signed later) Bazza (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that I have flaws in my work, but guys, (also thanks to the help I have received from the help desk and some users) I have been improving my work more and more. My edits are almost all correct, and the few that are not, I try to correct them later (I look at my edits going back even a year, to make sure everything is ok, nobody does that), and I have also spent a lot of (useful) time on the English Wikipedia and would like to spend more time on it. Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm getting better and better, and my only flaw (that of making a lot of edits and clogging up the watchlists) may soon be solved; never underestimate the help a user who LOVES this encyclopaedia can give (as for multiple accounts, I don't have any, I simply sometimes forget to log in and accidentally edit with an IP address, but I have sworn allegiance to this encyclopedia, and in fact all the IP addresses I used by mistake are listed on my user page, in order). JackkBrown (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: since you made it clear to me that you no longer wanted to receive questions on your discussion page, and rightly so, I stopped, promising myself that I would ask at most one a month. JackkBrown (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't at all mind periodic questions, but a daily stream of "Should this be italicized? What about that one? And this term over there?" was tiresome. But more importantly (about the project, not me), if you can't pretty reliably intuit what should be italicized as a foreignism (e.g. pesto alla trapanese) and what given in regular upright ("roman") type as assimilated into English (e.g. pesto), then "policing" the italics is not your role. And yes, it's not good to go around making cosmetic changes to code formatting that do not affect output for the readers, at least not without also making a more substantive change in the same edit, and not even then when there is no point even for editors for the change to be made, or when other editors are liable to object. It just annoys lots of people by hitting their watchlist, for no benefit to anyone. A counter to your "never underestimate the help a user who loves this encyclopaedia can give" would be the recent block of Equalwidth (see their user talk page and the associated ANI), another rather new editor who was convinced they were being helpful and rather insistent on continuing in what they had decided was a good idea. That case can be summed up as "never underestimate the confusion and cleanup-work for others caused by a user enthusiastic about the encylopedia but not yet very clueful and not very willing to listen to others".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Place some restriction upon Transilvanicus

See [105]. I ask for a formal warning or restriction imposed to Transilvanicus. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Now wreaking havoc in the article as Special:Contributions/2A02:2F0E:D121:9100:5CFA:80AF:F363:AE1A. E.g. second-guessing Fergus Millar just because they do not like what he wrote. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The entire notion that Jews mustn't be permitted to edit Dacia-related topics is clearly problematic by its very nature, and not likely curable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:32, 6 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 ([106]) 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 [107]. 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. ([108] 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. ([109] 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 ([110]).

2) The only thing I removed from Juozas Ambrazevičius' article's main body was an unsourced claim about him being a war criminal [111] 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. ([112]) 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)

• 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)

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 Grabowsky, 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)

(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)

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)

• 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 [113]. 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)

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)

Revoke TPA for temporarily blocked user

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

[114]; user is currrently blocked until 23:08, 10 December 2023. They have made several attempts to use computer code to block other users who comment at their talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef with no talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably needless to say, but the stuff they put on that page is random gobbledygook and does nothing. jp×g🗯️ 11:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's actually quite amusing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits

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

Is it possible to request a rollback of all the edits made by Oilcocaine since this one [115] (05:21 26 November)? Many of the user's early edits are improvements, but since this one [116] (19:09 24 November 2023), they have been almost all disruptive, many reverted by a variety of editors, all based on this one problem: articles in the "See also" section must have some relevance to the article in which they appear. The user has expressed their belief that ethnic groups which migrated centuries ago (mostly Dom and Romani) from the Indian subcontinent have a connection strong enough to warrant a "See also" of Romani people in Ireland to India–Ireland relations. Probably the biggest stretch is the repeated addition [117], [118] to Romani Holocaust (Nazi-era Europe) of "See also" List of massacres in India and Late Victorian Holocausts. The extended discussion on User Talk:Oilcocaine is probably the best overview of the problem and the justifications they have offered (e.g. [119]). A rollback may not be the best solution because, again, there's some baby in that bathwater, but the extent of disimprovement (dozens and dozens of edits across a broad range of articles), and the incorrigibility apparent in the user talk, suggests it would be a challenge to find a better one. Since this is not a black and white issue, I appreciate input and attention to this matter. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the OP is working with ill motive. I will not say that there is an anti-Indian bias behind their actions, but it seems their fixation on slandering and subjugating a Wikipedian from India is behind this. MaiJodi Mk 1 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)— MaiJodi Mk 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*chuckle* OK. _signed, Willondon (talk)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedians from India ought not to have to follow the same policies and guidelines as Wikipedians from anywhere else, and that they should be immunized against complaints of breaching them? There's nothing in the least "ill motived" about questioning the relevance of the mass murder of Romani in WWII to massacres in India and the Victorian period, nor of Romani-Irish relations to Indian-Irish relations, and if Oilcocaine is being intransigent on these and other issues, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Ravenswing 07:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(With that, it's not the least degree credible to see that this post is MaiJodi Mk 1's sole Wikipedia effort; sockpuppetry is plainly afoot.) Ravenswing 07:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not doing this for vandalization. I am doing this for navigational reason Oilcocaine (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oilcocaine, if you would humor me and the point I'm about to make, I would really appreciate that. I think it might help to look at your edit history, but note your edits that have not been reverted. Many of them, including those related to Romani subjects and historical tragedies, have stayed right where they are. Why would we keep those if we had a deep bias against you or your intent to help spread information about these important topics? I really want to try and underline the underlying difference between each of your edits that have been reverted, and each that haven't, that you have a broader sense of what a useful connection means specifically for the See Also section.
There not being a link there does not mean two subjects are totally unrelated, it does not even mean the topics only share an unimportant connection. I don't think anyone here thinks that issues facing Romani historically are completely unrelated to those historically involving Indians. The connections are obvious, but they are of a lateral kind where if everybody applied this schema, there would be no point to the see also section, because many important connections would be there, but totalling too many to usefully navigate The point we've been making over and over is that the see also section has more specific guidelines for what should go there, based on how to best organize an encyclopedia in the context of what is not brought up in the article, but has a specific direct connection to the subject. Just because connections are abstract or indirect, like those faced among various prosecuted groups throughout human history, does not mean they are not real or are unimportant. Have you considered doing research for an article about the connections between Romani and Indian societal dynamics? You clearly care a lot about the subject. It is valuable to understand the connections you're trying to bring up with your edits, but they are not best expressed in the see also section. does that make sense? If you assemble sources and write an article directly itself about this connection, it could be very valuable to the site. Remsense留 00:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A quick note to say that (1) there are "See also" edits that are not a problem, but that (2) among the ones that have not been reverted yet, there are many that I believe are wholly indefensible, but I have not reverted them pending the outcome here. I initiated this discussion (for chronic problematic behaviour) because in reverting the dozens of edits I felt to be unhelpful, there were (1) dozens more to go, and they kept accumulating because (2) Oilcocaine did not stop despite all the reverts, feedback, and warnings. I'm disappointed to see Oilcocaine continuing to edit the "See also" sections while the discussion plays out. I feel I've been charitable toward their behaviour, because I do see demonstrated potential to make productive edits to Wikipedia. And I have never suggested a block.

I can't speak for the others who have reverted and "finally warned", but perhaps like me, didn't "pull the trigger" because they appreciated some value in their edits. I see Oilcocaine as competent and of good intent. But, I suggest competence includes the ability to be aware of the cooperative environment in which they work, and an ability to respect and understand the opinions, insights and actions of other editors. I issued another "final" warning [120], and at this point, I'm prepared to ask for an indefinite block the next time they continue the behaviour that has me here trying to coordinate a surgical measure to correct and prevent further damage, rather than an outright block. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've amended my request below. I went ahead and reverted 102 problem edits which I had graciously left until this process could run its course. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support mass rollback, and some temporary topic ban may be needed. Also, there are wider issues outside the topic: to begin with, this user should start using edit summaries (they received warnings about that, but their replies ignored the point). Also, whatever the topic, they should (have) stop(ped) their "see also" additions when they realized such edits were at best controversial and were being reverted by multiple editors. Cavarrone 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mass rollbacks unless the same be applied to non-Indian Wikipedians with the same zeal the above seems to want to do to Indian Wikipedians. Bali Mangti 1947 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)— Bali Mangti 1947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Definitely concerning. I'm looking at a history that is entirely addition of links to See Also (with a few main article links thrown in). The various references to European racism (cf. the user's talk page and this) make me suspect an agenda driven editor. I'm also not sure what to make of the two one-edit supporters who showed up here (meats? socks?). Add to that the fact that, despite the concerns expressed here, Oilcocaine continues to add see also links I'm thinking a not here block or at least a ban from adding links is warranted. RegentsPark (comment) 20:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Most of these should be reverted; Roma in Poland have little to nothing to do with India–Poland relations, on top of the potential concerning implications such a link has given debates about Roma status. The redirect Romani people in Central Asia to Lyuli also seems inappropriate, given the only mention of Roma on the Lyuli articles are statements that the Lyuli are not Roma. I just reverted this edit made while this AN/I was open, which while unrelated to Roma did add a See also link from a topic already linked (unpiped) in the article. CMD (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Update and amended request: I was hoping a rollback would avoid this, but the problem edits kept rolling, so I queued up Physical Graffiti (figured I'd need a double album) and went to work. I listed all of Oilcocaine's "current" edits and went through them judiciously [121]. I reverted 102 problem edits. I examined them all impartially, and made sure to tailor the edit summary, being aware with each revert what I was editing and why.

My amended request:

1. A rollback should no longer be necessary, as I've done it old-school.
2. I request at least a partial block of some sort, or
3. an indefinite block, based on persistent disruptive editing after plenty of feedback, engagement, and (often "final") warnings from at least three other users.

As in my previous post here [122], I suggest competence includes the ability to be aware of the cooperative environment in which they work, and an ability to respect and understand the opinions, insights and actions of other editors. Thanks to all who have spent the time looking in and providing input. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked. Since Oilcocaine has ignored several warning and continued to add inappropriate See also's, I have blocked them for two weeks, with a warning that the next block will be longer. (IMO, if another block for the same thing is needed, it should be indefinite.) Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC).

Unarchiving this

Not sure what is BLT...

...because I just realized this is most certainly the bilateral relations troll (previous ANI discussion), who has been repeatedly blocked for such behavior on multiple IPs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes you decide to click the create account button, perhaps? Surprisingly rare. Remsense留 05:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

They sometimes do, usually in the event all their proxies are blocked. Pinging Bishonen as the blocking admin for Oilcocaine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to try to get my head round this. If another admin wants to indef Oilcocaine, or otherwise modify my block, that's fine with me. Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC).

LilianaUwU Does Gashti Papad I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) look like‎ the bilateral relations troll to you? I'm not familiar with them. (t · c) buidhe 05:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe, most certainly. Those edits scream BLT. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the account was indeffed so its' now moot. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what is BLT, but there is a lot of obvious socking here (even ignoring the previous ANI trolls, the two SPAs talking in support of Oilcocaine in the section above and Gashti Papad smell of duck). Cavarrone 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Another IP of the bilateral relations troll, 88.230.111.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has went under the radar for a while. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oilcocaine is a  Confirmed sock of a banned user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nittin Das. Also caught another sock group, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaiJodi Mk 1. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

BLT has been active recently on these ranges:

• 88.230.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (cable/DSL) since January 2020
• 94.235.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (cellular) since February 2023
• 5.176.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (cellular) since February 2023
• 176.220.200.0/21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (cellular) since April 2023

 — Archer (t·c) 13:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, this cheeky fucker really went under the radar. Some of those weren't reverted for months. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, seems like the last range is also a /17, at 176.220.200.0/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

So, is who we call bilateral relations troll Nittin Das, or...? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Unlikely. The MaiJodi group is a noticeboard troll and also unlikely to be related to anything in this section. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyways, the above IP ranges are actively doing their thing, so it might be nice to block them for a month or two. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Socking and edit-warring at Draft:Ehsan Roohi

ZahraHeidari2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to be the subject himself[123], somehow managed to get Ehsan Roohi through AFC. And then set about making the article into this, despite efforts from multiple editors to curb some of the worst offences. The author has been logging out to revert them[124]. Now he's shown up with a proper sock[125]. I am seeking blocks, and page protection. Ideally, I would like to move the article back to draft, but I am hesitant because it's passed AFC a couple times already. I did go through the sources and what was left was not much of an article, and presumably outdated because it does not match the details provided by the original author. And copyright status of images uploaded to commons seem iffy, in case anyone from Commons is reading this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This should have been taken to WP:SPI, but it was fairly obvious. I've blocked three named accounts as socks. The IP noted above hasn't edited since December 1, so I left it alone. I've put the article on my watchlist. Another admin may wish to semi-protect it, but I figured I'd see what happens after the blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Bbb23. You are right of course. I had reasons for picking ANI but it's perhaps better that I don't say it. And, thank you, @Drmies. Hope you are both well. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:WikiOriginal-9, this should have never been moved into article space. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

History is confusing, histmerge maybe? Because, edits after WikiOriginal's accept are still from AFC activities. And the last acceptance was done by TheChunky. Not only did it pass AFC but it did so twice. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's passed AfC twice already, I don't see how draftification is warranted. AfD would be the place for discussion of this article instead. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Initially, during the AfC backlog drive I accepted the draft of Ehsan Roohi's Wikipedia article when it was in a less refined state than it is today. The draft centered on Ehsan Roohi, a research fellow at the University of Maryland School of Medicine who holds a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering. He previously served as a University Professor at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad and Xi'an Jiaotong University.

Upon conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE check, I discovered that Ehsan Roohi possesses a substantial body of published work with a notable number of citations and he was nominated as top researcher by Academy of Sciences of Iran ( here ), satisfying the criteria outlined in the WP:PROF guidelines.

While I initially accepted the draft based on its adherence to WP:PROF guidelines, I failed to conduct a deeper investigation into the draft's creator. I acknowledge the validity of Usedtobecool's assertion that the draft's creator and the subject of the article may be the same individual, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest (COI). However, I maintain that I have no personal connection with the subject of the article.

The draft came to my attention during the AFC backlog drive. Upon verifying the subject's notable contributions through WP:BEFORE guidelines, I accepted the draft, leaving it unpatrolled to allow other reviewers to assess it further following its improvement. However, I was unaware of another existing article on the same subject, albeit with a different approach.

To address this discrepancy, I manually merged the content from the two articles, moving relevant information from Ehsan Roohi (professor) to Ehsan Roohi. This consolidation process occurred within a 10-minute timeframe. Subsequently, I stabilized the article and left it for further refinement by other editors. Unfortunately, the article's condition deteriorated over time.

I recognize that my initial actions were not as thorough as they should have been. I failed to consider the potential COI and overlooked the existence of another draft on the same subject. I take full responsibility for these oversights and will strive to exercise greater diligence in the future. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 11:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheChunky, taking either side on the notability question is defensible. But you should never accept drafts that fail any of the core content policies substantially. This draft failed all three, comprehensively. And it was a BLP. That you didn't notice the substantial issues while performing the merge suggests problems deeper than a failure to look closely. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

To be fair to TheChunky, AfC reviewers are supposed to accept anything that they think stands some chance of passing AfD. They are supposed to defer to the wider community at AfD rather than act as sole gatekeepers. This draft came with a claim of a large publication record, potentially fulfilling NPROF, and certainly enough to create a two-sided discussion at AfD, so TheChunky's decision was not blatantly wrong.

In many ways, rather than shunting this article back and forth between draft and main space, with additions and reversions, why wasn't this simply sent to AfD? The fact that someone messes up, writes an unsuitable article, and indulges in sock-puppetry, doesn't actually mean they're not notable, it just means they're rubbish at Wikipedia articles and desperately blowing their own trumpet. We've now landed up with a person who might be notable, and a draft in limbo, because with its history, it'd take a brave editor to submit it, and a brave AfC reviewer to consider accepting it. Elemimele (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where these ideas are coming from, but they're in error. You are supposed to pass articles that have a decent chance of passing AFD if there are no major issues with copyvio, blpvio, verifiability, neutrality and original research. Nobody should be adding content to mainspace that violates core content policies so completely, whether written by self or someone else. They especially should not be making that mistake as an article reviewer. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's really not fair. The article that TheChunky accepted was this [126]. It's not great, but at that stage it wasn't irredeemably awful. It had a section listing the institutions at which he's worked, based on his institutional website (non-independent, but we always accept institutional websites as reliable for academics). It had a research section based on primary literature, again something that we accept in science academics because it's been peer reviewed and is therefore deemed to be subject to independent oversight. These were the two longest sections, and not hopeless. It then had an inappropriate section of not very significant awards, which could simply have been deleted, and two one-line sections on his editorial and teaching efforts, which could again have been simply deleted. At that stage, there was nothing instantly leaping out as copyvio, nothing non-neutral beyond the routine enthusiasm we often meet in academic biographies, and there was no original research. Most of what was there was verifiable (apart from the endless awards).

Yes, TheChunky failed to notice that the editor identified as the subject on their user-page. But they blanked their own user page only one minute after the admission, so TheChunky's failure to notice during this one-minute window is quite understandable. I'm very nervous of harsh words about AfC reviewers, expecially in an environment as public as ANI. It's a job that I would never agree to do, as everyone is going to yell at you, whatever decision you make. If we keep treating AfC reviewers poorly, there will be fewer and fewer, and our existing ridiculously long acceptance times - which greatly discourage use of AfC, or even writing articles at all - will get still worse. Elemimele (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Endorsing this comment by Elemimele. AfC reviewers are not supposed to decline articles for problems that can be fixed in "normal editing". There is absolutely nothing in this article that could not be fixed by normal editing, unless this is somehow a blatant copyvio, which it doesn't look like this is. If this had been declined in the recent AfC backlog drive and I had re-reviewed it, I would have failed the decline. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I have no choice but to do this. Alright, take the lead from the revision mentioned by Elemimele.

Ehsan Roohi (born in Mashhad, Iran, in July 1982) is a research fellow at the School of Medicine at the University of Maryland. His Ph.D. is in Aerospace Engineering from the Sharif University of Technology–a flagship Iranian engineering university Sharif University of Technology (with a sabbatical visit to the University of Strathclyde, UK) in 2010. He was a University Professor at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad and Xi'an Jiaotong University.

Claims that neither source supports (WP:V fail):

1. That he was born in Mashhad, Iran.
2. That he was born in July 1982
3. That he is a research fellow at the School of Medicine at the University of Maryland, or anywhere at all.
4. That his Ph.D was in Aerospace Engineering
5. That Sharif University of Technology is a flagship Iranian engineering university (promotional claim; at this point, the reviewer should know to really pay attention)
6. That his Ph.D work included a sabbatical visit to Strathclyde, UK in 2010

Claims that the sources almost support (WP:V issues editing can fix):

1. That he was a University Professor at Xi'an Jiaotang University (source says Associate Professor)
2. That he was a Professor at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (source supports "is" if you assume the website is up to date, big if)

So, what remains after it is fixed by editing, and the same is done for the rest of the article? I don't know if you looked. But I did do just that. And as I said in the OP, not enough is left even for a mainspace stub. As for "It had a research section based on primary literature", I can only assume you still didn't look closely or you don't know how Wikipedia referencing works. Let me give you an example (not historically accurate):

At Albert Einstein, you write "In 1905, Einstein published his groundbreaking theory of Special relativity which he had been working on for years", and cite the same 1905 paper for it. You did not do WP:V with a primary source because Einstein did not write in his 1905 paper, "In 1905, I published my groundbreaking theory of Special relativity that I had been working on for years". Instead, cite his 1945 memoir where he says exactly that, and you do WP:V with a primary source, which is better but not ideal because you are letting Einstein say that his work was groundbreaking. Now imagine letting a UPE do that (the former, not even the latter) for a contemporary academic with an h-index of 37.

Anyone who would have accepted this draft should stay away from reviewing BLPs and companies. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are trying to argue this here. If you want the article deleted, AfD it. It should not have been redraftified after two independent AfC acceptances. Since the first AfC reviewer to accept the article states this was done after a WP:BEFORE, I suspect you will be unsuccessful. By the way, he is indeed listed as a fellow on Maryland's website [127]. That was a trivially easy claim to verify and its inclusion in the article in no way violated WP:V. -- asilvering (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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,[128] 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)

User:Walrus T Watermelon

Walrus T Watermelon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their edits are nearly all disruptive, such as removing tags from articles with no justification, and adding improperly written content. They are also highly uncivil to other editors.

• On their talk page, they have [a notice stating that] "So rest assured, if you leave a comment it will not be read. Ever." and that "WP is designed to encourage fools to mess up good articles." (Given this message was their first edit, I'd be surprised that this is their first Wikipedia account, based on the things it says.)
• In [diff], they removed a "cleanup tone" tag from Textile design, which contains several examples of WP:EDITORIAL language.
• In [diff], they removed a tag expressing concern about an "overview" section, which was reverted by another editor shortly afterwards. On the talk page, [T Watermelon then left a rude message], saying "Wow, you really think this stuff actually matters? What a self important clown. No wonder WP is so bad."
• In [diff], they left an uncivil comment on the page for By Common Consent.
• Also adding weasel-wordy "Speculations were raised" content in [diff]
• Also removing several tags from The Tyranny Of Experts [no discussion.]

GraziePrego (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

To expand a bit on GraziePrego's first concern: in that message this user, whose account is less than a month old, said "[w]hen I first started editing WP many years ago". That's a blatant admission of sockpuppetry, so much so that it's all but an outright demand for an indefinite block. City of Silver 02:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It could be a clean start or just IP editing, not that it excuses his actions 47.188.8.46 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As may be, but clean start or sock, it's plain this bloke is NOTHERE. Ravenswing 12:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I think they are here to improve the encyclopedia and a look through their contributions show them adding content to articles, making typical minor stylistic errors that we'd expect any inexperienced editor to make. However, we can't support editors who don't have the appropriate dispute resolution skills when disagreement breaks out, and if they're just going to yell at people, they'll wind up blocked sooner rather than later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Either way, [notice] displays a shocking unwillingness to interact with other editors. Definitely going to get blocked if they continue this way. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 16:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Octopusplushie. Did you read that talkpage notice, titled "Read this before leaving a message", Ritchie333? Bbb23 has taken issue with its implication that the account is a sock, as well as with the user's "disruptive edits, personal attacks, and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude" and has given a final warning. I am even more concerned with another part of the notice, namely "Rest assured, if you leave a comment it will not be read. Ever.". This is a collaborative project. I have therefore blocked indefinitely. If the user has something — anything! — collaborative to say in an unblock request, I have no objection to an unblock — no need to consult me first. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC).

I did, but I was going to give them one more chance before blocking them; unless somebody is being blatantly and continually disruptive (as oppose to an argumentative grump with no social skills) it's worth making absolutely sure they're not going to change, then everyone will support the block as they saw it coming. PS: You forgot to say "Whose sock are you please?" but then Bbb23 did get in first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So glad my motto is getting famous! I'll try to always remember. Maybe I should put it as a tail on my sig. Bishonen | talk | Whose sock are you, please? 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC).

User:Shayan MB24

I removed the Airlines and Destinations table from the Mehrabad airport article because of the consensus from this RFC. Shayan MB24 reverted the edit, so I started a discussion with them. However, they are ignoring the consensus from that RFC. I provided links to pages that explain how RFCs work, but based on their comments, I doubt they read them. I don't know how to act on that consensus if someone won't accept that there is a consensus in the first place.

• My initial edit
• Reversion
• Talk page discussion

Sunnya343 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• More to the point, the RFC result said "After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE." This table is practically unsourced so it is never going to meet that. I have removed it again with a note in the edit summary. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing enough warnings on the talk page over the last four months that at this point it may be reasonably conjectured that blocking may be the best approach if it encourages a little cooperation with the community. And I agree with Black Kite in this matter too: no citations, no inclusion, no exception. If he can;t cite it, then it should be kept out of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

    I do not see any "consensus" being reached. Consensus is very subjective and you bunch are all biased because of your ideas. There is no way the consensus you determine can be the same as someone else. I have not the slightest clue why you are acting like a mafia trying to propose reforms that are not really gonna change anything in the big picture. It just causes unnnecessary tension and the stubborn nature of the editors on these airport pages is really getting out of hand. When you actually prove to me that there is a majority vote on this matter, then you can go ahead with your reforms. Until then, I will not allow so much information to be stripped off of a Wikipedia pages. Shayan MB24 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I reverted a well intentioned vandal patroller and Shayan MB24 has come back to edit war for the tables inclusion. Even without the RFC WP:BURDEN would apply for the table, but that is being ignored to instead edit to make a point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite, in case you aren't watching the thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  @TomStar81: To be fair, the talk page discussion in September 2023 occurred after an edit war between me and Shayan MB24, where I was removing the table before the RFC took place. Though Shayan MB24 is now engaged in another edit war. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for edit warring. Longer than a typical "first offense" block as they don't always edit daily, but if someone thinks this should change, feel free. @Shayan MB24 when unblocked, please use the Talk page to discuss changes, do not edit war. Star Mississippi 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern re: User:Meer et 60 gibbra

I have a specific concern about User:Meer et 60 gibbra. The editor appeared this morning with a quick string of edits with the summary, "Correcting grammatical errors, adding missing articles, and punctuations". The edits made appear to my eye to be bot-made AI constructions, some of which are just bad (e.g., here changing "After World War II, most of those Jews who had survived emigrated" to "After World War II, most survived Jews emigrated", and changing "especially police brutality, such cases of excessive force being not adequately investigated" to "especially in police brutality, such as cases of excessive force not being adequately investigated", which changes the meaning of the sentence by suggesting that the inadequate investigation is the brutality. BD2412 T 14:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look, but the first edit I came across shows fixing a typo of "restauring" to "restoring" and breaking up a sentence. This edit, meanwhile, shows a few copyedits and conforming a date closer (but not quite there) to MOS:DATE (we don't write "2nd December" anywhere on Wikipedia). I've reverted this edit as a test edit. Replacing references with markup like [1] indicates they might be copying Wikipedia text into something like Word, running it through the spelling / grammar checker, and copying it back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I mainly focus on simplifying overloaded phrases or those with redundant wording to ease its reading. I'm trying to double-check my contributions, however if there're any mistakes, please link those for me so that I can learn some lessons to improve in future. I looked into the discussion you've linked for me and would like to thank you and the other editor for pointing out the mistakes. Yes, in my earlier edits I've used an external tool to double-check and that led to the reference being removed. This won't happen again. As for the "police brutality" case, I do also understand that was too rough paraphrase which changed the meaning. Meer et 60 gibbra (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Meer et 60 gibbra, am I right that English is not your native language? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits restored

I'll refrain from edit warring with an administrator, UtherSRG. Edits by Shanna1998 have struck me as likely written by AI--[129]; [130]; [131]; [132]; [133]; [134]; [135]; [136]. 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 [137]; [138] and removed my warnings to the user [139]. 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, [140]; [141]--the second one is a coin flip, though restoring the first makes no sense. My warning was again reverted [142]. 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)

Rick Alan Ross (declared COI) using Wikipedia to attack another person

Editor:

• Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2015-current)
• Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008-2015)
• Rick Alan Ross (usurped) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008 only)

Pages in question:

• Steven Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Declared COI editor Rick Alan Ross has been monopolizing Talk:Rick Alan Ross and Talk:Steven Hassan for years with endless verbose requests (framed like complaining), culminating in frustration for multiple Wikipedia editors, myself just recently included. After checking some wiki history/archives, I have decided to post at ANI.

A few fundamental points: Ross has been publicly attacking Hassan for over a decade, and still is, and Ross doesn't want a page covering himself (2008 AfD). Ross has repeatedly been instructed on COI, and what is acceptable or not with edit requests—the former seems to have worked; the latter to no avail.

An October 2015 COIN thread followed by a November 2015 ANI thread strongly asserts NOTHERE and other DISRUPTIVE signs. I concur with the 2015 ANI accusations as seen in 2023 behaviors and it would be hard to improve on the old ANI except to point to Talk:Rick Alan Ross and Talk:Steven Hassan for this month's drama. There were no sanctions then, but the editing behavior patterns mentioned in 2015 haven't changed in the intervening 8 years.

As a single purpose account, over the last 15 years this editor has made 1624 edits (per xtools): 919 (57%) are to his BLP talk page, 310 (20%) to the Hassan BLP talk page, and a few edits (2.5%) are to the 2 talk pages covering legal cases Ross was personally associated with. That's a lot of edit requests for such a narrow focus. Even if one could somehow excuse the numerous edit requests to his own BLP talk page, the 310 edits to the Hassan talk page represent yet more public attacking of Hassan. There really is no reason that Ross should be instructing Wikipedia editors on what should or shouldn't be in the Steven Hassan article.

I recommend the editor be topic banned from anything related to Hassan, at minimum, or maybe limited to edit requests directly and narrowly related to correcting errors only on Ross topics. I would be okay with any community decision to sanction higher, including a site ban, because in my opinion if Ross hasn't figured out how to work with volunteer Wikipedia editors after hundreds of interactions spanning multiple years, it's not going to happen now.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My involvement in this is very recent (just today), and consists of carefully reviewing many of Ross's innumerable edit requests; implementing a few (in neutralized form) that are encyclopedically pertinent and have independent, reliable, secondary sources; and closing the rest (Spintendo closed a bunch of the older ones, too, and Hipal some others).

Ross's behavior with regard to Steven Hassan is completely unconstructive and needs to stop, period. This is not the Ross vs. Hassan Blog. The activity at Talk:Rick Alan Ross has been problematic but isn't necessarily irreparable. The issues are his opening multiple really longwinded {{Edit COI}} requests at the same time, often overlapping as to scope, and full of generalized complaint and ranting and self-promotion. When specific edits to make are suggested at all, they are usually with poor or no sources (there are some spotty exceptions), and couched in terms that are promotional of Ross, aimed at whitewashing away criticism, and/or laced with unsourced criticism of others – public figures, general classes of people as cultists or cult-apologists, and specific editors as the same (especially Harold the Sheep) if they are not giving him what he wants.

I see some evidence of his activity there having improved a little over time, but not enough. That said, I can also understand his frustration; lots of people wish they did not have an article here (I'm glad I don't!), especially if there is any published controversy about them, and WP is rule-bound and sometimes slow to act. But his self-important and sometimes hostile approach makes it even less likely than usual that someone will respond open-mindedly and take the considerable time and effort to look into and do something about his edit requests, which is rather self-sabotaging on Ross's part. Patience is required.

A restriction like "limited to edit requests directly and narrowly related to correcting errors only on Ross topics" would arguably do more harm than good, as when we have a WP:COI WP:NPA, we would rather they became productive editors across multiple topics than became even more of a CoI NPA. Rather, I think the specific remedies that are needed are the following:

1. Topic-ban from Steven Hassan.
2. Restriction to one Edit COI request at a time, which additionally must: A) be concise, B) request specific textual changes, C) be backed up by sources that are both reliable and independent, D) not include personal attacks or aspersions against any parties, and E) actually use the {{Edit COI}} template.
3. Warning that further instances of personal attacks against editors or other parties will result in an indefinite block.

Beyond that, Ross needs to read all the comments recently left in response to his requests at Talk:Rick Alan Ross and the policies and guidelines they refer to, and also should probably read the advice at WP:HOTHEADS#Address edits not editors, explaining with clear examples how to raise WP:NPoV and other concerns about content and edits without verbally attacking individuals or groups of them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC); revised to address a point below. 07:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Involvement disclosure correction: I actually did have a minor intereaction with Ross earlier, but forgot about it: User talk:Rick Alan Ross#reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The editor has never used the {{edit coi}} tags. I am the one who added them today in an attempt to organize and start marking off threads that we could consider completed. About an hour in, I realized not only could I not determine which threads had been dealt with, but I discovered how many other editors had tried before me.

I first encountered the editor just one week ago at Talk:Steven Hassan. I tried to help; even reaching out to the editor to offer my assistance in how to get better response to his requests; show him the ropes like a quick start guide. The offer was disregarded, but no matter, since I discovered today that everything I was going to suggest, he has previously been instructed on. Within days I was overburdened with confusing walls of text and forceful demands. I came online today to weed through the many edit requests. Thank you, SMcCandlish, for all the work you did today soldiering through each thread and marking each one off. My hope is that this ANI will result in some way to stop a repeat of the mess.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted; I revised my remedy #2 above to account for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This looks like he doesn't understand wikipedia and is preoccupied with his own page and those of his rivals. Not sure he is a net gain to the project. Secretlondon (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, not all of the editorial suggestions he made were bad; some did (mostly through my work verifying the sources) result in some article improvement. But it was a real slog to get through all his verbiage. As for "his rivals", just topic banning him from them would fix that problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Only jumping in to say I think we should be very reluctant to ban an article subject from advocating for changes on the talk page, even if the requests are voluminous. Nobody is obliged to respond to them, after all, and there's something to be said for having one's objections "on the record" as such. No comment on the rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Topic ban, restriction and warning, as proposed by SMcCandlish. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As an involved editor that's tried to work with him for years: The block from Steven Hassan seems necessary to stop the disruption there. As for his own article, I lean toward Rhododendrites' points: editors don't have to respond. If he cannot make clear edit requests, there's plenty of editing to do elsewhere. --Hipal (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• PBlocked We don't even need to enact a topic-ban; simply partial block him from Steven Hassan and its talkpage, and I have done so. The discussion about what access he can have to his own page may continue. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support 2) and 3) and leaving him with the ability to edit his own talk page. (I have no knowledge of his activity on Steven Hassan.) I hope that with SMcCandlish's suggestions, this discusion, and his recent apology on his Talk page that he can more CONCISELY and constructively ask for edits to his page. I first came his article on 2023-11-11, and then noticed the Talk page, and after seeing his many repeating ranty posts citing sources on his own website, felt that any attempt to interact with him to improve the article would be a very frustrating waste of time. Thank you very much, SMcCandlish!!! for the time and effort you put in here, (and Hipal also) and I hope that Mr Ross will live up to his recent Talk page promise.---Avatar317^(talk) 20:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User: Jingbiy: disruptive editing and false accusation of sockpuppetry

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

---

This user has relentlessly engaged in disruptive editing on the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) page by deleting sourced material from the infobox with no valid reason. It should be noted that the page was left in this status quo for a long time, until a couple of users came along and removed the section of civilian casualties in the info box with no explanation whatsoever.

Upon reading through the talk page, per the user’s request, I can see that there was some obvious edit warring going on between a couple users over this, although it is clear to me that the side that was the aggressor was clearly the side that believes civilian casualties shouldn’t be shown in the info box.

I posted a new topic in the talk page stating that civilian casualties need to be shown in the info box, and perhaps a fair compromise would be to show the up to 400,000 Ottoman Muslim civilian casualties and 30,000 Bulgarian civilian casualties, as seen on the page in earlier versions.

The user did not respond to this prompt at all, despite the fact that they requested in the first place to take the problem to the talk page.

An IP user came along and further inflamed the issue by reverting this user’s edits, which even though I agree needed to be reverted, did not necessarily think this was the right step until the user had a chance to reply.

A couple days later, I was falsely and unfairly blocked for 48 hours for “sockpuppetry” with 0 proof and explanation, despite the fact that it is easily proven that I have no relation to the IP user whatsoever.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I don’t know if maybe this should have been posted on the dispute resolution section instead, but regardless, any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByzantineIsRoman (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@ByzantineIsRoman: I don't see anything in your block log. What do you mean you were blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry? – bradv 03:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Really? Could you refresh / double check?? ByzantineIsRoman (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I found it in the block log of your other accounts. All sorted now. – bradv 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv, well that was fun. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no words. Jingiby (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Yoyoskslaai

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

---

Yoyoskslaai (talk · contribs) - Clearly WP:NOTHERE, having only contributed to add irrelevant soapboxing comments on talk pages and spewing vitriol when reverted. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:69.135.105.2

User:69.135.105.2 continues to add unreferenced content despite several warnings from multiple editors this month. They have not engaged with any warnings on their talk page. glman (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

IP is a school... likely multiple users not aware of the warnings on the talk page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

IP editor making legal threats

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

---

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Andrey Nechayev

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NewsRuss.com

195.3.182.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User making legal threats upon being asked to explain a bit why something should be deleted. --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Project:Don't overlook legal threats and Project:Coatrack articles seem appropriate at this point. Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP editor for their stark, overt legal threat which is clearly intended to intimidate other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Appreciated, thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)

Antares600

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)

User:Xxxcatfishxxx

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)

Using edit summaries for a campaign, redux

Where did the discussion in mid-November 2023 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Using_edit_summaries_for_a_campaign relating to User_talk:1.145.73.131#Campaign_messages go to?

I cannot find it by searching the archive under Incidents, nor is it in the chronologically expected position within Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1142.

—DIV
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(49.186.112.234 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC))

I want to reference it regarding an edit reversion at Talk:Monosodium_glutamate. —DIV (49.186.112.234 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Using edit summaries for a campaign. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

User:111.92.80.194

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 ([143], [144], [[145]). 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 ([146]) 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)

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 [147], or misrepresents the source [148], or simply adds a non-existing page as a source [149]; some of those edits may even fall under vandalism. This has continued even after conveying the concerns about his edits [150], [151].

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)

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[[152]], however none of the editors wanted to discuss this information. After RFC ended I opened a new RFC[[153]] regarding this information. However, no one wanted to discuss that either. After that I put this information on NORN[[154]] and FTN[[155]] for discussion and there none of these editors took part in discussion, it's the same case in the Columbus talk page[[156]]. I started discussion in the article Dante Alighieri where the same information existed in Italian footnote.[[157]] 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".[[158]] 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)

Disruptive behaviour and unnecessary protection at Arvada, Colorado

A few days ago I improved the article about Arvada, Colorado, by substantially editing some excruciatingly boring text that was added by a bot in 2001. Most editors know very well that many, many US articles were originally created in this way. Editing such text into something readable and relevant remains a necessary task for thousands of articles.

Ideally, one or two editors might have noticed my edit, glanced at the diff to verify that I did what I said I did in the edit summary, and moved on. That did not happen. Three problematic editors restored poor content without ever explaining why, and a fourth problematic editor protected the article with the poor content in place.

• User:That Tired Tarantula, an account less than two months old that does nothing but revert edits and leave warning templates, started things off, undoing my improvements without explaining why, less than one minute after I had made them.[159]
• User:Cray04 came along 12 minutes later, and also undid my improvements. Their edit summary said "Rollingback until it can be reviewed". What they thought needed reviewing, who they wanted to carry out this review, and when, they did not say.[160]
• After I restored my improvements, 12 hours passed until a third editor, User:Dwo, turned up and once again reverted my improvements, with no explanation of any kind.[161] I restored them when I noticed that, two days later. The user again reverted them, again for no reason,[162] and then sought page protection on nonsensical grounds which suggest that their primary motivation was an objection to IP addresses [163].
• User:BusterD, evidently without looking at the edits concerned, indeed protected the article.

So, a very uncontroversial improvement was undone and remains undone, and no coherent reason for this has ever been given.

I post this here because this is not an aberration. This is not some inexplicable lapse by people who normally edit well and appreciate rather than attack improvements to articles. No, this is utterly commonplace. While most uncontroversial improvements do not get attacked, many inevitably do, as this one did, and once people start attacking them, there is absolutely nothing one can do to get through to them. No conscientious editor would have given my edits a second glance. No conscientious administrator would have protected the article. You should all be very troubled by this, if you are here to build an encyclopaedia. 94.119.32.7 (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring, and then coming here to belly-ache about not being allowed to edit-war anymore. Classy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are reverted then start a discussion at Talk:Arvada, Colorado rather than edit-war by reinstating the edit. It doesn't matter whether your edit was right or wrong; just talk about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

So you removed a massive amount of sourced content because you think information like coordinates, housing prices, and demographics are "excruciatingly boring"? Yeah, I think we're all stay untroubled about building the encyclopedia. AryKun (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

And this edit summary isn't putting you in a place of moral rightness. Canterbury Tail talk 14:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• When I first approached the article (uninvolved, reading RfPP), I saw ten almost identical reverts between IP editors and three different user accounts in the previous 2 days. I read edit summaries; I looked at the diffs. Looked like blanking to me; still does. No discussion on page talk. Because page protection was requested, I semi-protected the page for a week. The IP editor is under a mis-impression that because they claim to have the right version and the three different user accounts have the WP:Wrong version, any administrator should intercede in their favor. My understanding when I was given administrator privileges was that my remit is to put out fires (and possibly prevent them). Making decisions on exactly WHAT content should remain would make me WP:Involved, and eliminate my usefulness as a sysop on this page. I would expect any conscientious administrator to do pretty much what I chose to do, and possibly even more, given the extreme language being used by the IPs. I have blocked nobody here, merely semi-protected the page for seven days. Since then, no edit warring. I'm always glad to accept critique on my actions. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  94.199, whose sock are you, please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Renewed activity from banned HarveyCarter

• 2A00:23C5:C416:3001:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

User:HarveyCarter was banned years ago but is still actively trolling talk pages and putting his slant on articles. He was disruptive at Talk:Shane MacGowan last year, resulting in a lengthy rangeblock by Girth Summit on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C410:5601:0:0:0:0/64. After MacGowan died recently, a new spate of activity was seen from a neighbouring IP6 range, continuing the disruptive behaviour.

Please place a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C416:3001:0:0:0:0/64 at minimum. Or widen the net and block the /40. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for the holiday season. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 7 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)

Albert Cashier aka Jennie Hodgers

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

---

Please remove the following statement from Albert Cashier aka Jennie Hodger's page as she was NOT a ' Trans Man ' . She was an Orphan Immigrant who needed to work and make money, and in the 1800's only males and men were able to get paying job, not females:

" The consistent and nearly lifelong (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity has prompted some historians to believe that Cashier was a trans man "

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.60.155 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Albert Cashier. For what it's worth, numerous sources come to this conclusion, so if you find sources that come to a different conclusion, feel free to share them on Talk:Albert Cashier. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Dpiwd

• Dpiwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Four recent warnings: [164] [165] [166] [167]

This spam-only account should be blocked and the domain husfarm.com blacklisted. The four recent warnings and two other warnings this year are sufficient; this user is obvously not here to build an encyclopedia since their only edits have been to add spam, and they are slow-moving enough that they are unlikely to accumulate four warnings and one additional spam edit within one month. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Dpiwd as a spam only account. Cullen328 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

NairaKanakMeera

This user User:NairaKanakMeera is constantly doing disruptive fan edits at actor Mohsin Khan (actor), TV series Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and it's cast article List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai by adding and removing unnecessary things. This user needs to be blocked from editing these 3 particular pages. Also this user is making it's own userpage a fan fiction that too with blue links of actors. This page also needs to be suspended. Pri2000 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

1. You did not alert them that this ANI is happeneing

2. The link for the user page didn't work (you just put user, not NairaKanakMeera

3. please provide diff's. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay so I'm providing some of the differences of that user's destructive edits on tv seties and it's cast page as well as that user's own user page

[168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176] Pri2000 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't alerted them, I'll do it. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 20:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the section title and the opening of Pri2000's initial post to link to NairaKanakMeera. It should be noted that this editor does not appear to have ever edited in either the article talk or the user talk name-spaces and is editing on mobile, so it is possible they are unaware of their user talk page. In any case, an additional ping from me can't hurt. Also, their user page has been speedy deleted twice for WP:NOTWEBHOST. But Pri2000 doesn't seem to have tried explaining to them on their talk page how their edits are problematic, and I'm not sure whether editors on mobile can see edit summaries. So I'm going to leave a message on their talk page too. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Non EC user disruption at an AfD

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. [177]. This follows repeated attempts to canvass for the AfD. [178][179]. 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. [180] 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)

User:FlightTime showed bad editing etiquette & abused their admin powers to threaten to wrongfully block me

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

---

Here is what happened. I made an edit to the John De Lancie page (Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Lancie&diff=prev&oldid=1188681811 ). This was a simple edit where I moved a piece of information from one spot to another. No information was added or deleted, it was just rearranged for reasons I clearly gave in my edit summary. As a user I am clearly allowed to make these types of inoffensive edits to a page. This page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia ) clearly endorses editors making minor edits on their own without approval first (“Therefore, Wikipedia urges all its users to be bold: if you spot an error, correct it. If you can improve an article, please do so.”). So since my edit was very minor (just rearranging the placement of one sentence of information) & and I explained my reasoning for the edit clearly, I was entirely in the right to make this edit.

Then User:FlightTime decided to revert my edit, without giving any reason at all. They reverted it a mere 3 minutes after I made made the edit, giving no edit summary at all. According to Wikipedia guidelines they were in the wrong to do this. Here are a few quotes from these two pages ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting ) clearly showing that, while admittedly not against policy per se, reverting my edit without giving any explanation was clearly not approved Wikipedia etiquette:

“Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.”

“Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.”

“What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all.”

“Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor, and greater harmony.”

Since my edit objectively barely changed the article and was made in good faith, the best thing that FlightTime should have done according to Wikipedia etiquette was to start a discussion in the talk page about the edit. And if they felt so strongly that my edit was bad, then they could have reverted my edit with a clear explanation for doing so and then reached out to discuss it and find a consensus.

Since FlightTime had gone against Wikipedia etiquette in doing this revert, and I had actually explained my edit while they did not, I decided that it was justified for me to revert the page back to my edit. I gave the edit summary “I made my change in good faith and explained my reasoning. If you disagree with the change, then make a topic in the discussion page so we can discuss it, don't edit war.”. I thought this revert was completely justified on my part, I had only reverted said page once (I wouldn’t have been actually violating rules unless I reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period) and it was in response to a revert done minutes after my good-faith minor edit for no stated reason.

Unfortunately, FilghtTime decided to revert my edit once again. They once again gave no reasons at all and just said in the edit summary “You're right, but that's your opinion, we don't do opinions. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page first”. They are incorrect about this. Those articles I quoted make clear that people are allowed to make minor constructive edits without asking first, that they only be reverted if actual reasons are given against it, and that disagreements should be resolved via talk pages without edit warring. FlightTime went against all of these guidelines here. They did not violate any rules to be fair and this isn’t on its own the main reason I am filing this report, but they definitely didn’t follow the best etiquette. So since it would only be my 2nd reversion, FlightTime had given no reasons for their reversions while I did for mine, I reverted again. Again, FlightTime was welcome to either explain their reasons in their own reversions or start a discussion on the talk page, which they clearly should have done according to the recommended etiquette.

Then, FlightTime decided to cross a line and actually abuse their admin powers. They put a warning on my admin page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.60.186.104#December_2023 ) saying that I had been disrupting Wikipedia, and that I may be blocked if I kept it up. There is by no standards in which I was disrupting Wikipedia or came anywhere close to violating Wikipedia policies, and my etiquette was definitely better here than that of FlightTime’s. I had only made two reversions in a 24 hour period before they sent this warning, Wikipedia policy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule ) states that reverting isn’t strictly blocked in non-vandal reverting cases as long as it was 3 or less in the 24-hour period. And since I had explained and justified my original minor edit, and FlightTime reverted it twice (which was the same amount of reverts I had made) without giving any reasons, I was clearly in my right to revert it myself otwice as well. If my reversions with clear reasoning were “disrupting Wikipedia”, then FlightTime’s reversions without any reasoning was clearly even more disruptive.

In conclusion, I am filing this report to let people know that FlightTime went against proper etiquette in handling my minor edits, and they abused their powers by sending me a warning even though I never came close to violating any rules. And if my two reverts somehow were violating rules, then FlightTime's two reverts were clearly also violating rules. I am disappointed by FlightTime’s behavior here. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

...FlightTime isn't an admin, so they certainly didn't "abuse admin powers"... Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Then how were they able to send me this warning?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.60.186.104#December_2023 67.60.186.104 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can post warnings on use pages. Meters (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can issue warnings. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your'e being disagreed with. Work it out on the talkpage, and stop treating FlightTime as an opponent to be defeated. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an edit dispute, and needs to be discussed on the talk page. Please take it there and discuss it with FlightTime. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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