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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My advice is to try to disangage and bury the hatchet. I am not impressed with behavior of some other named parties that you have identified, but WP:BOOMERANG is an issue you have to seriously consider, and is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Is it worth it for you to see several editors, including yourself, blocked? I do not like where this is going. I strongly suggest you focus on creating content and not on commenting about other editors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason for me to be sanctioned; I presented the case of distruptive conduct, as far as I can see many other users agree with my conclusions. I try not to comment about other editors, only about their conduct if I find it distruptive for the Wikipedia. I refrain from commenting further, it seems to me that I have already said everything. Marcelus (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless procedures have changed yet again, I think the simplest approach would be to open a request at WP:ARCA seeking to have the WP:ARBAPL (Nazis and Poland) scope expanded to include either Lithuania or all of Eastern Europe, preferably the latter, based on evidence that is a well-diffed but very concise summary of the problematic behaviors in the dispute, and an observation of how similar they are to those in the Poland case (i.e., the disruption has simply moved one country over but is essentially the same Nazi-whitewashing issue).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to clarify: I am not saying you broke the rules in the actual discussion itself, but that during these previous discussions it was agreed that you had breached the rules. Secondly, these discussions are not unrelated: they always involve you and Cukrakalnis accusing one another of... things. Often far less serious things than what's being implied (this holds true for the both of you). Finally, I am not raising the possibility of sanctioning [you] as a legitimate end to the discussion: I'm almost guaranteeing that at some point down the line you're both going to get blocked if no better solution can be found. It doesn't take Nostradamus to make this claim - you both have gotten pblocked twice already over your constant bickering. Any further questions I ask that you write in my tp and I'll gladly answer them. Ostalgia (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are forcefully building a narrative that my and Cukrakalnis' activities are identical, and you call our interaction "bickering". I believe that this narrative is false. Insinuating that I will or may be blocked for bringing serious rule violations to the attention of the community is, in my opinion, outrageous. Marcelus (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, for some, seeing both of you blocked is a good outcome. First, from the tired admin perspective, because it would bring peace and quiet to this thread and Wikipedia in general, and second, from the content perspective, because there are more than two parties to this content dispute, and silencing both of you is good for certain POVs. I strongly recommend all parties here try to disengage before it is too late. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus: Both Piotrus and Ostalgia are correct. You are being your own worst enemy right now, especially with this "What did I do wrong, huh? Prove it! PROVE IT!" act. Just engaging in WP:JERK behavior long and loud enough is in itself disruptive and thus grounds for action, even if you are right on sourceable facts on some content question (and it's not clear that you always have been in this subject area). While my general take on all this is that Cukrakalnis's behavior has been "less constructive" than your own, on the whole, that doesn't magically make you blameless. A number of us are supportive of putting this topic area under CTOP because the disputation level has become unmanageable without it, and that's not just on Cukrakalnis. (It's probably a good idea also because even if both of you were indeffed, others would fill your niche soon enough.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect from me. I'm also not sure why you're hyperbolizing my attitude. I think it's natural for me to expect a clear statement of how I broke Wikipedia's rules or the rules of cooperation. Several people are making the allusion that I should be punished in some way, without saying for what. Other users like @Elinruby accuse me of things that are simply not true. Now you are making comparisons on WP:JERK, I don't get it. At what point did I act like a jerk towards anyone?

This case is also not a simple content dispute, the issue here is that we are dealing with a certain pattern of action aimed at hiding the phenomenon of collaboration in Lithuania. In my opinion, @Cukrakalnis finds it difficult to be objective on this subject, which is somehow understandable to me, as a Lithuanian he has an emotional attitude to these issues. However, it does act to the detriment of Wikipedia as a project. I am not calling for C to be kicked out of the Wiki. Which may be hard to believe, but I really don't hold a grudge against him and believe that he is capable of giving a lot to the project in many fields. However, in this narrow topic, it seems to me that his freedom should be limited. Marcelus (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Marla Maples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I had to guess a reason, if its not for causing general annoyance, its a way to push for a policy to permanently semiprotect ALL articles / prevent IPs from editing at all JM (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually reading it again I might be wrong about that, it's what I was thinking of with my earlier reply. However it remains true that there is a lot of problems with non anon socks and they're generally just as difficult to handle and I'm fairly sure legal action isn't any more likely to succeed in general. (As per my earlier point, it may be in specific cases more related to the type of disruption rather than whether accounts or IPs are used.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

208.90.127.100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bot blocking my IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

• They have used their userpage to host a variety of inappropriate comments about British Wikipedians. This started out with a completely bizarre "reminder" to British editors that they don't own wikipedia [13]. They then altered their userpage to contain the claim that the use of British English in articles was due to "British supremacists" making use of an "ill-gotten opportunity" [14]. They were warned that this was not appropriate for their user page [15], so they responded by modifying the note to make the equally inappropriate comment that British wikipedians were "jerks" [16].
• A few months ago they started a thread at the village pump proposing the creation of an American only version of the project [17], some replies to the proposal asked if it was trolling. This proposal includes gems such as Wikipedia itself is American, so it's become more readable for foreigners than on its home turf.
• They have gotten involved in engvar related discussions on various pages, but their comments are sometimes bizarre or disruptive. This includes comments that have no basis in policy, such as claiming we should use American English because they like it better [18], deleting British English headers [19][20] then claiming that the British spellings might actually be Canadian [21] and trying to claim that the entire discretionary sanctions regime has ties to America and should be rewritten in American English [22].
• They "retired" from the project (lasting a week) claiming the use of British English on the site makes them unwilling to contribute [23].

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

• They claim on their userpage that merging articles is similar to a book burning [24]. This has lead to them disrupting AFD with comments showing no understanding of policy [25] [26] and this revert of a redirect performed as part of a merger resulting in the same content being present in two places [27].
• Erpert merges an article after his merge proposal is unopposed, IPs are people too shows up, restores the article with no comment before self-reverting [28] [29]. They then go to Erpert's talk page and find a discussion where an IP is complaining about unsourced material being removed by Erpert [30]. After some back and forth Erpert closes the discussion [31], which leads IPs are people too to add a message to their talk page reading If you're User:Erpert, f### off. [32]. Nothing Erpert did seems to merit that level of incivility.
• Edit warring to try to insist that a picture of a Tesseract is 3D [33] [34] [35] [36] [37].
• Whatever this is [38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.Bitton's rollback use

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

---

I have recently noticed that M.Bitton usually uses the rollback tool in editorial disputes. In the last case, I removed several sources based on a recent discussion at WP:RSP (RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)), where the editor proceed to undo the edits with the rollback. This has continued even after I warned about it: [39][40][41][42][43][44]

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

Marginally related but perhaps just as important is civility: at first glance, just in the last weeks, Bitton seems to have the habit of removing messages in their talk page along with rude remarks: "Get lost!" [45][46][47][48][49], "Take a hike!, "Exciting stuff" [50][51][52][53], "Go believe it somewhere else!" and, in my case, "I've had enough of this nonsense" [54][55] and "this is clearly a waste of time". Best wishes. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Said answers were provided at the user's talk page, to which they have simply refused to engage with [56][57].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Note: (edit conflict) The last removals in question cited the discussion at RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune) (WP:RSN), not WP:VENRS as M.Bitton is leading to believe. The last time I cited the list to dispute a source was on 24 November ([58]), and the last time I did to remove several references was on 4 October ([59]). I'm aware these concerns have been controversial, so in the last months I have tried citing wider policies and discussions for this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The OP is largely responsible for the essay VENRS. A look at the editing history of the page shows the extent of the OP’s work. The OP uses the opinions on VENRS to justify the treatment of sources in wiki articles. Very few of the sources listed on VENRS have been assessed via the Reliable Sources process. Here are a few examples from the last few months of the OP's (mis)use of the VENRS page - search the OP’s history for the word “VENRS” for more examples.[60] [61] [62] [63] This (mis)use of the essay has been mentioned previously by a number of editors and is responsible for a number of disputes. (See the following discussion on the Admin page [64]) I have previously suggested that VENRS either needs to be destroyed completely or moved to the OP’s own talk page.
• Regarding removal of sources, the OP has previously binge-removed specific sources. On 27/10/23 the OP went on a crusade to remove all references to the Cuban online encyclopedia EcuRed. This was based on a short enquiry at the Reliable sources noticeboard.[65] One editor objected to the removal, saying "next time you remove thousands of references in hundreds of articles, maybe you could replace them with the sources listed in EcuRed (if any) or others, rather than leaving a mess behind".[66] On the 15/11/23 the OP went on a binge of removing citations to Jacobin. I counted 10 removals. Jacobin has been assessed as generally reliable for facts but biased. Some of the reasons given for the removals were "Removing biased, WP:UNDUE source" and "Biased source". In a number of cases the text removed was either attributed opinion or factual.
• I did look at one editing dispute between the two editors. This was at Marcel Granier. It appears that the dispute started on 13/10/23 when the OP made a bold change to the article. [67] This was reverted by M.Bitton on 15/10/23. The disputed change was re-added by the OP on 13/12/23 and immediately reverted again. It was then re-added by the OP and immediately reverted again and again. Throughout this to-ing and fro-ing no discussion was attempted on the article's talk page. Burrobert (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Context

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

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

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

• 12 December: Yesterday, nearly two months after the first removals and one after the WP:RS/N closure, I removed the same sources again, this time citing the discussion at the RS/N (not WP:VENRS). M.Bitton proceeded to revert the changes again with Twinkle again. In a few cases, Bitton argued that Orinoco Tribune was not deprecated, cited WP:ABOUTSELF and noted that not all of the sources were Correo del Orinoco, but most of these reverts went unexplained. I replied back at their talk page, pointing out to the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard and commenting why the source was not reliable even for WP:ABOUTSELF. I also pointed out to WP:TWINKLEABUSE, and that rollbacks should only be used in the case of obvious vandalism. They removed all of the messages ([68]).

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

With all that out of the way, we should focus back at M.Bitton's behavior. From the diffs I provided and the responses here, it's clear that there is a civility problem here, not only with myself but with other editors as well, and that their Twinkle gadget has been used for content disputes and not obvious vandalism: [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77], or in some cases edit warring, which is even more important considering the editor's block history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  M. Bitton is getting provoked a little too easily. They really shouldn't be calling any edit "asinine", but particularly not when the issue is just a lack of clarity [78] (Turkey certainly does not share a border with Morocco, but the linked article is that of the Ottoman Empire, which did, did it not?). They also should not revert a good-faith edit without an edit-summary.

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

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

Disruptive editing, WP:Canvassing, Offsite canvassing on a General sanctioned page and topic

I’ve been guided by another admin to report this here from this talk page. Can you all please look into the edits of this user on these General sanctioned subject like  1, 2??. The editor has been reverted twice for removing the lead of this GA article. The editor may also have been canvassed or is engaged in canvassing other people here for Wikipedia and in reddit. They are also engaged in spreading my username and making grandiose claims about my edits on social media like this. I also have suspicions about this IP address A, also editing per the request of this user. What is the point of general sanctions if such behavior is allowed to continue?TruthGuardians (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It is really noy accurate to say you were "guided by another admin" about that exchange. It is also not fair to make these accusations simply because you don't like the facts. Michael Jackson was accused by at least 8 people of abuse during their childhood and you or others repeatedly removed it from the lead. Take a look at the Talk:Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: Just for the record, two new editors 1, 2 who do not have a recent edit history or any previous edits on Jackson related topics appeared on the talk page. Possible more evidence of canvassing.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Truth Guardians, go to my talk page and look at what the user, User:NinjaRobotPirate you complained to wrote to me about me tagging that user I "know" from editing same topics over the years. Ninja explained to me "don't tag a user to weigh in because it looks like manipulation.. instead place a notice on the Neutral Noticeboard." And I wrote "thanks ok i will" and i did. So if new editors you dont know are suddenly coming to your MJ pages, it is probably from the neutral noticeboard. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC).

I am more concerned with adding protections and more invested in ensuring comprehensive safeguards are implemented for all articles related to Michael Jackson at this point in time. Currently, there is evident canvassing occurring within an anti-Jackson thread on Reddit. Notably, users in that thread share identical usernames with their Wikipedia accounts like DanieleJava, claiming they have been working working on Wikipedia to spread such accuser advocacy and propaganda. Furthermore, there seems to be a concerning doxing activity, with users attempting to identify me 1, 2,. Additionally, the editing patterns of some canvassed individuals suggest the presence of potential meat/sock puppet accounts. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

68.237.27.46

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

OK, so here's what I found. They started editing on December 11, and this edit to an argument by Thinker78 against an ArbCom candidate was their first edit (which was also very rude, but that's not the point). They then edited here, undoing an edit by Thinker78. They made three edits to the book Harry Kitten and Tucker Mouse, ( changing a few words in the lead, deleting "we learn" and changing a link, and changing punctuation) and then one to the George Selden, the author's, page (changing a comma). They removed a sentence and added a "dead link" tag in Hatane (note: won't show the link I was using, wrong diff) messed around in the 2020 World Allround Skating Championships (removing bolding; I don't know if that's against the Manual of Style) and proposing a merge (see [79], [80], [81], [82]. This was all on December 11.

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

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

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

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

User:MichaelI Effiong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guswen on Talk:Pi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Lolged

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

---

User:Lolged is posting a non-constructive comment and making a racist personal attack (“Typical of a ukrainian to just remove opposing opinions”)[83] in the edit summary at Talk:Human wave attack. According to WP:RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users like this one are not permitted to edit talk pages related to the subject of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and I believe that applies to this talk-page section titled “2022 russian invasion of Ukraine.” I had previously reverted[84] their original comment[85] already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Nil Einne (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regardless your opening comment above was fairly misleading, and not reflective of actual current policy for GS. It's not even quite right for CT. Also you're an admin and you started a discussion on ANI but didn't even notify the editor concerned? [86] Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Yabama200

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

User:Keremmaarda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading username

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible block evasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncommunicative editor

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

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

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

Persistent promotional disruption at Bernadette Giacomazzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:NuancedProwler

• NuancedProwler (talk · contribs · count)

First claims to have reviewed a source [87] then claims is not able to access the source [88]. General disruptive behaviour, possible ban-evader or sock (maybe this user, new acc was created when old one was blocked), I presume WP:NOTHERE. Best regards. Wareno (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:MelroseReporter

• MelroseReporter (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Stellairibarne

• Stellairibarne (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

User:AHI-3000

Does not leave any edit summary, even after I specifically asked them to do so [89]. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP range could use a broader block

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

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

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

User:Mrmaxor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review requested

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

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

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

Unwelcome escalation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emojis

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

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

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

Capitals00

On 10 November of this year, the user Capitals00 changed the result on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948 to "Indian victory", when it previously stated, "UN-mediated ceasefire". This update in the result, with the article being a contentious one, faced immediate backlash and high contention to the result on the article's talk page. This updated result did not comply with MOS:MIL, as it stated that India achieved its objectives in total victory, which is not true. Capitals used the basis that India had the upper hand strategically at the time of the ceasefire, but as emphasized on the talk page, victory and upper hand are not the same. Capitals had utilized sources aligning with WP:TERTIARY, before updating his list of citations when questioned on them. Capitals still failed to comply with MOS:MIL, and utilizing a basis that victory was asserted due to Pakistan failing to capture all of Jammu & Kashmir, which in itself is a fallacy when India failed to react to Major William Brown's accession of Gilgit Baltistan to Pakistan after a coup, and Pakistan's setting up of a provisional government in Muzaffarabad. Both of those regions remained with Pakistan as per the 1949 Karachi Agreement. By the time of the ceasefire, India had the upper hand strategically as it had repelled a Pakistani attempt to capture Leh and had maintained the Kashmir Valley, although, in the Spring of 1948, its attempts to advance into Pakistani-occupied Kashmir such as Muzaffarabad failed. In 2019, an attempt to change the results of both the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 in favor of India were formulated. In Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 debate raged on the result of these two wars, in which the scholarly consensus favored inconclusive results. The editing here by Capitals seems to be WP:CHERRYPICKING per utilizing sources that are not in agreement with the scholarly consensus on this war. When Capitals was again confronted on his sourcing and his failure to comply with MOS:MIL, he simply ignored the message, and the consensus on the talk page was against Indian victory and in favor of a UN-mediated ceasefire as the result. A total of 6 users reverted Capitals' edit in the infobox back to the scholarly consensus, with him repeatedly reverting it back to his edit, saying, "See talk page", when the talk page does not even agree with his assessment. This is obvious WP:DE. The result should state the UN-mediated ceasefire per the consensus and "See aftermath", per MOS:MIL. When Capitals was given this proposition, he simply stated, "Cannot do that.". I request action to be taken over this matter due to the high contention this result has brought. Thank you. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)MrGreen1163