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 and SMcCandlish: Since User:Barkeep49 was one of the primary contributors to the original ArbCom case, I pestered them about this here and sure enough, ARCA is the answer. (Barkeep49 mentioned the possibility of such a request resulting in a review of this discussion and possible sanctions against editors because of their behavior here. Considering Marcelus is still lashing out all over this thread two weeks after starting it, that's a good thing.) Now I'm going to do the thing where, since I don't have a clue how to make an amendment request at ARCA, I quietly wait in the hopes one of you does it before I give it a shot. City of Silver 20:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Lashing out? I participate in the discussion, I respond to people who address me or talk about me, referring to everyone with respect. So far no one has been able to explain to me what the problem with me is, why I should be sanctioned. Now you are making an accusation out of the fact that I am participating in a discussion I started. I don't want to exaggerate, but I feel like I'm about to go crazy. Marcelus (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: First, look up the word "accusation" because going on this, you don't know what it means. If this goes to ARCA and an arbitrator looks at editors' behavior here for concerns, you're very likely to be sanctioned. The reason I know this is because I've read everything you've said here and I've read everything others have said about you here. Re-read these things but if you do that and conclude that you haven't done anything wrong, keep re-reading and when you do, try this: consider how others feel about the things you say about them. Because almost every message here from you that criticizes either Cukrakalnis or Elinruby violates WP:NPA, a policy you're required to follow no matter what. I mostly agree with you on the content here but it's clear that if I didn't, you'd report me to a bunch of different noticeboards in an effort to get me in trouble, use gentle words to call me a liar, kinda/sorta accuse me of acting in bad faith, and otherwise personally attack me. It's fine if you disagree because that'll just tell me that you haven't re-read the things you've said in this thread and tried to figure out how you would feel if others said those things about you. City of Silver 22:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The NPA allows me to defend myself and defend my good name. If Elinruby accuses me of things that are untrue, I have the right to state it and defend myself. This is the second discussion on the noticeboard (not counting other t/p) in which Elinruby accuses me of something without providing evidence in the form of diffs and links. And if there is anything WP:NPA forbids it is this: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Contrary to your allusion, I don't threaten to report people who disagree with me. I report people who accuse me of things I believe to be untrue without providing evidence. If I said anything negative about Cukrakalnis' activities, I also confirmed it with evidence.

And I don't need to figuring out anything really, because first Elinruby post in this thread contained things like: "Marcelus simply cannot leave Cukrakalnis alone, and has an extremely strong internalized historical narrative that Poles are not antisemites/collaborators", "I got involved in a similar post at AE and challenged Marcelus to provide even one source that said Cukrakalnis was wrong on the facts, and he did not", "the pattern is always that Cukrakalnis was minding his business in Lithuania and Marcelus came in waving Polish sources outraged about Nazi something something. And every time I try to discern the problem by attempting to restate it, he is always all you know nothing Jon Snow, because this is Poland. Which is exactly the sort of toxicity that got us the Holocaust in Poland case"; that's very hurtful words, even more not backed up with any evidences. And completely misrepresenting my activities on Wikipedia. Only recently I greatly expanded article about the leader of Polish fascists Bolesław Piasecki. I also work on Draft:Antisemitism_in_Poland together with some other users (although it's abandoned work for some time, we should get back on this), I was also involved in helping to improve articles which were pointed out in Grabowski&Klein article (for example: Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 5#My comments on the objections made by Grabowski and Klein to this article and others).

I try not to be problematic, but I will resist attempts at bullying. As well, I will always defend the historical truth in articles against individuals, even if the end result is my ban. And now I really thank you, I'm tired, I've had enough. Marcelus (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the stress-coping "spoons" to deal with opening an ARCA case, honestly. There are various people who know the drill of how to do one; maye one of them will have the patience needed to build a diff list and summarize the dispute concisely (and concision in such matters is not my long suit).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that concision is not your long suit, but you are much better at it than a few of the editors involved in this discussion. I pity anyone who attempts to close it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've bit the bullet and opened the ARCA. I went for a "see the ANI thread which says it all" approach instead of trying to diff-farm about two particular editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I am really bad at noticeboard but I emphatically agree about extending the sourcing requirement to EE. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcelus, you could try reading the first paragraph of the "Coping with accusations of jerkitude" section of WP:JERK and substitute "If you have been criticised" for "If you've been labeled a jerk". TSventon (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The section you are talking about also begins with the question: Are you here to contribute and make the project good? And I can answer this question with full confidence: yes.

I just wish someone would understand my perspective. If I wanted to solve this problem myself, it would end with an edit warning at some point and a ban for me. If I wanted to discuss this on the talk page, it would go on forever, every source I cited would turn out to be imperfect for a million reasons. The moment I move this matter to a wider forum, it turns out to be "problematic". Just like during the discussion about Talk:258th Lithuanian Police Battalion, where my arguments were dismissed, ignored, even deleted. Until, under the influence of this discussion, GeeGee arrived and closed the topic with his learned answer. For this one reason, I believe that this discussion is not a waste of time. I'm really fed up with these constant discussions and apart from the topic of collaboration (precisely because it is niche but important and I feel that no one will deal with it), I avoid them.

If I seem problematic and someone who is lashing out, I'm sorry. Marcelus (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here, watching with horror as this interminable thread lurches on. This has gotten up over seventeen thousand words. Would it be possible for someone to just sum up -- without further editorializing -- the various options people want to see come out of this, vote on the damn thing, and put it to rest? Ravenswing 18:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Most important: The article about the prime minister definitely falls within the purview of "Poland in WW2 broadly construed since the material I have started to build in out of sheer exasperation will and definitely should include the rancorous border dispute over Vilnius/Wilno. Other good reasons probably exist. The existing sources do not come close to meeting the sourcing requirements of that decision and out of sheer exasperation I started working on both the articles myself, however more fundamental gaps in coverage keep appearing. I have been away for four days and have offline for two-- I will be adding extensive bibliographies in an hour or two.

  TL;DR baseless accusation that should not be here. War crime has a very specific definition. A Lithuanian archivist told an international commission that the 258th was one of the units that did NOT participate in the Holocaust. Link in a second. That's the heart of the matter as far as I can see. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Source: 258th did not participate in the Holocaust according to Bubnys A statement compiled historian Arūnas Bubnys for the Lithuanian Holocaust commission specifically lists the 258th, along with most others created that late in the war, as one of the 14 police battalions that had no involvement in the Holocaust. (Bubnys p.33)

Bubnys, Arūnas. “Lithuanian Police Battalions and the Holocaust (1941-1943).” The International Commission, 2001. https://www.komisija.lt/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Research-by-A.Bubnys-english.pdf. I will need to be afk for about three hours soon but I have a lot of content to add to the articles. Marcelus needs to talk to his mentor not this GeeGee person, who has given him misinformation. I think enforcing the sourcing requirement will clear much of this up. Elinruby (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby let me explain it to you again and I ask you to approach to what I say with good faith nad assumption that I know the matter at hand. Regarding the Lithuanian auxiliary police battalions in general and the 258th in particular, the issue of controversy was not whether they participated in the Holocaust or whether they were collaborators, but whether Cukrakalnis' removal of the "allegiance = Nazi Germany" parameter from the infobox is justified. What I was trying to clarify what GeeGee's statement confirmed, but which also follows directly from the content of the article: this parameter should be there because the police battalions were simply German military units, part of the Ordnungspolizei, recruited among the population of occupied countries. Some took part in the Holocaust of the Jewish population, some did not, but in general they carried out German orders like any other German unit. Even the source you cite, Prof. Bubnys, makes this point explicitly: It should be also added that the Lithuanian Police Battalions did not limit themselves only to taking part in the Holocaust. A considerable number of the Lithuanian Police Battalions did not take part in the maccarre of the Jews at all. Lithuanian Police Battalions were also used to guard military objects and prisoners of war, fight partisans; some of the battalions were even assigned to the front. However, this work views the history of the battalions in the light of the Holocaust. (p. 3) Moreover, no one, certainly not me, nor GeeGee in the course of the entire discussion, from its inception, has claimed that the 258th Battalion took part in the Holocaust. Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus the problem here is that {{let me explain this again}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No: I would say that the "most important" thing now is for all the principals to pipe down. You all have argued and argued and argued and argued at immense length, in numerous cases just repeating the same sentiments and the same pieces of evidence, in the apparent belief that the editor who proffers the most bytes of verbiage will be declared the winner. Hopefully the ARCA thread will provide the firm result that this ANI complaint has failed to deliver. Ravenswing 07:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting this thread get closed. It's been a long time since this discussion had potential to accomplish anything but in light of the request at ARCA, the value of keeping this open is now less than zero. If an uninvolved administrator is expected to trudge through this mess before closing it, I ask any such editor to please pretend to read all of this then put it out of its misery. City of Silver 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

ARCA thread now open: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland. Remember (or become aware for the first time, as the case may be) that WP:ARCA is not a free-for-all peanut gallery. If you're going to comment there about this, it needs to be concise, civil, and focused, and you're not allowed to engage in threaded discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do think this is clear case of offsite canvassing and warrants a topic ban. There is also encouragement from others to do it when should of know the guidelines not getting encouraged by reddit users. The user did around 60 edits in less than 24 hours and continues WP:DISTRUPT on the article. Their activity on the above mentioned reddit sub shows he is not acting in good faith but wants to use wiki to display even the least credible accusations. Mr Boar1 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I never ever "canvassed" anyone EVER except on that talk page and User:NinjaRobotPirate already told me not to tag other users I know on my talk page. Come on. Look at the kind of well-sourced material you're deleting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson&oldid=1190795244 Wikipedia says you're supposed to IMPROVE the text, right? Not blanket delete.

Also this is all what I think is called "Forum Shopping" on wiki. You all know as do I that there are active conversations about the neutrality of edits on the talk page and on the "neutral board." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if I am allowed to paste this here, but here's an example of a mass swath of material posted by me to the page in question a couple hours ago and instantly mass deleted by User:Mr Boar1. No effort to improve, no effort to discuss the content, or add a "better citation needed" blurb or what have you or check out my talk page posts about the same. Just instant delete. This is not collaborative editing:

This did not need copy/pasted here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==== =Safechuck and Robson accusations ==== In 2013, dancer, choreographer and former child performer Wade Robson, who in 2005 testified that Jackson never molested him accused Jackson of sexual abuse during their friendship when Robson was a child. In a 2013 interview with the Today Show, Robson stated that the birth of his son two years prior had impacted his emotions regarding what he asserted he had endured as a child: "This is not a case of repressed memory," said Robson to host Matt Lauer. "I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse." Robson filed a late creditor's claim and civil lawsuit against the singer's estate. Jackson estate lawyer Howard Weizman called the Robson allegations pathetic and outrageous. In 2014, former child actor James Safechuck, who met Jackson in 1986 when co-starring in a Pepsi commercial, and also had previously denied he was molested also made sexual abuse claims against the singer. Safechuck asserted the sexual abuse began in June 1988 in a hotel room in Paris during a Jackson tour on which he had accompanied Jackson. Safechuck, too, filed late creditor's claims and a civil lawsuit against the estate. In their legal actions, Robson and Safechuck asserted that in the 1980s and 1990s, corporations owned by Jackson, operated "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known." Between 2015 and 2017 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff dismissed both the creditor claims and the lawsuits as too late. Following the dismissal Robson and Safechuck appealed and participated in the 2019 documentary film Leaving Neverland in which they described their accusations in detail. In 2020 the lawsuits were revived by legislative extensions of the statute of limitations. That year and in 2021 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young dismissed both lawsuits, partly on the ground that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they had the kind of legal relationship with the companies under tort law that would have required them to protect the boys and the companies had no ability to control Jackson, their sole owner. Safechuck and Robson appealed again. In 2022, Safechuck and Robson released the first episode in a podcast series hosted by the pair on recovering from childhood sexual abuse and other life trauma. In 2023, in a published opinion issued by Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes on behalf of a three-judge panel, the California Court of Appeal sent the Safechuck and Robson cases back to lower court for further proceedings. The panel ruled that, as a matter of law, corporations have a legal duty to protect minors allegedly in their care and control from sexual abuse, even if the alleged perpetrator is the sole owner. The matter is set for a pre-trial conference in February 2024. References

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, more on the saga here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerned that Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson lacks neutrality as it omits a number of sourced accusers Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening that discussion while you knew there was already one here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

[[User:HandsThatFeedsYou]] that isn't accurate. I was TOLD to open the neutral page discussion on my talk page when all this hullabaloo kicked off. Look at my talk page. I opened 2: one on a page I created about the 2023 ruling and AFTER that, after tons and tons of chatter on the "Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson," I told User:TruthGuardians and other users that "later on that day" I was going to open up a neutral post bc we were "going around in circles" over "Which Abusers To Include" - gate. TruthGuardians was cool with it although of course disagrees with me on substances. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:WALLOFTEXT , you can refer to your edits linking to the relevant part of the edit history. Posting your full edit here is spamming the noticeboard with references which have no relevance to this notice just to promote articles you want people to read and that smells like WP:ADVOCACY. castorbailey (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not accurate. Pasted to give color on the background of the edit warring. Not to "spam." Assume good faith, always. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good faith can only be extended so far, and we're rapidly running out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You reposted that entire section here with a long list of references that has no relevance to this notice. You also included inflammatory commentary ("we were grossed out" testimony) in another reference list where you also misrepresented what the source said to make it sound worse than it is. That's not good faith editing. castorbailey (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Jim that doesnt make any sense. You know full well there is a huge discussion on Star Arvizo on the talk page and numerous assertions that Star "never testified to abuse" when it is crystal clear that Star did so testify according to numerous credible media reports. The point of the quote was locate his words in the source. It feels to me like you're throwing anything to the wall that you can. Links to relevant discussions are on my talk page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps and Jim I went back and looked and realized something. You 'yourself wrote in one of your many revisions: "02:48, 12 December 2023 (seven is inaccurate, no source on Star Arvizo." That is one of thoae edits that triggered more of a deep dive into exactly what Star Arvizo testified according to Google News! So how can you delete my edits regarding Star Arvizo as an accuser, and then when I create a heavily sourced footnote with quotes and unpleasant detail, turn around and accuse me of being "inflammatory" and "salacious"? You are the very same editor who reverted more oblique edits about Star by me, denying that he was an alleged victim. You are the very audience for more detail on him being "grossed out" as a victim, not just a witness. This is not making any sense. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You decided to characterize that testimony as "we were grossed out" testimony, for no other reason but to include inflammatory language here. The source could have been included without it. You also made it looks like Star Arvizo alleged Jackson was masturbating in front of him during the alleged incident. He alleged no such thing. And you were told over and over again why Star Arvizo's claims did not rise to the level of sexual abuse under the law. If they had the notoriously anti-Jackson prosecutor wouldn't have missed an opportunity to charge Jackson for it. castorbailey (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Scrubbing reliable sourced text about Star Arvizo is a manipulation of the page to lower the accuser count. The sources about Star speak for themselves. Star did not allege he (Star) was touched sexually, true. But Star did allege in his testimony that Jackson walked into the room naked with an erection and discussed masturbation with Star and showed Star pornography." Your statement that the prosecution "would have prosecuted" for the Star abuse doesn't make sense to me. Jackson was prosecuted and acquitted for a sexually abusive relationship with older brother Gavin. Star was allegedly an eyewitness to those acts and Star so testified. Even if Star was abused in terms of indecent sexual displays by Jackson, charges are up to prosecutorial discretion. Would it ever make sense to risk overcharging Jackson when all that was alleged was indecent exposure and sexual conversation and showing material to younger brother Star, and when Gavin was the alleged primary victim? Would it make sense to charge Jackson for the Star abuse after Jackson was acquitted of much worse allegations of actual sexual contact? Of course not. That doesnt mean Star did not allege child sexual abuse. Scrubbing reliable sourced edits about Star is manipulation of the page to lower the accuser count. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether you are responsible for canvassing others to Wikipedia or if you yourself was canvassed is to be determined. However, your edits, along with the edits of a couple of other never before editors match what exactly is being canvassed on this Reddit thread. The Reddit thread is loaded with users with the same usernames here on Wikipedia who has attempted to edit Jackson topics. This is canvassing defined. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

T.G., I have to disagree. Look at "2BOARNOTOOB" one of the new editors you tag above as suspicious. He or she is stridently pro-Jackson-innocence in all things.

In fact the only person making ANY "unfavorable facts in eyes of the Jackson estate" edits is me that I can see. I'm the only one making edits akin to "Hey guys.... shouldnt we list ALL the accusers? Right?" is me. At least on "Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson" page. If there are all these "anti-Jacksonists" spamming Wikipedia, Im the only one i have seen.

It isnt a plot. I like to edit articles about Black musicians and, separately, "true crime" sometimes,i read the new decisio, and noticed the pages, to me, look skewed. That's all. No evil plot here. And I tend to edit on my phone so lots of typos I go back to fix, which is why so many edits. I also tend to forget to add edit summaries bc usually no one cares about the pages I edit. Inalso dont have a fancy "about me" page so maybe I looked like a nefarious random, but I have been editing a lot over thr yrars with no axcusations of disruption Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I also constantly forget my reading glasses, which creates typos, which means more edits. Again, nothing shady. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

On December 3, you make your first edit on the Wikipedia article at the center of the dispute. December 9, you started to heavily make changes to the article. December 11, there was a Reddit thread created based on the same topics as your attempted edits. The same day, December 11th, you attempted to make the proposed edits in the Reddit thread here on Wikipedia. Coincidence? Unlikely. The suspicion is that you tried to canvas people to support your effort to include those “accusers,” and I use that term quite loosely. The suspicion is based on the above cited reddit thread. As I see you have not denied your involvement in that Reddit thread. So either you are the creator of the thread attempting to canvass others, or you yourself have been canvassed as a spectator of that thread. Comments like this one from that Reddit thread results in canvassing or people being canvassed: “ETA: if anyone wants to edit, then I suggest they try the non-English pages first. They aren't restricted like the English version.” TruthGuardians (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians you filed 3 attacks on me in three different "forums" within probably hours of me making edits you don't like. Here, with NinjaRobotPirate, and on "Request for page protection," which you presumably deleted when you didn't get the answer you wanted. The links are now on my talk page. Only fleetingly did you engage with me on the talk page and only to make disingenuous arguments about how the page was in Good Article.Status (in 2008!) so, by definition, my edits are disruptive.

My only request to any admin reading this is to look at my edits and look at the text of the page. They speak for themselves. Take a hard look at the actual edits I made and their revisions. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also looks like I created a page on "Michael" the bio film back in Feb looking at my talk apge- I had forgotten. Apologies. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate the user continues to ping other users in an on wiki canvassing attempt in tantrums even though you have warned the editor against this behavior. He is also using the talk pages like a fan forum, blog or his Reddit page as you can see here and the Wikipedia:Wall of text is becoming a little too much here. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry you don't want your disruptive, combative bad faith history called up, TruthGuardians. Those editors are the very same who have admonished you in the past regarding your obsession with proving Michael Jackson innocent in lieu of maybe actually working with others in building an encyclopedia. One of them built.a chart on your alleged canvassing in June of 2022 with JimBailey / CastorBailey. Stop using "wikilawyering" in multiple fora to silence anyone who doesn't want to see the encyclopedia twisted into a bad faith temple to Michael Jackson's virtue. The only reason the page is on a sanctions list is because of passionate pro-Jackson spam. Stop wikilawyering and engage with the substantive glaring biases of the page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That is MY user talk page, TruthGuardians. Not "a talk page." Stop misleading admins Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:OWNTALK User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines. While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is literally a timeline of what actually happened between us. I would have posted it here but then you'd berate me for walls of text. No one trying to bring those pages into good standing can win with you. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

And again this comment accusing me of canvassing is agaiin another bad-faith performative deceptive post in the hope of snookering some admin into banning me from editing your personal temple to Jackson's virtue. You know those "pings" are in reply to your own post on my page where NinjaRobotPirate is already tagged in your very post. This is a performance. You're hoping that you say enough things about me that might hoodwink enough admins, you will get to preserve your Jackson Was Innocent purity temple masquerading as a "Good Article." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of personal attacks leveled in those posts, I think Bhdshoes2 needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here the editor is calling those that oppose them “rabid Michael Jackson fans” TruthGuardians (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope only one thing. That general sanction rules are followed. Your attacks against me means nothing. Your false accusations about me doesn’t move me. The timeline posted above with the evidence provided is classic case of canvassing as I see it and that’s why I reported the incident here. No conspiracy at all. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, yet again you make false statements. Just as the pages you edit clearly mislead readers, which is why I'm here, your posts here also mislead. That edit said that the REASON the page was under sanctions, put in place years ago, was because of rabid fans. Nothing about you being a rabid fan. The true timeline is on my talk page which you also twist. I can only say 1200 times i wasn't one of the many handles attacking your Jackson enthusiasm on social media. But you already know that. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I never said the username you use here was on Reddit. However, there are users in that thread that has matching usernames here on Wikipedia and has edit Jackson pages. Usernames don’t have to match for attempted canvassing or being canvassed to be proven. Your comments on the talk pages and editing on Michael Jackson-related pages are identical to the Reddit user that started the thread there. Sure we can call this a coincidence that in the same day and week there is a similar discussion started on reddit and Wikipedia on this topic and attacking editors involved here on Wikipedia. The discussion suddenly stopped once I took this issue to the noticeboard. The way you are editing and using talk pages clearly shows you are not here to build encyclopedia but partake in WP:ADVOCACY. Do not make wikipedia a WP:BATTLEFIELD to prove your arguments on Reddit. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Show me one inaccurate edit I have ever made. Why did you edit the page to say that Jason Francia alleged "tickling" and omit the part of his testimony about genital touching? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to prove to you that I "stopped beating my wife" when I have been editing for years. It looks to me like numerous Reddit people are talking smack about your user name and inappropriate reversions on Reddit which is obnoxious doxxing and I would never be a part of such a thing. The real question is why you falsely said you were "directed" to make a complaint here? Why did you delete so much well-sourced text? Why have you been repeatedly brought up to admins since at least 2019, heavily in June 2022 for problematic single-view-point editing. Of course the "page didn't see much editing" before me because I'm an extended user and shenanigans from the Fandom have prevented the page from being open for editors. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ninja suggested that I report the canvassing here when I took the issue to her talk page as the Admin didn’t have the bandwidth to deal with it right then and there. So I did. I don’t owe you any explanations for my past edits which has been in complete alignment with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If I mess up somewhere, another editor points out my mistake and I go in and fix it myself if they hadn’t already. Also, I can’t control past editors going to admin board with false accusations that never amounted to anything. Furthermore, until recently, I can’t ever recall editing the page that you have attempted edit, which by the way was last protected (semi) in April 2020 by QEDK for three months. The protections have expired and has since been open to all editors. It is quite normal to protect pages when there is disruptive editing, which I feel your comments is a direct insult to the admins that protect the page. You’ve been asked to stop referring to editors as fans, rabid fans, or being part of a fandom. Be it the case or not, it’s not WP:CIVIL. Just because you just don’t like someone’s edits or there’s a disagreement of sorts, civility should not be abandoned. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Capitals00

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

This is a content dispute, and therefore not within the purview of ANI. I also note that Capitals00 has provided four sources -- which seem to me to be RS -- that support their edit. This needs to continue to be discussed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure persistent WP:DE is within the scope of this page. Bad conduct from an editor, and the number of citations provided does not qualify for reliability and an agreed upon scholarly consensus. The report was filed due to the editor in question refusing to resolve the issue in the scope of things such as MOS:MIL, WP:NPOV, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, etc. MrGreen1163 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was about to post similar, but reading further in, it appears they’ve already discussed it at the talk page and the user’s continued to be uncooperative, so at this point it’s a valid complaint. The Kip 03:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There is pretty clearly not consensus for Capitals00's edit, as no editors have come to its defense (other than one blocked sockpuppet) while several have objected by reversion or discussion. And while they've provided four sources, a prior discussion on this topic reviewed at least 20 to arrive at the "UN-mediated" version which was stable for many years. The prior version should be restored pending Capitals00 seeking consensus for the change. But I agree that this is a content dispute; start an RFC or try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It was developed with the discussion as per Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947–1948#Indian_Victory?? and MrGreen1163 was OP. I have consensus for my edits. See agreement from MBlaze Lightning[13] and Cinderella157.[14] MrGreen1163 has attempted to suppress the results by providing incoherent excuses despite the scholarly sources clearly supporting Indian victory in the war, yet he puts "Pakistani victory" on those pages where the sources don't even support anything like that. He went ahead to do that not only in India Vs Pakistan battle pages[15] but also in US vs Pakistan pages to make Pakistan look superior and victorious.[16][17] Safe to say, MrGreen1163 is a case of WP:NOTHERE and he is trying to mislead others with this frivolous report. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00: your edit wasn't developed from that discussion: you made the edit and then Izaan Iqbal (not MrGreen1163) started a discussion, in which MBlaze Lightning conveniently only addressed the sources you added. Cinderella157 is not agreeing with you, they're saying that declaring either side the victor isn't supported by reliable sources, on the basis of the older discussion. And only one of the diffs you posted for MrGreen1163 was actually made by that account, so perhaps your aspersions here are premature. The talk page does not support your position, and you repeatedly reverting ([18], [19], [20]) anyone who challenges your edit ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) is neither consensus nor a discussion, it's blatant POV pushing in a contentious topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Fixed the diff above. Izaan Iqbal is MrGreen1163.[27] Cinderella157 said here that they wanted more sources because "one source does not make a consensus among scholars". I responded to these concerns here and made the edit after some hours and nobody raised any objection.[28] Later on, this is confirmed by this message by Cinderella157 who said "The result of this suggestion was to find and cite multiple sources for claiming the result in the infobox to be an Indian victory..."[29] It is only MrGreen1163 who has been frequently disputing the results but he is not sensible with his explanations as confirmed by his excuses to ignore the academic sources. Capitals00 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Izaan Iqbal = MrGreen1163 link, but I still think you need to read more of Cinderella157's comment. After what you quoted, they went on to say "We now have a link to Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Result field which discusses not just that war but also the result of this war. It presents several sources that would assert the result here was inconclusive. Only presenting sources that support one particular view is not neutral. From the sources, India's entry into K&J was initially successful against the tribal uprising but, on formal involvement of Pakistan's military it was considered that they could not sustain the previous successes. Consequently, India petitioned the UN to mediate a ceasefire." (emphasis added) Maybe they can clarify, but I highlighted why I don't think they're agreeing with you. And saying "nobody raised any objection" when five other editors besides Cinderella157 and MrGreen1163 have undone your edit is not a realistic assessment of the situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not talking about those who made the revert and left the page. I was talking about who is "frequently disputing the results" and that is only MrGreen1163 despite being a party to the discussion that actually formed the infobox. Others are surely not interested in that. Capitals00 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To claim that I am "disrupting the result" is also incoherent. I haven't changed the result once, in fact I even filed a request for change to gain consensus with other editors in the matter. The fact 6 other editors have to revert your edit is making the attempt of POV pushing obvious. Your 4 cited sources that favor the result you put in place does not overrule the 20+ in favor of the UN-mediated ceasefire, which is the scholarly agreement. Your constant reversions makes your persistent disruptive editing obvious, hence the reason of this report. It went from an issue related solely on the result in the article to an issue involving bad conduct. MrGreen1163 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the pages relating to Pakistan-United States Skirmishes, and this was already brought up, these pages previously stated "Pakistan Army Victory", in which I simply changed it to "Pakistani victory" as a better style. The only case of me changing the actual result was in the Pakistan-United States Skirmishes page, in which that result was made based off the cited United States apology and the conclusion of these individual results, but unlike you, I came to a consensus with other users to which YOU removed the result entirely from the infobox. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Another article in which I changed the result (forgot to mention), was Operation Desert Hawk, which was properly cited and based off of the agreed consensus that recognized Pakistan’s success in achieving its objectives in the Rann of Kutch, before ultimately agreeing to a ceasefire under the mediation of the British government. Unlike you, I made mention of the ceasefire agreement in the result alongside the withdrawal of both countries, and the article already made mention of Pakistan's success in the Rann especially at posts like Kanjarkot. A resolution was formulated in the talk page due to contention on the topic, which unlike you, I agreed on, per MOS:MIL. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• I do not support the edit by Capitals00 to label the war as an Indian victory. I do not see how my position could reasonably be construed to say I do. From the text quoted by Ivanvector, my position should be clear. Misrepresenting my position is not WP:CIVIL. The result is nuanced (per sources) and should be left to prose; though the article needs to be developed in this respect. I do not see that there is a consensus for Indian victory from the TP discussion. The WP:ONUS has not been met. Continuing to reinstate Indian victory without consensus is disruptive. The article falls under a contentious topic (WP:CT/IPA). I believe that they are reasonably CT aware per here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

To echo what was already said –  looks like a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy thing. Indo-Pakistani conflicts are not an area of expertise for me, so I can't make the best comments with regard to it, but consensus does not seem to support Indian victory phrasing for now. My recommendation would be to get a few more opinions – this can be done through the dispute noticeboard WP:DRN, requests for comment @ WP:RFC, Third Opinions @ WP:3O, etc. I would only support sanctions against an editor if after these options have been exhausted and a consensus developed (or a no-consensus status quo enforcement) an editor continues to push for their version to be extant. It does not seem like that an RFC has been started. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page, thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Then I don't have any issue with the revert and reviewing the consensus on talk page. Capitals00 (talk)

M.Bitton and Nourerrahmane reported by 808 AD

I request the intervention of administrators on this matter. I came here after I mentally got tired from the behavior of those two editors. They couldn't collaborate in a civil manner with me lately during a discussion about the result of the so-called "Capture of Fez (1576)". Talk:Capture of Fez (1576)

Nourerrahmane: Regarding this editor, you can start reading this comment in which he says very dangerous things about me as well as how he is obssessed with the "Algerian identity" of Ottoman Algeria. And while we were through discussion about the result, they made an edit even if there was no consensus and the manner is still disputed. When I undid their edit, They recovered it with "Disruptive".

M.Bitton: Well, from where should I start? This editor doesn't seem to like my opinions and they always seem to be ready to disagree with me, their mind is always made up even before hearing what the other side have to say. M.Bitton proves my point here saying that "your[my] support is as irrelevant as your[my] oppose". Regarding the latest content dispute, they too made some edits despite the fact the the manner is still disputed in the talk page. They Changed here Morocco to Saadi Sultanate claiming that it is more precise, I recovered Morocco (and left link to Saadi sultanate) and told them that "the more you stick to the sources, the more precise it gets" as indeed the sources support it. In the same edit I fixed a reference as its link lead to a wrong source (the coreect one is the V3 o fthe Cambridge history of Africa and not the V5). They reverted my edit without any edit summary. Then they started other contentious edits. For exmaple they removed "Morocco" claiming that it's anachronism, in the same time, ironically, they support "Ottoman-Algerian victory" as a result, and mere "Algerian victory" in other articles (they contradicts themselves). 808 AD (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: there is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimoooIX (in case a CU is around). M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reminds me of this, coincidence ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Nourerrahmane: please add it to the SPI together with the diff that shows 808 AD's similar edit. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's weird. I don't know this account. But that proves how Wikipedia artciles become problematic when we don't consider neutrality. Let's see where this will lead us. 808 AD (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with M.Bitton's edits. That comment from Nourerrahmane strays into personal attack territory since it talks about the contributor rather than the contributions. It's still pretty mild and borderline though. I don't really see a need for admin intervention here but @Nourerrahmane please be careful with that in future. WaggersTALK 09:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers my apologies. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers Thanks for your inputs. But I think there has been violation of the consensus policy by both editors.@ 808 AD (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that I have now restored the stable version of Capture of Fez (1576) since the matter is still disputed (an Rfc is still open there). I did also correct a reference there (for the second time). There is no Wikipedia:Consensus yet. 808 AD (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As expected, he reverted it to include his POV by force. [30] and they really don't care whether a reference is corrected or not as long as his POV is there. Certainly an admin should do something about it. 808 AD (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest refraining from editing the page until you do have consensus. We don't want to have to protect the page. A bit more maturity is required here. WaggersTALK 13:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right, but other contentious edits were made there by M.Bitton and Nourerahmane despite the fact that there is an other editor (me) opposing them and the matter is still being dicussed (and an Rfc has been opened). The stable version should be restored. @Waggers what do you think? 808 AD (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In an edit war or content dispute, you won't generally find administrators taking sides. See WP:PREFER and M:WRONGVERSION. WaggersTALK 13:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, it makes sense, let's hope the intervention of a non-admin editor. And certainly the page now is in the wrong version. In case protection was required, it can't be still as it is. But if an admin can't do it, who would judge the violation of the rules of consensus? 808 AD (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Placing an RFC tag on a section that clearly isn't a valid RFC isn't going to help much. It certainly is not a method to force your preferred version of an article. The RFC tag ought to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. What's wrong with the RFC tag? Anyway, could you fix it? I can't see the problem. 808 AD (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFC is a formal process with very precise requirements. You shouldn't open one until you understand the formatting & scope of your request. Specifically, you violated the Statement should be neutral and brief requirement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds Yes, I think you're right. I should have put my opinion as a normal reply. What do you think now [31] is it fixed? 808 AD (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the reference to Cambridge History of Africa. Previous versions were each differently wrong. Folly Mox (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by Yasarhossain07

Yasarhossain07 (talk · contribs)

This editor called others low IQ clowns. He also accused User:Scu ba of Russophobia. Parham wiki (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This one was also not good and is at best an extreme POV pushing, in the worst case vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I see a couple of good edits among their total of 52, but generally I would not object against an indef. We have enough POV pushers (though mostly from the other side) and enough users who can not behave in this topic area. Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions, they certainly like to tackle some contentious issues! But until today they've been fairly civil. Today's edits definitely cross a line and are not acceptable. As this falls under WP:CTOP I'm minded to impose a short topic ban to give @Yasarhossain07 some time to cool off and reflect. Interested in what other admins have to say first though. WaggersTALK 10:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin, but they seem to have questionable edits on several topic areas (on top of Russia/Ukraine, they have this on a WW2 collaborationist formation and this on Maoris in NZ, both questionable and reverted). Maybe a more general short-term block as a wake-up call would be better? Say, a week or two to go for a walk and take in some fresh air? Ostalgia (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I was going to issue them a warning about NPA, but see they have a history, I am unsure an idenf, yet. I think a short topic ban is the way to go, right now. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like whatever dispute this was got resolved as his message claiming I simply hate Russia was removed from my talk page by someone else, but yeah, a bit bizzare that they would go out of their way to do this, and their edit history doesn't especially help their case. Scu ba (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Resolved" in this context would mean they acknowledged that their behavior was not appropriate and pledge not to repeat. Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Acussations of hating countries and calling people with opposite views stupid clowns are pretty blatant personal attacks. I fail to see how this isn't worth at least a temporal block. The user's actions show they have not been capable of engaging in productive discussion with others. The behavioural issues are beyond the topic area. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Blocks are not punitive. WaggersTALK 15:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think S.D. is advocating for a punitive block. The user's actions show they have not been capable of engaging in productive discussion with others reads as advocacy for a preventative block. JM (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't someone going to do something? Parham wiki (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  We're discussing what to do right here. They've only made two edits since this discussion was opened so unless they suddenly up the pace, there's no rush.

  Having thought this through I favour a WP:ROPE approach here: warn and wait. If their behaviour doesn't improve it'll be clearer that a block is required. I no longer favour a topic ban as we've already seen problematic behaviour across multiple topics. WaggersTALK 14:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Abuse from User:Szpity88

• Szpity88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What originally started as drunk banter between us has now morphed into verbal abuse found on my talk page and I thought I should bring it here before I retaliate and get myself in trouble too. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which started as verbal banter. Then there was vandalism, because you specifically deleted real information that I edited. Just because I didn't enter the averages? Why didn't you just type it in? Someone will type it in a few seconds anyway. In addition, I have no excuse for cursing, I apologize for being so quick, I will pay more attention to this in the future. Szpity88 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(not an admin) WP:DRUNKEDIT and WP:NOTFORUM. Why is a user talk page being used for "drunk banter"? Definitely not appropriate for the largest and most popular encyclopedia ever JM (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A perfectly logical question from you. I actually started writing there because mikey was passive aggressively messaging me on the darts championship edit page. Szpity88 (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarification, he was drunk, I was not. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to note that I do not drink alcohol because I have had cancer for more than 2 years. It says on your page that you are polite. I'm thinking how did you deserve this :) Szpity88 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you weren't drunk, then you were intentionally trolling his page with barely comprehensible nonsense. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone can make mistakes because we are human. I wasn't trolling, I was just too nervous. To be honest, I didn't see the good intentions in Mike's words, but I could learn from it. But I'm sure you know how it goes, I guess like no one else, you're not perfect either. Szpity88 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Posting don't worry baby, put this on your page too, just in case you learn it :) descending to what the hell are you doing idiot? isn't just a silly mistake, it's taunting and insulting. Trying to write it off as "no one is perfect" is not going to gain traction here.

Apologize and move on. That's your best bet to avoid admins taking action against you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, since then I am very sorry and have apologized. Happy Holidays! Szpity88 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR and WP:NLT by NgarigoKnowledgeHolder

• NgarigoKnowledgeHolder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ngarigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NgarigoKnowledgeHolder has violated WP:3RR at Ngarigo, and has made legal threats at his own user talk page and at my user talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well. actually No one made legal threats so lets get that out of the way, and secondly I was informing you of action my people are taking because in Australia it actually is illegal to attempt to erase Aboriginal history this includes notable people from those tribes. An seeing as Ngarigo is a endangered Tribe with endangered language and culture it is protected under the Australian Minister of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. NgarigoKnowledgeHolder (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked indefinitely: User talk:NgarigoKnowledgeHolder#Indefinite block. One cannot state that Wikipedia may be included in a lawsuit while still being permitted to edit Wikipedia itself. It's one or the other, but not both. El_C 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Let's add sockpuppetry to the list: [32]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-19T18:01:27 (UTC)

• Maker12345 (talk · contribs) and ThatAboriginalKid (talk · contribs) and 2403:5806:83A6:0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appear to pass the duck test. And it looks like there was a bogus copy-and-paste move from Ngarigo people to Ngarigo back in 2015. Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Why am I mentioned in this? Maker12345 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Maker12345: I suspect because NgarigoKnowledgeHolder had already engaged in sock puppetry, and a user noted that NKH was restoring an edit you had made to the page back in February. This is a typical behavior for sockpuppets, but it is not proof that you engaged in any wrongdoing. I wouldn't worry about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Actually User:Maker12345 in xyr very first edit restored Special:Diff/1112047714/1131746942 that was actually done by ThatAboriginalKid, who was tag-taming with NgarigoKnowledgeHolder last week (Special:Diff/1189346325 Special:Diff/1189478403) over this exact same content. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As NgarigoKnowlegeHolder has been indef blocked and the page protected, I don't think there's anything more to do here, and an admin can close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-19T23:08:24 (UTC)

• Well we could checkuser the three accounts, although as I said they do appear to pass the duck test. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ungle G: If there's a concern, I would recommend opening a WP:SPI case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 ThatAboriginalKid is the sockmaster, NgarigoKnowledgeHolder is CU confirmed, Maker12345 is  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me so also blocked. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThatAboriginalKid. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Their line of reasoning made no sense! El_C 13:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Please remove my user groups

Thanks, I'm not going to be editing Wikipedia anymore. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for helping out and feel free to ping me if you change your mind later. jp×g🗯️ 05:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

MaskedSinger

MaskedSinger is constantly updating Nick McKenzie with false information about Peter Schiff. He is obviously an activist user given that he refuses to allow correct reporting of clear judgements WRT a defamation lawsuit that Nick McKenzie along with a co defendant contested and lost. If Wikipedia fails to reflect facts and truth then what is the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MaskedSinger&target=MaskedSinger&offset=&limit=500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.198.0.191 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ANI you are required to notify the user on their talk page, which you have not done. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have notified MaskedSinger for the IP. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yes I have 51.198.0.191 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't. You do know that every edit is public and we can all see it yes? Anyway if you make an accusatory comment like this again you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

My own thread on the ANI board! My mother would be so proud. Ironic that you bring up false information as for the life of me, I can't find any shred of truth in the nonsense you wrote. One thing you are correct about is that I'm an activist. I'm an activist for upholding the Wikipedia standards and values. Something you couldn't care less about. If you think bullying and intimidation is going to stop me, you're wrong. To quote the great Coco Gauff, to those who thought they were putting water on my fire, you're really adding gas to it. And now I'm really burning so bright right now. Could someone please do Wikipedia a favor and block this troll? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you are dong a great job of showing the world how unstable you are.. why on earth they let people like you in I have no idea.. hopefully they will review their decision to allow you to moderate 51.198.0.191 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed on your own page that someone quite politely asked you a question you didn't like and you immediately accused him of being a 'sock puppet'.. this site doesn't need people like you 51.198.0.191 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you've crossed the line on WP:NPA. I strongly suggest you step back if you wish to continue editing here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't crossed any line.. you are attempting to muddy the waters with shrill cries in an attempt to influence onlookers to side with you. You are clearly not fit to moderate and are you are completely incapable of being objective and impartial. Your recent edits clearly indicate bias and probable personal issues WRT to Peter Schiff wiki page. People have tried to post factual information and you have repeatedly removed references to maintain your false narrative 51.198.0.191 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, given the above WP:NPA filled rant, I'd say this IP is WP:NOTHERE and needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope people can see how mentally unstable this joker sounds. Why Wikipedia is allowing people with mental issues to moderate is a mystery but it subtracts ever more credibility from the already questionable content. This user constantly calls for people to be banned; that should ring alarm bells right there. Shutting down inconvenient views is one thing but this joker actively conceals facts.. Straight out of the ministry of truth. Very Orwellian and very worrying 51.198.0.191 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You say that you aren't doing any personal attack of any kind, yet look at this, calling him a "joker" in front of everyone and assuming things without any evidence. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And admins aren't afraid to block you. Sure, both of you have been in a content dispute, but you took it too far and PA'd MaskedSinger in an attempt for him to back off and get him blocked, but YOU really are the one who's going to get blocked for NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for disruption. It's one thing to disagree, it's a whole other to continue to call people mentally unstable repeatedly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seriously looks like a content dispute with various parties pushing their WP:OR interpretation of primary source court records over secondary sources.

  As to reflect facts and truth, see WP:TRUTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  • If anything, it would be a Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as it is a bit of a tricky one. That said "you clearly are a whiny activist with an agenda" […] "deranged bias" and "how unstable you are" are a rapid means of convincing us that indeed someone's editing privileges need to be revoked, but it isn't MaskedSinger. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Can I get some more eyes on Nick McKenzie please. Accounts that are barely AC are at it now I don't want to risk getting close to 3RR territory. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The funny part is, the IP seems to not care who they insult. I've never edited the page, but they immediately accused me of having repeatedly removed references from it. Whoever this person is, they really need to calm down and step away from the keyboard. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, same here. When I warned them about the personal attacks, they immediately assumed that You are clearly personally involved in policing Peter Schiff's page,, apparently the truth hurts, even though I've never heard that name until joining the Battle of Berlin here. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User Polygnotus - Disruptive Editing and Strange Edit History

This user has been WP:edit warring on the Landmark Worldwide (27 edits) and Werner Erhard (33 edits) articles and posting extensively on the associated talk pages (66 and 41 edits respectively), amounting to a clear attempt to assert ownership over these articles. [33] [34] [35] [36] talk:Landmark Worldwide Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_32 [37] [38] [39] talk:Werner Erhard

Whenever an editor attempts to discuss matters with them, they respond with WP:aspersions and WP:personal attacks, both on the article talk pages, and on the editor's own talk page. [40] [41] [42]

The Landmark Worldwide article was the subject of an Arbitration case in 2014 [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide - Wikipedia ], where the findings of the Arbitrators included the following:

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. and Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.

Clearly Polygnotus is failing to abide by these findings.

Polygnotus first came to my attention when they posted a COI Template on my talk page in response to two small comments that I had made on the talk:Landmark Worldwide page. This seemed such an aggressive action that I took a closer look at this user's editing. The first thing I noticed was that the last few weeks of frenetic updates on the Landmark article (after eight years of relative stability following the Arbitration case and the imposition of discretionary sanctions) started immediately after a strange post that Polygnotus put on the NPOV noticeboard [43] which seemed to indicate a strongly held POV of their own. They have on several occasions denied personal interest or knowledge of the topic, but their actions clearly indicate otherwise. Their edits demonstrate an extensive (obsessive?) interest in Landmark and Erhard, as well as detailed knowledge of the Wikipedia editing history on these topics over many years.

With my interest piqued by this behavior, I took a look at their editing history, and it has a very strange pattern. On the face of it, they show up as an active Wikpedian with more than 3,800 edits over the 15 months since the account was created. However, on closer examination, it looks like a fairly sophisticated attempt to game the system by disguising a single purpose account. Around 3,100 of those edits were done in a six-week period over a year ago between September 8th and October 22nd, 2022, and are essentially trivial..[44] These were done in bursts of one to five hours per day at a rate of 6 - 10 edits per minute(!).

Then the account was largely inactive over the next 10 months, with just 18 edits in that time, followed by about 200 during August and early September this year.

Then following the post on the September 25th, 2023 on the NPOV noticeboard, another 300 edits in the nine week period to November 30th, the great majority of which (over two thirds) are on the articles or talk pages for either Landmark Worldwide or Werner Erhard, or related postings. [45] Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't even reply to this kinda stuff but...

TL;DR for those not in the know, Landmark is a weird "selfhelp" group started by a guru called John Paul Rosenberg who now uses the name Werner Erhard. Nowadays they are mostly focused on making money but back in the day it was pretty cultish. Various RS and "not-so-R" S-es reported on that and negative information made its way into the Wikipedia article. A group consisting of less than a handful of meatpuppets and a dozen or two sockpuppets have been WP:GAMING the system by WP:CPUSHing and WP:TAGTEAMing for about 2 decades. A bunch of the socks got blocked but not all of them. There was an ARBCOM case back in the day but that didn't solve the problem. I won't be surprised if there is another arbcom case soon.

This user has been WP:edit warring on the Landmark Worldwide (27 edits)

I only made 11 edits on that page. All of them were improvements.

and Werner Erhard (33 edits)

I only made 25 edits on that page? All of them were improvements.

posting extensively on the associated talk pages (66 and 41 edits respectively), amounting to a clear attempt to assert ownership over these articles

Making a bunch of edits on an article and its associated talkpage is not WP:OWNership. It is how Wikipedia users improve articles.

Whenever an editor attempts to discuss matters with them, they respond with WP:aspersions and WP:personal attacks, both on the article talk pages, and on the editor's own talk page.

Asking if someone has read WP:PAID or asking if someone can please stop posting on your talkpage or explaining what WP:COI means is not casting aspersions or a personal attack. Calling User:Example an asshole is a personal attack.

where the findings of the Arbitrators included the following....[snip]... Clearly Polygnotus is failing to abide by these findings.

Bit weird to blame the toxic atmosphere and editwarring on anyone other than those who have been fighting for literally decades to defend Landmark against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified.

Polygnotus first came to my attention when they posted a COI Template on my talk page

Actually our interaction started when you started falsely accusing me.

Unsurprisingly you have not answered the COI template.

This seemed such an aggressive action

Posting a template explaining the conflict of interest policy on Wikipedia is not an aggressive action.

hich seemed to indicate a strongly held POV of their own. They have on several occasions denied personal interest or knowledge of the topic, but their actions clearly indicate otherwise

Back when I posted on the NPOV board I knew very little about Landmark (but I knew it is a cult that uses tactics similar to Scientology because one of my books talks about it). My plan was to post on the NPOV board to let others know there was a problem and move on. But because of how I got treated I decided to read some more (on- and offwiki). The rabbit hole is really deep. I even ordered a book about Werner Erhard. I do know quite a bit about Scientology, because I know a family member of one of its victims.

disguising a single purpose account Brave move to so openly talk about what the pro-Landmark meat and sockpuppets have been doing. Badly.

essentially trivial Thats quite offensive actually. It is easy to waste everyones time with long rants on WP:ANI, but it is hard to actually find and improve problems in articles written by others.

So, in conclusion, have you ever been involved with, a customer, employee or volunteer of or for Landmark (in its various iterations)? Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: What was this? Here you added "vitality" to a list of things the organization trained people in. Some of these diffs are real head-scratchers. jp×g🗯️ 04:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: for the first one, see Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_31#Promotional_text. It took me several days to understand how the article arrived at the state it was at when I found it. Polygnotus (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the second one; I may have been under the impression that I was removing "vitality". I am not sure. As for the COI, see for example the comment by Astynax over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Proposed_sanctions_against_User:DaveApter Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As my name has been dragged into this mass of misdirection, I should clarify that the above "Proposed Sanctions" were suggestions from a group of editors from the "anti-Landmark faction", and that the Arbitrators did not see fit to even mention me in their findings or proposed remedies, much less even consider sanctioning me.

And @JPxG, the explanation for the puzzling insertion of 'vitality', was because I had removed it and Polygnotus was routinely reverting any change I made regardless of its merit.

And, while I am here I may as well make another couple of observations. I had been regarding Polygnotus as a mere irritant, but the edit history above is a real eye-opener. It is hardly usual behaviour for a new editor to spend several hours a day for a month creating a 'sleeper' account to be activated a year later. Furthermore, the protracted wikilawyering, and the very detailed knowledge of two decades of editing on these topics would be surprising in an editor with only a year's experience (especially one with less than 90 days actual editing). Is there any explanation other than that this is someone who has been here before? DaveApter (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dave, you still haven't admitted to having a COI after spending nearly 2 decades defending Landmark on Wikipedia (despite many conversations about it over the years). Soon after creating your account you openly declared your interest in Landmark and your intention to be a WP:SPA to defend the Landmark article. The way I was treated by you and others annoyed me. So I read some of the history of the article. Shocked by what I found I read more, and found more shocking stuff. Your attempts at intimidation and WP:CPUSHing resulted in me wasting more time on Landmark related topics. The arbcom-case made the pro-Landmark group bold; perhaps too bold. Now these 2 accounts are casting aspersions, while accusing me of doing that. I wonder which member of the group shows up next. We've seen this strategy before and it was succesful at AfD but it failed in a RfA. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: User:Gilbertine goldmark also had that remarkable combination of topics of interest: boardgames and Landmark. Polygnotus (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

2600:1015:a023:4a1a:f1f7:5f71:4582:e2d9

• This editor keeps making a number of edits with all sorts of insulting/foul language. [46][47].
• And this is despite being warned on their talk page: [48]

Any help is appreciated.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked 72h for personal attacks. jp×g🗯️ 18:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• An example of exactly how not to make an argument. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• The sad thing is that there are copious sources for the date that the IP address person was talking about. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears this person has now started a sock account. [49]Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

User HumanxAnthro

BanjoxKazooie == HumanxAnthro

User left me a litany of vulgar messages as shown on my talk page after I reverted their edits due to the amount of unnecessary detail they put in as seen here: User_talk:PaulRKil#Hey_asshole!

Based on their interactions with other users, this seems to be par for the course for the user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRKil (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, here is the WP:Vandalism he committed that led to the response. Also, "vulgar", dude? Really? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

None of the details were "unnecessary". Stop lying in front of my face. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

People who think a section of part of an article is WP:TOOMUCH because they have a hard time reading it or do not personally care for it are part of the problem currently with this site, and a few years ago, you would been the people getting blocks for it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let the process play out and stop the harassing replies. You're not helping. PaulRKil (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Then quit messing with the Army Men article. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not the least of reasons why you were blocked was your apparent -- and erroneous -- belief that other editors are required to do your bidding before you'll deign to be civil to them. Ravenswing 23:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• It is never acceptable to start off a discussion with "Hey asshole". This is a shocking violation of WP:NPA. I just recently warned this same editor over WP:AGF issues where they accused an entire Wikiproject of being NOTHERE because they didn't agree with a two year old discussion long past. I cannot take action, as I am involved with a dispute with this editor elsewhere, but this sort of interpersonal communication is wildly inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you ever ask if it was appropriate for the people you are defending to do what they are doing? Nope, this is just tone policing, the thing moderates in the 1960s did to civil rights protestors. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) I would encourage you not to compare your manner of commenting with the plight of 1960's civil right protestors. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This is a gross, incoherent comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick review of HumanxAnthro's most recent edits shows a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in their manner of communication. On Army Men: Sarge's Heroes, HA's edit summary in their first revert of PaulRKil's edit was Reverting obviously ridiculous edit. Having a lot does not mean having WP:TOOMUCH., followed by Dude, fuck off with your bullshit. (Neither editor took it to the article talk page.) HA's subject heading for their post to Paul's talk page was Hey asshole!, and HA's comments throughout that thread are antagonistic. In addition, HA has bludgeoned this AfD. Started a hostile thread at WikiProject Albums, which includes Just, what the fuck, people? Are any of you even here to build an encyclopedia? (HA has been cautioned on both the AfD and Albums pages by Sergecross73.) HumanxAnthro doesn't appear ablewilling to work collegially with other editors and is uncivil. (Sorry for duplicating anything Sergecross73 wrote above, I was typing while that was posted.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do not work collegially with vandals, that is true. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No no, thank you very much for summarizing this so well. You've nailed it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a puritanical Catholic school. Just because I had the audacity to violate the feelings of evangelicals with words does not mean I broke any incivility policy. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In what world is referring to someone with "asshole" not a personal attack? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

They brought up examples of me using the F word. That is what I was referring to. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked HumanxAnthro for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Considering the response on his Talk page, I expect this to not go well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Would suggest an indef tbh Mach61 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've just upped it to an indef. Since their statement in response to the 72 hour block is they've done nothing wrong and basically refuse to follow our policies, there is no place for them here. They will need to file an unblock request and convince the community that their attitude will not be repeated in order to regain any editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  What a waste of an editor. He could've played this out nice and nothing would've happened. Instead, he did the opposite and tried to set a speedrun.com record for fastest time to get indefed, any percent. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  As I've mentioned on their talk page I don't believe indefinite is permanent. I just believe in situations like this editors shouldn't be able to just regain their editing privileges by sitting aside for the weekend, but they need to understand what they did, why it's not acceptable here and convince it all it will never happen again in order to regain their editing rights. However with their current comments on their talk page it seems unlikely that outcome will be achieved, but you never know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Personally, I see their comments to you alone as an indication that a talk page ban should be coming, and speaking on that, it's highly likely that this wind down in even more fury. This editor, while on the extreme side, isn't much different from other blocked editors I've seen in the past. When they submit an unblock request, only about 15% actually get unblocked, and the rest 85% boils down into the same problem: they never address the reason why they were unblocked, and some will even go as far as to blame other editors, pretty much where HumanxAnthro falls in. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty much. The ones who get unblocked are the ones who say "Alright, I see where I went off the rails. I apologize, I won't do it again, and I'll abide by the site rules." The ones who come back swinging fists are the other guys. You would think that anyone with as many brains as the gods bestowed upon a radish could figure that out, but it's not as if the Internet's short on "You can't tell me what to doooooooo!!!" Ravenswing 23:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that ballyhooing about the speedrun time of an indef-blocked user is a particularly productive use of the drama boards. They are clearly quite angry about this so it seems to me like making comments like this is unlikely to help the situation. jp×g🗯️ 04:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic trolling on Murder of Brianna Ghey

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

---

Dinolondon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So this person has added conmmentary to Murder of Brianna Ghey, and I'm having trouble with this edit summary - where the murder victim is explicitly referred to as "he". I don't see how this blatant misgendering could be a mistake with the commentary they've added to the article afterwards. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Dinolondon1 was referring to Ghey with the "he". The edit involved changes to descriptions of the perpetrators, one of whom is a boy and one of whom is a girl. I agree the added commentary is problematic, but it's more directed at the perpetrators than at the victim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to that edit summary. The sentence being modified here refers to the perpetrators, who according to the article are "Two 15-year-old suspects, a boy from Leigh and a girl from Warrington". The edit summary says: You can not be "diagnosed with neurodiverse traits" - this is not a diagnosis that exists. She has traits of ADHD and autism, was not diagnosed. Only HE is diagnosed (for what it's worth, "diagnosed with neurodiverse traits" is indeed a ridiculous way to phrase that, for exactly the reasons they describe).

I do not really understand what you're talking about with respect to the commentary, either. While it's obviously unencyclopedic, and deserved to be removed, it is basically impossible for me to come up with a way to interpret this as reflecting hatred towards transgender individuals: "Although it must be said that losing your child because they are murdered and "losing" your child because you learn they are obsessed with killing and made a list of people to kill and acted on that is not a fair comparison." This is, again, referring to the perpetrators of the crime, and really doesn't seem to me like it has anything to do with the victim (other than to say that the murderers were losers and she deserved more sympathy than them).

Are you sure that you actually read the comments in question? jp×g🗯️ 04:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

...I might be stupid. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything here. I think the OP should withdraw and request a close as a gf mistake. The content issue was appropriately reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  05:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• @LilianaUwU: In the future, keep in mind before reporting someone to AN/I with accusations of misconduct, reading their comments first is an absolute bare minimum. Preferably, some attempt at resolving the problem (i.e. engaging with the editor, asking them what they meant by a comment, or asking them to stop) should be made prior to opening a noticeboard thread. jp×g🗯️ 05:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that was my mistake. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Mullen Automotive

Help. Persistent promotion, socking, and copyright violations. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for three months due to a flood of promotional and copyvio edits in the past month by SPAs and likely undeclared paid editors. Let me know if autoconfirmed editors engage in disruption of this article, and I will use other tools to prevent disruptive promotional editing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Caseeart move warring

@Caseeart has engaged in move warring in regards to Avi Yemini an article which is currently in draft leaving misleading edit summaries in his moves and has refused to engage in discussion.

For reference the article has been deleted twice by AfD in the past and on both occasions the reason for deletions was the subject was not notable:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avi_Yemini
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avi_Yemini_(2nd_nomination)

However during the pandemic the individual became notable in Australia and there are numerous citations in the article which can be seen in the article in its current form at Draft:Avi Yemini Draft.

• first moves to draft with edit summary "Deleted multiple times (problems not corrected). WP:ATTACK not suitable for BLP." This edit summary is misleading and patently false. Anyone with eyes can attest the article in its current form has 16 citations, many of which include The Age, The Guardian news.com.au and the Herald Sun which make up 9 of those citations. Clearly that article would survive a new AfD and the statement "problems not corrected" in reference to the article being deleted multiple times is incorrect. Additionally in their edit summary Caseeart wrote "WP:ATTACK not suitable for BLP". Per WP:ATTACK "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" (my emphasise). Clearly the article is not poorly sourced as demonstrated by its current state. If Caseeart did believe it to be an WP:ATTACK they ought to have followed that policy and tagged it with the {{db-attack}} template. Clearly they didn't

• I restored the article to mainspace and left a message on Caseeart's talk requesting they not move the article to draft again. I advised that clearly the subject is notable given the number of citations given to WP:RS and that if they disagree they should take it to AfD.

• Caseeart has now moved to draft again without discussion with misleading edit summary "WP:BLP WP:ATTACK. Deleted multiple times. No explanation why restored." Given the message I left for Caseeart and their removal of it it is clearly incorrect that there has been "No explanation why restored". Per above as the article has adequate referencing to WP:RS it is not an WP:ATTACK page and if it was then Caseeart should be using the {{db-attack}} template per policy.

Avi Yemini is now protected until 21 January 2024 and a article which clearly passes WP:GNG is stuck in draft as a result of Caseeart disruptive move warring and not engaging in discussion. Can I get admin intervention and santions on Caseeart for their disruptive behaviour please. TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers as an involved admin. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll bite - for which of these things is he notable?

Works for Rebel News

Opened a couple of gyms and then sold them

Got sued for defamation by his brother

Ran in a state election and got < 0.5% of the vote

Assaulted his wife

Took legal action against state officials. Lost.

Tried to sue Facebook fact-checkers. Lost.

• That's a lot of trivial things that have been mentioned in reliable sources, but it does sort of read like a laundry list of negative issues (and it doesn't even mention the anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic claims). Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, provocateur/activist would be my description. He's a serial pest and after years of keeping at it a lot of mainstream media took notice during the pandmemic. No one has to like that he's notable but there's heaps of WP:RS that cover him in depth, not just the ones in the article. As I wrote in my message to Caseeart, if they thought the article still had notability problems then an AfD was the appropriate course of action. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  The anti-Muslim stuff I believe was a lot of his activism pre-pandemic and there is a argument for developing the article to make it more rounded per WP:RS which aren't currently represented. As it stands though the article passes WP:GNG and it doesn't meet WP:ATTACK as described above. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to your specific question though he is notable for engaging in vexatious civil action. That would be an area of improvement for the article. Listing/Detailing his civil actions that he has launched against others in a section. Though as above I’d say his primary notability is as an activist/procoteur. TarnishedPath^talk 13:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I today move-protected the mainspace title for a month to limit scope for any more move ping-pong, preserve the status quo for a while and leave room for some discussion. I made no attempt to establish which was the 'right' title for the page. My initial suggestion would be to submit the draft for review and abide by the result, but if consensus develops here that it should be in mainspace then do please go ahead and make that happen without further reference to me (I'm busy with family and feasting for the next few days at least). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for your assistance. TarnishedPath^talk 21:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted the article to AfC per your suggestion. @Caseeart, if this passes AfC, if you still disagree, I suggest your only recourse is AfD. Which is what you should have done previously after I left a message on your talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 02:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

User:91.73.241.35

Good morning,

I report this user for various reasons, which I will summarize. The user has engaged in edit wars, added content without any sources, all while exhibiting a violation of the NPOV policy regarding certain jihadist groups.

To begin, their initial edits were on December 17th, on Jaysh al-Islam, an islamist group, where they increased the reported number of members without changing the previously used source.[1] The same pattern was observed on the page 2012–2013 escalation of the Syrian civil war, where they inflated the number of Islamist group members by 5,000,[2] placing it at the top of the infobox above other factions, all without altering the source.[3] All their edits follow a similar pattern: adding Islamist oriented info at the top of infoboxes and articles [5] without proper sourcing, receiving warnings, and then engaging in edit wars on each article by claiming the Arabic Wikipedia as the source,[6] even when nothing in the body of the English article supports this claim.

He also engaged in deleting content, such as the fact that certain militant groups or persons were Salafi/jihadist, as he did here.[7] [8]

Note that some of his edits are still in place, I reported him to the AIV but they told me it was better to come here, so I did. AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

124.254.86.126

This IP user makes vandalizing edits repeatedly. Multiple warnings given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.254.86.126

I think you forgot to sign your comment The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Post was made by User:Geardona and here is their talk page: User talk:Geardona I like Astatine (Talk to me) 04:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh mb Geardona (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Uellatke

Hello, This user is raiding my talk page after i undid one of their vandalising edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geardona&diff=1191079203&oldid=1191079165 Thanks, Geardona (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Uellatke Blocked indefinitely. User talk:Geardona Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HTH. El_C 13:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:President Loki

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

This editor's contributions came to my attention due to the sourcing problems at Battle of Beit Lahia and Battle of Jabalia.

Looking at their contribution history, I think the community should evaluate if this is gaming the system. They currently have 599 edits, I believe ~296 of which are wikilinking "genus" (eg:[50]), another ~53 are wikilinking "monotypic taxon" (eg:[51]).

This type of editing (wlinking) in this subject area (biology) continues until they are ECP on 9 December (see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/President_Loki)), from that point on they begin editing in the Israeli conflict area, with significant POV and sourcing issues (imo). See user contributions starting on 9 Dec, the stark change in editing I think is obvious.

Similar concerns have been raised by other editors, see User talk:Robertsky#Battle/Siege of Gaza City, courtesy pinging @WeatherWriter: and @Robertsky:.

Request the community evaluate this situation and determine if something needs done. If I'm wrong let me know, but I believe this person should not be ECP and editing in a CTopics area.  // Timothy :: talk  14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• (Seen via being pinged here): Is there a problem? Yes. However, I think this is an instance of WP:NOCLUE. I just realized that President Loki had not received a talk page CTOPS alert for Israel-Palestine. Noting for everyone I just gave them their first CTOPS alert for that minutes before this message. I do not think a block or anything is truly warranted, but I do think maybe a courtesy warning about staying away from CTOPS until they understand the basics of Wikipedia as well as creating an article may be best. One does have an argument for a little bit of gaming the system, however, since there was no CTOPS talk page alert given, even after the first CTOPS disagreement, one can assume NOCLUE. That said, they should have been a little bit aware of it since the previous CTOPS disagreement linked above {moved a highly contested page without any talk page agreement - Administrator moved the page back and directed them to the talk page for consensus}.

I do not think a true TBAN is needed, but I think one of two things should happen: (1) They see this AN discussion and agree to do a lot less CTOPS editing and more outside CTOPS to better understand how to edit Wikipedia (90% out-10% in) ratio & agree to not do any big moves or page creations for a while in CTOPS or (2) if they do not see this AN, then an administrator does a kindly worded message to them to get them editing things outside of CTOPS more than they edit inside CTOPS to gain experience. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think they were clearly gaming the 30/500 restriction on the topic area deliberately, though? Looking at their edit history, they edited normally early on (if intermittently and in another CTOP area, abortion), then made a bunch of edits to Module:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_detailed_map. Immediately after that, their flurry of wikilinking began and continued at a rapid pace until, five days and several hundred edits later, they were ECP confirmed and able to edit 30/500 articles, whereapon they stopped and haven't made any other of those wikilink-style edits. I don't see any other way to interpret this - when trying to move to other related articles from that module (which had been overlooked for ECP protection), they clearly discovered they were unable to edit ECP articles. That is, after all, a technical restriction that they would easily discover without having to be formally informed of it. After that they immediately set out to spam trivial edits until they were able to do so. I don't think any other interpretation of their behavior is reasonable. And I believe the message you get when trying to edit an ECP article without the necessary permissions makes the system clear, so they should have been aware that they were violating WP:PGAME. More generally, I've never heard anyone suggest that a formal notification before the flurry of editing is necessary to enforce PGAME - how would that possibly be workable? In the vast majority of cases, nobody would know they intended to edit a CTOP area until after, since they wouldn't be able to edit their desired area until after, making it impossible to warn them in advance. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't find any block evasion here, but I can confirm the President Loki account to a dormant Ybinstok. I'm inclined to pull the ECP flag at a minimum here. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Courcelles. Done, with a note to the user and without prejudice to further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC).

Am glad that I am not the only one who thinks that they are gaming for ECP. – robertsky (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Tintin Phoneix

Seeking assistance as I know those working in SPI are extremely busy. User:Tintin Phoneix was found to be a sock on the 18th based on this SPI. They are not blocked and still editing and was hoping a passing admin had time to take a look and place a block.

 Done. Deor (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Entertainment Weekly by IPs and user

• 47.17.47.199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.113.203.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Rafaelsinger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1117#Brooklyn_IP_keeps_removing_Entertainment_Weekly_from_cites

The New York IP editor 47.17.47.199 was blocked three times, the most recent on September 3. Another New York IP showed the same behavior and was blocked September 4. The Rafaelsinger username was registered 15 years ago, but made its first edit one week after the IP blocks. All three were involved in removing and downplaying the magazine Entertainment Weekly, with this activity disguised as updates.

The typical edit is an update to the URL, ruining the archived URL, removal of the "magazine" parameter, and removal of the name Entertainment Weekly.[52][53][54][55] The template "cite magazine" is changed to "cite web". If there's an author link parameter, it is removed.[56] In other cases, the entire cite is removed, taking away support for the review score.[57][58][59] (As a side note, the archived links are often the only ones that show the review score as a letter grade such as B+. Quite often the new ew.com URL fails to show the review score at all.)

Rafaelsinger's prose writing style matches the first IP's.[60][61]

The interaction chart between these three may reveal additional intersections of interest.

The January 2023 ANI thread about this problem eventually resulted in the first block of IP 47.17.47.199 in February. Subsequent IP blocks have been lengthy. I am requesting an indefinite block on Rafaelsinger for block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Rafaelsinger for block evasion quite a few hours ago, and forgot to report it until now. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Mass unsourced editing by 171 range from Bangkok

• 171.97.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Madame Tussauds, associated articles and lists of tall structures are currently favorite subjects. Most recent of many IPs used: 171.97.60.39 (talk · contribs). This is whack-a-mole business. More eyes requested, and thoughts on how best to handle this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Errico Boukoura

The user made a serious allegation against me here. This comes in the context of an AfD, which I recommend you to read. The editor has previously made an another questionable remark ('The "concerns" raised about Keramikou 28 appear to be more personally motivated than reflective of adherence to Wikipedia rules.') and ad hominem arguments (claiming I am incompetent to judge tone of text, because I have an "intermediate" level of English, as is written on my user page). I can not disprove that the editor may have communicated with a victim of a AfD-exploiting fraud. But even in that hypothetical situation, the editor is too quick to make claims unsupported by anything other. I can, however, explain what led me to nominate the article for deletion:

I have made a question at WP:VPT. I found the talk page of the TFA of the day as an example of the third issue. Later the day, an image was removed from the TFA (for reasons on the talk page) and I decided to nominate it for deletion on Commons. I was told there is a problem with the problem with the image being in use on TFA archives, so I asked about it on WP:HD and I was led to WT:TFA, where I started a discussion. Later, searching for policies related to the discussion, I found CAT:MISSFILE. I emptied it (the date was December 10 – see my contributions), and one of the articles I edited in the process was Kerameikou 28. The article got into the category because an editor changed all instances of "Keramikou" to "Kerameikou" without renaming a file whose name contained "Keramikou". After several edits to the article on the following days, I finally nominated the article for deletion for the reasons in the top of the AfD entry.

I think my argument is sufficient to disprove that my nomination was made in a COI. I would like you to judge Errico Boukoura's conduct. Janhrach (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into this enough to comment on the content issue, but I can see that Errico Boukoura made a very tenuous claim of Janhrach having a conflict of interest while admitting that he had a clear conflict of interest himself (Errico seems to be a male name). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been attempting to make changes to Kerameikou 28 since the AfD was opened. Unfortunately, Janhrach is not clear on what the problems are, as he keeps changing the issues with the page.

Personally, I do not find it offensive to state that an individual who is not a native speaker of English (and claims to be intermediate on his personal page) as they actually cannot provide proficient corrections in English in any way.

Furthermore, my statement about Janhrach 's potential conflict of interest is purely hypothetical. I only mentioned it as there isn't a clear reason yet as to why Kerameikou 28 was marked for deletion.

I would also like to express my personal opinion regarding the transition from the AfD to here. It seems a bit excessive, as Janhrachand I are currently focused on discussing the developments related to Kerameikou 28, and not engaged in any conflict. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't fall under the term 'conflict of interest' as I am a professor conducting research outside of any institution, organization, financial or otherwise. I don't know or have met anyone from Kerameikou and I only recently obtained the phone number of the previous owner.

This was an encyclopedia-focused intention, not insitutional or otherwise. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Errico Boukoura, I do not understand your problem with Janhrach's English language proficiency. English is my mother tongue and I have no difficulty whatsoever understanding Janhrach, and the editor is certainly capable enough in English to nominate an article for AfD. Your repeated criticism of the editor's language skills at the AfD, complete with boldface and underscores and bold all caps, is way out of line. As is your strange, evidence free attempt to tie the editor to some phone conversation with the previous owner and some vague, unsubstantiated threat. So, I highly encourage you to avoid that type of unjustified criticism of a colleague. Focus, instead, on demonstrating the notability of the topic and specific ways that the article can be improved. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made all of the changes Janhrach asked for. If there’s anything else I can improve, please let me know. 2A0E:41C:4543:0:B0B6:1007:D6E3:5793 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(assuming I am writing to Errico Boukoura) There is still a lot of things to improve. There are typos, unreferenced claims (e.g. how is this URL related to the Role in Athens Arts Scene section otherwise having no other references, what claims are sourced by which references in Community, etc.) and tone issues (e.g. The End of Kerameikou 28 is toned promotionally, actual information there is worth two sentences at most, et cetera. The list I provided before was a counterargument that I can discern tone and was not meant to be exhaustive). We are going off topic. ANI is meant to discuss conduct. By the way, AfD also isn't fit for this, these are matters that were to be handled back at AfC, but you fraudulently bypassed it. Has that not happened, the article wouldn't be facing AfD now. Janhrach (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please consolidate all your concerns into a single message so that I can address them collectively. The mention of Role in Athens Arts Scene section is the first time it has been raised as an issue.

Once you have outlined all the issues in one comprehensive message, I will ensure everything is prepared within 2-3 weeks. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What you want to do is not a matter for AfD. It is not meant to be opened indefinitely until the article is ready. Draftification and a subsequent AfC submission are for that. And at AfC, there will be more competent people than me to suggest changes. Janhrach (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the pages was published, the article has already been approved as ready. Once you or anyone else addresses any further problems, I will look into it and changed (or added) the issue within 2-3 weeks. My fast-response to your concerns proves that I am more than willing to make any changes if needed.

I would like to excuse myself, while I am currently engaged in another project as well. I will exclusively participate and respond to matters only related to Kreameikou 28 changes.

Any inquiries beyond that scope will be addressed at a later time.

Note: Please address all of your concerns at AfD so I don't miss anything. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

One last thing: the article was not accepted. This cut-down version was. What is there now was expressly declined in previous AfC submissions, yet you re-added most of what was previously declined. Janhrach (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As mention above, any inquiries beyond that scope of Kerameikou 28 will be addressed at a later time.

Please address all of your concerns at AfD. Errico Boukoura (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a new comment at the AfD, I strongly recommend you to read it, the argument is well-reasoned. @Errico Boukoura: The reasons for AfD are same from the beginning: bypassing AfC, tone issues and references. I brought this to ANI because you accused me of being connected to someone who "threatened" (extorted?) somebody over an article, without absolutely any independently verifiable evidence. Janhrach (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

New user continued disruption

Baraniscool (talk · contribs · count)

Despite multiple warnings and an expired block, user continues to disrupt Pink Floyd articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

User blocked by Ponyo - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'be blocked for two weeks. Perhaps in that time Baraniscool will come to realize that they need to communicate with editors raising valid concerns regarding their edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

FlightTime You've also disrupted these related articles. I see you were also edit warring without communication on Fat Old Sun (an article I have been fixing up at the moment and improving sourcing), so you deserve at least an admonishment if not some other WP:BOOMERANG-based sanction. As I write, Machine Head (album) says it was released on 31 March 1972, but the infobox says it was released on 25 March 1972. Which is it? And this is supposed to be a good article. Can you please fix your errors? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: @FlightTime has also been warned very recently about edit warring and being disruptive on other articles as discussed at El C's talk page. This appears to be, at the very least, a recent pattern. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think FlightTime has been almost but not been quite disruptive for some time, but I can't remember a (recent) time they had sanction-worthy behaviour, always stopping short of it. I do recall blocking them once years ago, but it was reversed as being draconian. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

User:KANLen09

I had issues with the edits of this user before, mainly due to their insistence on adding unsourced trivia content in various anime articles (more specifically in episode sections), content that is of no one's interest but their own. I have suggested them before to discuss the matter on talk pages, to which they have refused and continued to make the same kind of edits, ignoring any kind of objection. Now, there is this particular MOS, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which clearly indicates to avoid adding links to sections within the article, given that the table of contents provides that function. To be honest, it has only been a few months since I and other editors began to adhere to this MOS, and sincerely, despite the time I have been here, I didn't know about it until recently, so I try to be empathetic with other editors who are not familiar with the MOS and continue to edit contrary to what it indicates, in other words, assume good faith. The problem is that I have warned KANLen09 on several occasions through edit summaries to stop re-adding these links once they were removed, pointing out the specific MOS, and if that hadn't been enough (thinking that, maybe, they just didn't see those edit summay warnings), I wrote them directly on their talk page about the issue. The result? The user continues to this date adding those links, without, at the very least, explaining why they continue to do so. I have little reason to believe that they're not deliberately ignoring the warnings. Their edits are almost disruptive at this point, and if they're not doing them on purpose (which is highly unlikely), makes me wonder if this could be considered a WP:CIR case. I didn't want to get to this point, but the user has been trying my patience for a while now. Xexerss (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

103.5.0.238

Resolved

I believe the recent edits from 103.5.0.238 (talk · contribs) are from the same editor as 103.5.1.210 (talk · contribs), who decided to continue making disruptive edits to airline-related articles from a different IP address after getting blocked. For example, a an unsourced claim that an airline ceased operations. A quick IP lookup shows both addresses are from the same country, region, and ISP. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 07:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Might be time for a range block. 103.5.0.0/23 maybe? @Materialscientist Nobody (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This IP belongs to a problematic range, hence rangeblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Othmas biaggio

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs) recently appeared and has a wonderful log of mass removal of content, edit warring, and disingenuous Talk messages (presenting false translations). I warned them and reached out to two other admins who know the topic area already, but the editor is continuing to revert. Can another admin please examine this and intervene? --Joy (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is this 'wonderful log' of mass removal? I have edited a whole whopping four articles in total. Naturally I reverted your edit and even stated why I did so, because the content was already discussed and agreed upon with another moderator. Your edit, on the other hand, showed signs of subjective pushing of bias, which is quite concerning since you seem to be very active and have been so for a long time. I wouldn't expect anyone with your track record to use a Google search result with 67 matches as a source as seen here:/ Talk:Slava Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The first 4 edits this user did were in Human rights in Serbia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077275638
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077276893
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1114652954
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1115508786

This is not normal. --Joy (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You must be absolutely kidding me - the state of the article is what prompted me to create my account in the first place. Let's go through the edits one by one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077275638

Dead links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077276893

Dead link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1114652954

The section is based on a 12-line summary and includes stuff never mentioned in the sourced material such as this line from the previous edit: "and faulty asylum protections (particularly for children)". The source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1115508786

Explained in the Talk section here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_in_Serbia

Are you even checking the edits you're listing as disruptive? How can anyone have edited articles since the beginning of the 2000s, two decades, apparently being well-versed in the rules of Wikipedia having a moderator position be this amateurish? Your own edit as a revision to my, based on bogus claims of "censorship" uses a Google search result with 67 matching pages as a source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191260586

This is utter insanity. Othmas biaggio (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't finish the 3rd paragraph. The source doesn't even mention anything in regards to what is being written in the article. Othmas biaggio (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't attack other editors or you're going to find yourself blocked for incivility. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The removed source in Joy's first link is Wayback Machine-accessible, so it certainly isn't a deadlink, just needs to be merely noted as archived, so removal of these sources is not justified unless it absolutely isn't archived. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So because one link exists on Wayback it suddenly constitutes as proof for the collective four edits being unsubstantial? Furthermore, can a political declaration and document account for proof of anything? The Declaration itself is based on a flawed pretext of Vlachs and Romanians being considered as one people and claiming this is a political move from Serbia. This is completely false as I am Vlach myself - these claims are usually postulated by Romanian ultra-nationalists trying to group us into being Romanians.

Objectively, though, the source can stay for all that matters, but the clear and unhinged bias must be mentioned in the article. Nobody Vlach in Timok consider themselves to be Romanian, which is the presumption of the sham Declaration - this would be akin to someone denying others of their ethnicity or saying it doesn't exist propagated as being objective.

This is getting interesting for what can really be used as a source? Joy is using a Google Search result with 62 matching results, where it is solely mentioning the tradition of Slava in a historic and unrelated context to the pertaining article (Slava), as evidence for explicitly including Croats as contemporarily celebrating Slava despite arguing with an absolute degree of uncertainty on the Talk page. How is this not considered agenda pushing? The article prior to the edit even mentions it is practiced "to a much lesser extent amongst Catholic and Muslim ethnicities in the region".

Lastly, let's analyze what Joy is saying:

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs) recently appeared and has a wonderful log of mass removal of content, edit warring, and disingenuous Talk messages (presenting false translations).

Where is this wonderful log of mass removal? I have edited a total of four articles in the span of more than a year and explained with reasons in all of my edits other than in the recent Ottoman_defter_of_The_District_of_Branković_(1455), where my edits almost solely consisted of formatting and adding pictures. My edits were discussed on the Slava article with Jingiby and we reached a collective consensus and agreement. Is it really relevant to, once again, discuss and alter content when one could simply read the Talk page and comment in there before changing anything? The way I see it is we're allowing Joy to edit freely without questioning using Google Search, while we must question the documented and summarized edits of others? I believe that doesn't make sense nor is it justifiable in any way whatsoever. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadlinks are a reasont to find an archive or a new source, not for removing content. If you're unable to find a source you coild use {{citation needed}}. Also the diff you presented of Joy's was to Croatian Encyclopedia not Google search results. Did you provide the right link? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit on the Slava page, where Joy uses a Google Search result as a source or as substantial evidence for his claims:

Talk:Slava

The edit in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191276425

Not only does he or she uses a Google Search result as a source, but claims I am 'censoring text' despite the mentioned edits even having been discussed and a concensus reached with a previous moderator being Jingiby. Joy could have simply read the Talk page instead of once again churning settled content and editing using Google Search as a source. I am referring to the edit, where Joy argues on the notion of uncertainty and Google Search results being evidence. The "real" source is the link to a Croatian Encyclopedia followed by Joy pointing to Google Search results. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, you have countless of sources stating Slava is indeed a Serbian tradition here, but I guess one could always cherrypick using things like national encyclopedias and Google Search results to include subjective and biased edits. Isn't this especially concerning when the one doing it is a moderator?

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/slava-celebration-of-family-saint-patron-s-day-01010

In Serbia, Orthodox Christian families celebrate an important holiday in honour of the patron saint, Slava, who is believed to be their protector and provider of welfare..

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326252390_The_Slava_Celebration_A_Private_and_a_Public_Matter (by Bosniak author Sabina Hadzibulic)

A family celebration named the slava or krsna slava (celebration/ glorification or christened celebration) is a unique custom within the tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church when each family annually celebrates its patron saint.

It seems only on Wikipedia commonly held notions are up for discussion - especially on pages related to the Balkans. Despite the above sources a consensus was even reached earlier with Jingiby to include Muslim and Catholic ethnicities, but still Joy feels the abosolute need to explicitly mention Croatia and Croats. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere in that diff of Google search results, nothing, not in the references which is for Croatian Encyclopedia or in the edit summary. Note whether this is a Serbian or Croatian tradition has zero to do with this board, and this board doesn't deal with content issues. Also how does this specific issue relate to you removing details of human rights issues? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs), a couple of things. First of all, this combative attitude, please drop it. I need you to stop yelling at other editors, and using their "moderator" status to strengthen that personal attack just makes it worse. Second, please use regular layout, instead of responding in paragraphs with extra line breaks--Microsoft Word's extra line after a paragraph has done the world more harm than good. Finally, like ActivelyDisinterested I can't really figure out what you are trying to argue here, but if you are going to make some point about content you shouldn't cite a UNESCO website--and of course we don't handle content discussions here. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two articles in question: Slava and Human Rights in Serbia. I am simply linebreaking to separate my content and make it easier digestible.

Regarding Slava - Joy has reverted an edit of mine as seen in the Talk page, where the user argues on behalf of Google Search results and voids earlier discussion pertaining to the same subject calling my edit "censorship". Scroll to the bottom of the Talk page. You would have to ask Joy specifically what is referred to by the "wonderful log of mass removal of content" comment.

Regarding Human Rights in Serbia I have explained all my edits here and in the original edits and on the Talk page. So I can't site a UNESCO website, but Joy can cite a Croatian Encyclopedia consisting of 3 lines and a Google Search result? So what has this discussion been about then? Or was it simply invoked in a wrongly manner by a moderator? I am simply responding to the incident created by Joy. I believe all my edits are just and contributing, but understand I should be more careful with removal of content in the future and don't remove dead links or citations. Othmas biaggio (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Othmas biaggio, please stop misrepresenting Joy's statement on Talk:Slava (tradition). Joy pointed to a search result string to demonstrate the existence of sources ("Try doing for example a https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahrcak.srce.hr+hrvati+krsna+slava and see a bunch of scholarly references to it."). Joy has not cited Google Search. Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Joy cites a Croatian Encyclopedia consisting of 3-4 lines supporting it by using a Google Search result. The whole previous section revolves around discussing this exact phrasing and whether or not to include that particular sentence and how to phrase it - a consensus was reached. Instead of simply reverting the edit based on the Talk-page discussion, meaning the content was actively agreed upon by two parts, he could simply had commented on the Talk page. You can't seriously be saying pointing to something makes something valid- then I could simply index a search result based on my own specific keywords on any given encyclopedia entry and point to that. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, calling it a simple "Google Search result" is only partially true, as it is a search on a specific website ([62]), as you can see in the URL. This is only to establish that sources mentioning this claim exist on this specific site. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So since it's partially true why isn't Joy providing a specific source rather than pointing to a collection of works containing his specific own personal tags in a Google Search result? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A source was literally given in Joy's edit. This search is just to show that the topic of this celebration among Croats is well-described in scholarly articles, beyond that one specific source. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A source being a national encyclopedia entry. Is this seriously considered valid as a source? Like I stated I could just take anything from any encyclopedia, look up some tags in a Google Search result and add them as an argument. Real historic dissection addresses bias and even encyclopedias hold biases. Everything has a bias and something is not necessarily true because a specific encyclopedia says so. If he was really adamant on including the paragraph couldn't he simply have used on the "numerous" sources he pointed to? Furthermore, like I already stated, pointing to a Google Search result isn't equal to something being "well-described in scholarly articles". The one specific source he mentions isn't even a scholarly article. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is literally a search on a specific website, which happens to be the Portal of Croatian scientific and professional journals. In other words, yes, it is literally a search among scholarly articles. An additional source could have been added, yes, but this search was there to establish that these sources exist. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So what? Would you trust a Turkish encyclopedia on Armenians or Greeks? A Greek encyclopedia on Turkey and Turks? An Azeri encyclopedia on Armenians? An Armenian encyclopedia on Azeris? National disputes and nationally produced material are not clear of bias and just because something is institutionally produced doesn't make it more objective. Especially not if it should be used in a broader sense when writing articles pertaining to a larger audience trying to grasp a subject at surface level. Would Thanksgiving be a Mexican tradition if a Mexican encyclopedia said so? Would Chinese New Year be a Japanese tradition if a Japanese encyclopedia said so? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing two articles - Joy has reverted one of my edits, which to I was given an unwarranted, in my opinion, warning and now he or she refers to another article in here. I guess we'll have to ask Joy to make him clarify what this is really about. Othmas biaggio (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

In this edit[63] you removed criticism of Serbia's human rights record by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe because you believe the assembly is wrong and it has a deadlink, neither are a valid reason for removal.
And in this edit[64] you removed criticism of Serbia's human rights record by Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament because of a dead link, again not a valid reason to remove it.
When asked why you removed these you stated deadlinks and have tried to shift the discussion to a different discussion that wasn't part of the original complaint. A discussion in which you continue to misrepresent what Joy has done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No I haven't - I have been given a warning and had this incident made by Joy. I am addressing both. There is no shifting of discussion here. Many of these articles pertaining to the Balkans are extremely biased - one of the edits, as an example, proposes my ethnicity, Vlach, doesn't exist and that we are simply Romanians. This edit and including of information was clearly not checked in the first place. Would you find it suitable having an article stating your ethnicity is the extension of another without addressing the inherent bias of the Declaration? But I see your point - I should instead have added the citation needed tags to the edit despite it stating my ethnicity doesn't exist. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have to agree with Joy on the "disingenuous" quality of talk page discussions. I'm looking over Talk:Slava (tradition), where Othmas is waging a kind of war over "occasionally among Croats", which they removed here (without any kind of explanation) and elsewhere. In that talk page discussion it's noteworthy that Othmas seems at pains to not address the matter of Croats honoring this custom, and takes issue with Joy bringing it up--and then takes issue with Joy's citation from the Croatian Encyclopedia. Joy defends the citation and says "look, it makes sense that they're saying this since it is true--look at these results", but is then accused of using a Google search as if he were defending an article it: but Joy was explaining why a citation made sense. Yes, that's disingenuous, or at least very confused. Finally, there's this: "I propose we discard your edit as the content has already been discussed. There is no need to go over content, which was already agreed upon in the first place"--well, "we" is two people, which is of course the minimum, and "agreed-upon content" is not set in stone, though that's precisely what Othmas is trying to do here. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What is "disingenuous" here? Me disagreeing? There is no war being waged here - the tradition is Serbian as pointed to in here and by countless of other sources and I even agreed to say the custom was being honored by Muslim and Catholic communities in the region. Slava isn't being celebrated in Croatia. That's akin to saying Thanksgiving is being celebrated in Mexico. Naturally so information isn't set in stone, but the topic at hand has once before been discussed. Why is the subject suddenly being opened again? Joy could simply have commented on the Talk page if he was to add or remove something previously discussed by respect of the other users as one can clearly see there was a civil discussion on the topic. I could also simply extend the matter and add the sources stating the tradition, as I already did in here, is inherently tied to Serbs and the Serbian Orthodox Church, which it is, but wouldn't that be considered editing in bad faith? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, even Joy argues with uncertainty saying something is "likely" - with that he really just said he doesn't know. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A user easily deleted the designs that I had spent hours on.

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

---

I spent hours designing several images for the article on this and this topic. I tried to make sure they were of very high quality, not repetitive, and actually added something new to Wikipedia. However, a day or two after adding these images to the articles, 2 users deleted my edits and when I asked one of them the reason for deleting my images, they said: Because the other illustrations were good enough. Did they have the right to delete the work I spent several hours on just because they said it was enough? If the opinion was that a new image in this article is superfluous, according to Wikipedia’s rules because my images were of better quality, they should have replaced the old images. My plan was to gradually design more images both in the field of sexual articles and for other articles that needed images, and I mentioned this on my user page and a user asked me to design for two other articles as well. I request one of the administrators to look into this case to see if what this user did was correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javadst (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTCENSORED but 3D pictures of sex are not needed. I have also notified the user who removed them. GiantSnowman 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

See also User:Javadst/My Illustrations. GiantSnowman 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that my design in this article has been removed as well. Javads 22:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that these images are redundant and, to be completely frank, aren't very good. The 3D rendering is okay, but they look like glamour models in unrealistic porn poses. The "lesbian sexual practices" images are particularly male gaze-y. Look, I'm no prude; I think we should include images of sexual practices, but they need to be encyclopedic and educational. These images do a disservice to our readers, akin to replacing images at man and woman with beefcake and pin-up photos. Woodroar (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Beyond the other comments, there's something useful to remember: ANY edit ANYone makes is subject to reversion, deletion or alteration. That someone spent "several hours" on any such edit is neither here nor there, and doesn't make subsequent edits any less or more egregious. Ravenswing 23:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

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