Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

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)

208.90.127.100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bot blocking my IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

References

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)

User:Lolged

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

---

User:Lolged is posting a non-constructive comment and making a racist personal attack (“Typical of a ukrainian to just remove opposing opinions”)[13] in the edit summary at Talk:Human wave attack. According to WP:RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users like this one are not permitted to edit talk pages related to the subject of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and I believe that applies to this talk-page section titled “2022 russian invasion of Ukraine.” I had previously reverted[14] their original comment[15] already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Nil Einne (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Keremmaarda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading username

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:NuancedProwler

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

---

• NuancedProwler (talk · contribs · count)

First claims to have reviewed a source [17] then claims is not able to access the source [18]. General disruptive behaviour, possible ban-evader or sock (maybe this user, new acc was created when old one was blocked), I presume WP:NOTHERE. Best regards. Wareno (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

User:Stellairibarne

• Stellairibarne (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

User:AHI-3000

Does not leave any edit summary, even after I specifically asked them to do so [19]. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mrmaxor

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review requested

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

---

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

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

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

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

Unwelcome escalation

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emojis

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

@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[20] and Cinderella157.[21] 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[22] but also in US vs Pakistan pages to make Pakistan look superior and victorious.[23][24] 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 ([25], [26], [27]) anyone who challenges your edit ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) 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.[34] 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.[35] 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..."[36] 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)

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

95.46.157.21 repeatedly changes a template to disagree with the cited source

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

ANDREW THE COBRA TATE

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

---

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

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

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

Second report re: Jaikumar Linga Balija

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

---

• Jaikumar_Linga_Balija (talk · contribs)

See [37]. More of the same, dragging on since September. Linga Balija continues to have copyright violation issues, and then there's Draft:காப்பு ஜாதி. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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. [38] 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 [39] is it fixed? 808 AD (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Potential 3RR violation

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent addition of promotional content and copyright violations to Air Force related articles. Block evasion by Jordison.francisco [40]. WP:REVERTBAN is relevant for all edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

69.143.61.210

User:69.143.61.210 has returned to Wikipedia twice and engaged in an edit war without adequately discussing the matter on the page's discussion board. Blocking is strongly recommended. AmericanHistorian (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Contorista

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

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

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

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

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

"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the proper venue for dealing with a topic that is entirely subjective (PoV) and that cannot actually be encyclopedically defined, like "excellent baked goods", "most exciting video games", or (arguably) "classic[al] Hollywood cinema", is WP:AFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

While defining the term is easy -- "classic" anything pertains to whatever was prevalent in the speaker's earliest memories, and I'd expect that no one in any such debate has Mary Miles Minter or Werner Krauss in mind as "classic" film stars -- I agree with SMC that AFD is the appropriate venue. Ravenswing 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need this at Project:Administrators' Noticeboard#"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster, here, and Project:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster? Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone else dubious that a brand new account would name themselves "Nam widow" just to argue over classic Hollywood? Ring any bells? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

69.80.3.22

69.80.3.22 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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)

Problem account in CTopic area (Ukraine)

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

• Addition of large amounts of unsourced content, mainly names of BLPs. [41], [42], [43]
• Edit warring of the name Kiev >> Kyiv. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49],
• Moving "Grand Prince of Kiev" to "Grand Prince of Kyiv" [50], [51], [52] [53] I have no idea how to properly undue this move, hopefully someone here can assist in undoing the move.

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

I have only gone through some of today's posts, there are undoubtably more, but the above should be enough for action. Since they have started to revert my changes [54], so I can do no more without trediing into EW/1RR territory in a CTopic area.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Dear Timoty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Castncoot

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

Evidence (in chronological order):

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

Warnings:

• [55] and [56] - warning templates a month ago
• User_talk:Castncoot#New_York_City - today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KongfuGandalf

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

---

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

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

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

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

Toronto IP range trolling

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Here are the tags for the requests i made

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

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

Administrator intervention against vandalism Request 1

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

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

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

I reverted [57] because 115.188.122.67 changed his name to Dean "Locust" Lonergan, which appeared to be disruptive. I gave the removal reason that no reliable source was provided for this change and moved on down the edit filter log. I didn't look closely at the previous editing history on this article to check for sock puppetry or other unusual incidents. Ternera (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Towering Inferno genre warring

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

For the last two months, a Houston-based IP range has been genre-warring at the film article The Towering Inferno, trying to add "action drama" to "disaster".[58][59] The very first edit of a registered user did the same thing.[60] Looking back further, another Houston IP range was doing the same thing: Special:Contributions/2601:2C5:857F:CC0:0:0:0:0/64. None of these have used a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

This IP address needs to be sorted out.

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

---

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

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

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

Promotional editing at Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital

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

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

Modifying an ongoing RfC at Talk:Hamas

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

Background:

The primary cause of the RfC was an ongoing edit war on the lead of the Hamas article. I took a step back on December 10 when the edit war started, as I found the battleground approach too emotionally taxing. Yesterday, seeing that the edit war is not ending, I have filed an administrative request to temporarily lock the page to allow things to cool down through constructive talk, but it was declined. Then I have tried to take an initiative and put an end to the conflict by creating a neutrally-phrased RfC based on the contents in dispute in the last revert [61], without taking a particular side.

Intervention request:

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

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

When I came back some hours later, I was surprised to see find my RfC proposal #2 was significantly altered without permission, changing the text and adding an entire new sentence [62] in post mortem after many community members had already participated, potentially skewing the consensus-building process, and without discussion or notice to the RfC participants. The nature of the "sneaked in" modifications was not minor and substantially altered the scope and implications of proposal #2. I wouldn't have complained about a minor tweak such as a grammar correction, but I think it is disruptive to do such major changes in a live proposal without talking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Nil Einne: Indeed WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed. There was an edit war over Marokwitz's added text. I pointed out on talk[63] that their text has issues (including WP:SYNTH and WP:V) and nableezy[64] responded to that. No one responded to these objections, yet Homerethegreat[65] and Agmonsnir[66] kept edit-warring in the potential SYNTH text. Then Marokwitz started an RfC (with the same text that I had said might violate WP:SYNTH and WP:V) and within the first few hours votes in support came pouring in. VR _talk 12:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

122.106.10.1 Poor edits

Almost every edit by 122.106.10.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contains some form of spelling, grammar, formatting, MOS, or content error. I and others have left talk page messages that have gone unanswered. In some cases they've made a combo re-revert + new error [67]. All of the diffs are listed on their talk page, but here are today's revert/fixes alone: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] Celjski Grad (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Varna section of Bunt (community) page

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

Similar changes are being made to the Varna section to remove sentences with around 8 scholarly references. Example here [77] and here [78].

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

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

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

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: [79].

• 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)

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.

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

This leaves me really puzzled. The article Shu Qi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is semi-protected until November 2024, and yet some IP just edited it, with the same birthdate change again that was the reason for the SP in the first place: [80]. How is that even technically possible?--Edelseider (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

IP's edits on Jewish and Nazi Germany topics

Every edit so far by 120.18.172.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks WP:NOTHERE. First edit is whitewashing Nazi atrocities by claiming Zyklon B was merely used in the Holocaust as a delousing agent. Then: second and third edits claim that communist politicians were Jewish in their lead sections, with no sourcing (and in fact contrary to sources elsewhere in the article in the case of C. E. Ruthenberg). Fourth, inaccurately changes a quote by a history museum so it would instead call LGBT victims of the Nazis "degenerate". VintageVernacular (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week, if they reappear can be blocked again on sight. Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

RD55555 adding future film projects without sourcing

• RD55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

RD55555 has been adding future film projects to filmography tables of various Indian actors/filmmakers in contravention of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which states:

Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

Examples: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

Warnings: [86] [87] [88] [89]

The last warning (uw-unsourced4) was made 23:03, December 17, 2023‎. RD55555 made a subsequent contravening edit at 04:33, December 19, 2023

Updated (20:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)): to add that RD55555 has no non-mainspace edits.  — Archer (t·c) 20:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Trinitydevine disruption

Hello there. I am reporting User:Trinitydevine due to continued disruption despite fair and repeated warnings. This editor makes mass changes to info boxes on fictional characters. They have repeatedly creating new articles with copy and paste jobs, from list entries and make no effort to assert notability. This has resulted in numerous AFD discussions or merge discussions, which never had needed to occur if the editor was not copying sound information from contained lists of characters and passing them off as stand alone articles with merit. The editor has also received the appropriate warnings through out December but has not once replied, acknowledged or changed their behaviour. They also continually edit without an edit summary and can have problematic edit spurts in which they carry out mass changes. Some examples are:

• This creation resulted in this AFD and they restored it at a later date here and it has since been reverted by me.
• This creation resulted in this AFD.
• Trinitydevine acted against the result and recreated it once again and it was reverted by another editor.
• created this from this list and it has since been undone by myself.
• This creation was undone.
• This creation with the edit being undone which states info used without attribution
• This creation which was reverted by myself

Mass changes in December, adding unsourced episode numbers to info boxes - Newest to oldest, despite template warnings being issued here - and the final warning for disruption given since. Examples: [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]

Check their entire edit history for evidence of editing without edit summaries. With the user being disruptive you have to manually comb through every edit to ensure it is accurately sourced. Despite these repeated conflicts, the editor continues to wreak havoc and it is evident they feel no need to reply or face any reprimand.Rain the 1 21:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User disruption

User:Shohaim is not here to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Based on their contributions, it seems that their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to edit this page in bad faith. They have been warned previously.WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 22:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC).

Please remove my user groups

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