Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124

Consensus is that this is not an admin issue. Normal

WP:DR processes were short-circuited. Please respect existing consensus and use the article talk page. ANI is the last step for intractable disputes and behavior matters, not the first. --Jayron32

14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:KyleJoan is engaging in persistent, uncollaborative, uncivil and disruptive behavior on Taron Egerton, its talk page and another user's talk page.

Please see the following progression and escalation:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]
6. [11]
7. [12]
8. [13]
9. [14]
10. [15]

First, it must be noted that this user has a significant history of blocks for edit warring, from 2016 to 2019, many for rather long periods. The longest being over a month, at 34 days. Yet here we are again. For the same thing.

Second, but the user's past experience has been useful in avoiding 3RR - which is why this isn't filed there. But the 2RR, wholesale revert of 6 RS edits here and here; coupled with a refusal to discuss or edit collaboratively here and here; ignorance of the common use of the abbreviation "ce" for "copyedit" in edit summaries here, here and here; and the "report me, I can't wait" attitude here, are disruptive enough to merit a report and response. Here.

Third, this user seems to have forgotten the lessons learned from a nice little block. But given this user's warring history and the fact that the user is a veteran who obviously knows better, sadly it appears that it's time for a reminder. X4n6 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure what you two are really going on about, but KyleJoan's correct that (contrary to what you seem to think) "ce" doesn't include adding a sentence and a source. So his complaint that your edit summary(ies) was(were) misleading has some validity. EEng 11:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• KyleJoan was doing okay in this content dispute. The reporter didn't follow
  WP:BRD and used an inaccurate edit summary. He was also not respecting that many editors voiced an opinion that the actor should be simply described as Welsh (in an RfC that wasn't closed), and that the article has been describing him as simply Welsh for quite a while. That passage of time doesn't make consensus weaker, it makes it stronger. This should not have gone to ANI. Reporter should have sought a third opinion. He is generally wrong and KyleJoan is generally right, and generally civil too. —Alalch E.
  12:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• This report has no merit whatsoever. KyleJoan made a single revert, and was civil throughout the talk page discussion; this is a commonplace content dispute, in which the OP has taken it upon themselves to edit against the obvious talkpage consensus without any attempt to form a new one. Consensus can change does not mean that consensus does change whenever a single editor decides that it should. Trout to the OP, no admin action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry - KyleJoan made 2 reverts, which is less than ideal obviously, but X4n6 was the first to ignore BRD and reinstate their preferred version, so yeah - still trout for the OP and no action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Safe to close and move on. —Alalch E. 12:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

• [16] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
• Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [17]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].
• Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [29], [30], [31], [32], edit-wars in another article [33], [34].
• According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [35], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [36], [37], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
• While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [38], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [39]. The same website (echo.az) publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [40].

In summary, this user demonstrates

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my report.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [41], [42], [43]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.

Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.

For example:

1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.

2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [44]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?

3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[45] [46], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.

In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@

under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk

) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of
  WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
  22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and upgraded to a

  WP:NOTHERE indefinite site ban following further investigation, considering both the evidence above and additional investigation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

  19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  What an appalling display of collaboration we've witnessed! Three partisan pro-Armenian editors relentlessly pursued a new pro-Azerbaijani editor in an attempt to force him out of wiki. At this stage, it's hard to tell whether Rosguill is oblivious to the fact that said pro-Armenian editors are ganging up against a newcomer or if he is consciously supporting their efforts.

  @Rosguill:, I have been closely monitoring your administrative actions within the Ar-Az area for a long time now, and I've noticed you regularly back up pro-Armenian editors and treat pro-Azerbaijani editors unfairly and harshly without distinction to the merit of either side's arguments. In the latest incident, you opted to ban a new user who was clearly being targeted by a group of editors. You banned them immediately for not complying with an extended-confirmed restriction even though they had ceased editing in the area as soon as they had become aware of it, despite that, you arbitrarily decided that a site ban was an appropriate measure.

  How could you immediately site ban a beginner user when it was evident that they was being targeted by a group of editors? Have you forgotten about the principles of

  WP:GOODFAITH, or do you choose to ignore them selectively? Did you not consider the fact that the people who reported him were edit warring with him, and none bothered to offer them any assistance or engage him in a dialogue about how Wikipedia works? Strangely, you did not resort to the usual excuses of "content dispute" or "lack of discussion" this time. Did you even bother to read his response

  , which clearly exposed the bad faith intention of the poorly crafted report, or do you simply not care?

  I implore @

  Beeblebrox, Starship.paint, CaptainEek, Guerillero, and Stifle:, to investigate Rosguill's clearly biased and partisan adminship in the Ar-Az area and to take necessary steps to eliminate any and all disruption caused by his prejudiced and partisan actions, which he seems unable to control/identify. 85.249.29.84 (talk

  ) 09:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above and in the block log, this block was the result of additional investigation. I'm happy to share the details of the investigation with any admin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I have no experience at all in Ar/Az, and also, I’m not an admin. starship.paint (exalt) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure why I have been pinged but this area is not one with which I am acquainted or in which I feel competent to act. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Boomerang for
    Kevo and Rosguill for mendacious lawyering. Fistagon2.0 (talk
    ) 11:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    Is this a sock? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    @LegalSmeagolian Yes, it's the same vandal from here [47]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

SeanMcCann1 (talk · contribs)

His talk page is a long history of warnings for various incompetencies, and I blocked him in April 2022 for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs. He continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. I think a longer block is in order. GiantSnowman 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit shows that they are capable of adding sources to BLPs. I'm not sure why an experienced user like Sean is still doing unsourced edits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We're seeing an uptick of brand-new editors on this article (which falls under the cryptocurrency community sanctions) who aren't very happy about how it is following the (mostly negative) independent sources. This is apparently because Solana's head of communications has been complaining about it on twitter. I recommend a preemptive semiprotect of the article under the GS, and if some folks wouldn't mind keeping in eye out on the talk page that would be helpful as well. -

Having worked with MrOllie on the article talk page to try and explain our policies to the new editors, I am certain of meatpuppetry. I am especially worried with the linked tweet's explicitness that there is a concerted effort to impose a POV upon the article; I think a short-term protection is necessary. I'll add it to my watchlist to ensure long-term protection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've invoked the general sanctions to impose an indefinite ECP. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:OUTING, I don't want to share the posts here but I have definitive evidence against multiple editors who have made public posts regarding their SOAPBOXING and POV-pushing on several articles related to this. What is the right course of action? ~ Pbritti (talk

) 18:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Offwiki stuff like that? User:Arbitration Committee, email that account and let ArbCom take a look. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll send all of the relevant details there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone on Reddit is claiming the article is "being manipulated", and is canvassing there. The tweet you referenced is linked in that Reddit post. Michael60634 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael60634: I scanned the thread but couldn't find any evidence of any specific account associated with these would-be POV-pushers. That said, the thread does make for some funny light reading—particularly the insistence Wikipedia is becoming editorialized (they've been saying this since before I could read!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm chiming in as an uninvolved editor (and one who is not a fan of cryptocurrencies): I think what is happening here is a vicious cycle of crypto people getting frustrated at what appear to be at least plausible NPOV/UNDUE issues, and responding in extremely aggressive and very bad ways, including attacks on good-faith efforts by e.g. Mr Ollie, which in turn has set the stage for a sort of interminable gridlock. The aggression/meatpuppetry/canvassing is a frustrating factor that requires additional effort on our part to sift through, but underlying claims of NPOV/UNDUE issues may still be valid. I've made a few changes to that effect and will try to work with others on the talk page to continue to do so in the coming days. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New evidence of coordinated efforts

After I saw the now-blocked Nona phase gleefully admit to meatpuppetry, I went looking for further evidence. There's a significant number of discussions occurring on both Twitter and Reddit regarding this canvassing—see an example here and here. I'd really appreciate if an uninvolved admin could take a peek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Russell has

User:NotReallySoroka

didn't respond there to a request for clarification about what accusation he or she is referring to and has already been asked to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists" besides.

Since the complainant here has done so while simultaneously raising the issue of working in good faith, I'd like a clear statement from

User:NotReallySoroka

refers to, and did not begin with an attempt to look at other pages on the basis that I was involved in their creation while hoping to find one that could be put through a speedy deletion process that would (hopefully) be free of defects unlike the prior failed nomination.

I have not sought

User:NotReallySoroka out. The opposite doesn't appear to be true; the interactions that are the subject of this noticeboard entry are as easily avoidable as simply not trying find fodder for conflict. -- C. A. Russell (talk

) 21:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am ostensibly "assum[ing] bad faith on [your] part" because I see your eight interrogating questions over at the RfD as badgering - and that's a charitable assessment, especially when coupled with your quasi-formal "(Please answer yes or no.)" stuff. I meant my "all those stuff" comment at your eight questions, as well as your constant badgering of the RfD nom as if they have an agenda behind nominating your redirect. Also, if you can ask me to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists", I would like to invite you to do the same by refraining to overread the RfD and stick to what the nom actually wrote.

Also, you are setting a false equivalency between me being in good faith and your what you think it is inside your head (i.e. the whole "that the nomination to delete... prior failed nomination" rambling). I can act in good faith and still G4 Selflang because the criteria - including the fact that previously-speedied pages cannot be G4ed - are met. "Good faith" on my part does not protect you or your redirects from being speedily deleted.

Moreover, "I have not sought [NRS] out" is simply untrue when you go beyond simply rebuking me, and instead falsely allege me of bad-faith editing, like you did above.

talk

) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) I don't see that this rises to the point where it needs administrator intervention. How about both of you just agree to stop interacting with each other, stop talking about each other, avoid editing the same pages, and go find something more productive to do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An iban is grossly out of proportion compared to whatever fault I had.

talk

) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a fuckin' awesome recommendation. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I do believe their behaviour at that MfD was inappropriate and confrontational. The good faith nominator has now withdrawn their request because of the "mess this has become". Hey man im josh (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed with a newbie, PaUZz LYte, who has repeatedly removed content at Codrus, claiming that it is sourced to another Wikpedia article rather that the actual source, which is here. Here are the reverts: [63], [64], [65], [66]. I've tried to reason with this editor on their talk page ([67], [68], [69]) and on the article's talk page ([70], [71]). I would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello there. Just wanted to add my latest comment on the matter:

Yep I read it again, not seeing anything about Aristotle having an alternative view on what happened specifically however. Only more confirmation of the original story as a matter of fact. I like this bit on the first page: "it is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students"

PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, then take your concerns to the article's talk page instead of repeatedly removing the content with the false claim that it is sourced to a Wikipedia article. Sundayclose (talk

) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the original poster of the claim did not source it the way you properly did. This all came about when you began putting up, the very clear at the point, false information repeatedly. I assumed it was sourced and cited the same way as the original poster did and for that I apologize

but hey now we can both move on considering how fals, as I clearly proved, the information is. I'm sure we can both agree we want what's best for the page correct?

hatT PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation was clearly to a source external to Wikipedia. All I did was to provide a link. The original editor who made the citation may very well have viewed the source in a library. Citations do not have to be to web pages. Again, why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article and make multiple reverts with only that excuse? Sundayclose (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite this being irrelevant at this point; Because again, the original poster included no links what so ever but regardless someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards. PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, citations do not have to be to a webpage. The citation was legitimate. Your repeated removal without discussion was edit warring. Why did you repeatedly claim that the content was sourced to Wikipedia rather than the actual source instead of taking your concerns to the article's talk page? Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation is perfectly valid, and books are definitely a 'legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards.' We do not require all citations to be available on the internet.

MrOllie (talk

) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now that were asking each other irrelevant questions, why did you repeatedly add and citate information ive proven you havent bother reading yourself? You mean you didn't even read the source you kept trying to claim was true? And you even redid the revision I made where I clearly state "it says nothing of the sort". Wait, so you added information without even checking to see for yourself if it's true or not? That's how misinformation gets spread around young one, through people such as yourself apparently. Have a good one! PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the source, which is why I reverted you. The only thing you have disputed is the authorship of the source, not the other content that you repeatedly reverted. And you didn't dispute the authorship until you finally glanced at the first page of the source. You should have taken concerns about authorship to the article's talk page rather than removing everything cited to the source. I'm finished here. I'll leave it up to administrators to decide what to do about the edit warring. My apologies if we have wasted administrators' time here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards

This is blatantly incorrect. The entire point of citing a book is that people can find said book (purchased, at their local library, or online) and check the cite themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see

MrOllie (talk

) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

On Healf of Nordisk Plus, I decided to remove copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes to avoid block from editing. We can't reports of Police Brutallity or looting in France for Now. So Thanks for your help. Nordisk Plus (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I assume 'on behalf of' is what was meant to be said. Nordisk Plus, is this an account with multiple contributors? Please clear this up immediately, because accounts are not allowed to be shared among a group of people. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reiterating the above, @Nordisk Plus:, please declare if this is a shared account or not (the use of 'we' rather than 'I' also concerns me). Ignoring this thread is not going to make any scrutiny disappear, and your response is very lacking in any detail. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will clear this now, for accounts are unallowed to shared among groups. The French military will not mobilized as of yet during that pension strikes. Nordisk Plus (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just keeping this updated: Nordisk Plus

RAN1 (talk

) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the above response (which feels like it went through a translation mill) and going through their past edits which have needed cleanup from other editors, I feel like N+ has a low level of English proficiency, or has someone assisting them, though poorly, and N+ should disengage from editing until they have a better understanding of how to edit en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor was upset over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhodhayam, left several messages containing personal attacks:

1. On User talk:DaxServer, see User talk:DaxServer#Learn to help fellow editors and User talk:DaxServer#Half job done by you on crucial discussions.
2. on User talk:Mushy Yank, see User talk:Mushy Yank#Unconstructive edits by @User:Star Mississippi
3. on my talk page, see User talk:Onel5969#Subhodayam, as well as User talk:Onel5969#Independent sources - Subhodayam

User began recreating the article and refusing to abide by the consensus of the AfD. The discussion is at DRV, which they have been counseled to take part in, but have refused. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)