Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XhainXpert (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 10 January 2022 (→User:XhainXpert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour

    I have grave concerns about Æthereal's editing at the list article Members of the Council on Foreign Relations as pertaining to WP:COATRACK, as first noticed by Lindenfall. This article lists the members of a public policy think tank. starship.paint (exalt) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Before Æthereal got to the article in January 2021, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was mentioned only twice in the article (because he was a member of this council). [1] After nearly a year of Æthereal's editing, the article had a total of 117 mentions of Epstein in November 2021. [2]. A deeper dive into the article history upon Æthereal's arrival reveals more problems beyond Epstein associations. I have divided the problems into four categories below.

    Category 1 - specifically highlighting Epstein associations
    • Mario Cuomo [3] (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
    • David Rubenstein [4] (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
    • Vicky Ward [5] (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
    • Chelsea Clinton [6] (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)
    More of Category 1 - Epsteins
    • Bill Clinton [7]
    • Michael Bloomberg [8]
    • Jes Staley (used to attack Staley, Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic for associating with Epstein) [9] / [10]
    • Rafael Reif [11]
    • Nicolas Berggruen [12] (because Epstein had his contact)
    • All the following for having associations with Epstein: Leon Black, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Sandy Berger, Conrad Black, Katie Couric, Reid Hoffman, Walter Isaacson, John Kerry, Henry Kissinger, Eric S. Lander, George J. Mitchell, Thomas Pritzker, Bill Richardson, Charlie Rose, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, George Stephanopoulos, Larry Summers, Murray Gell-Mann. Excuse me for not finding the next diffs but I've made my point above. Æthereal is the major contributor to the article [13] and remember that there were only two mentions of Epstein before Æthereal came along.
    • When questioned on the talk page regarding the Epstein references, Æthereal's defense [14] is that Epstein was described as an “enthusiastic member” of the CFR in the 19-year-old (i.e., legal) magazine piece that was one of my refs. His connections still figure prominently with many current members. Says Epstein references that other editors are welcome to pare it down, although I would request that you “nuke” strategically, not apocalyptically, please. Unfortunately, I do not think Æthereal realizes the magnitude of the problem here.


    Category 2 - specifically including irrelevant quotes or references for criticism
    • Judith Miller [15] (used to criticize Miller's reporting)
    • Janet Napolitano [16] / [17] (used to criticize her management of DHS)
    • George Soros [18] (George Sorоs’ right-hand man was accused of BDSM crimes in his sex dungeon)
    More of Category 2 - quotes / references
    • Dick Cheney [19] (used to criticize Cheney as a war criminal)
    • Antony Blinken [20] / [21] (used to criticize Blinken's decision to invite the UN to investigate racism in USA given UN's ties to China)
    • Ronnie C. Chan [22] (used to criticize Harvard's acceptance of China's gift)
    • Wendy Sherman [23] (used to criticize her China-funded trip)
    • Max Boot [24] / [25] (used to criticize Hollywood grovelling to China and then Boot themselves)
    • Jonathan Greenblatt [26] (used to comment on George Soros, can't tell if this is criticism or not)


    Category 3 - highlighting family ties and other connections
    • Eileen Donahoe [27] / [28] (used to criticize her husband's running of Nike with China, fails to even mention her ambassadorship)
    • Edgar Bronfman, Jr. [29] / [30] / [31] (stresses family relations due to family's connection with sex cult NXIVM, plus Epstein)
    • Edgar Bronfman Sr [32] (see edit summary, adds sister purely because she supposedly enabled a murderer)
    More of Category 3 - relations
    • Susan Roosevelt Weld [33] (highlights past marriage, fails to mention her professorship)
    • Frank G. Wisner [34] (highlights father, fails to mention his ambassadorship and other roles under federal employ)
    • Christopher Elias [35] (for some reason, wants to highlight how the president of Bill Gates Foundation is connected to WHO)
    • Susan Rice [36] / [37] (mentions her wealth, highlights both of her parents)
    • Elaine Chao [38] (highlights how Harvard named a school after her mother..?)
    • Mentions other family relations / marriages for Kati Marton [39], Diana Villiers Negroponte [40], Laura Trevelyan [41], and Judy Woodruff [42]


    Category 4 - very questionable edit summaries
    • considers [43] / [44] this list of think tank members the "Mean Girls Club" / "Naughty Boys Club"?!
    • Larry Summers [45] Epstein sidekick Summers sampled sugardaddy’s sweet succor shamelessly.
    More of Category 4 - edit summaries
    • Michael Bloomberg [46] Added Bloomberg’s knighthood in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire whose “Grand Master” is über-racist Prince Philip,
    • Bill Weld [47] his family’s Weld Boathouse is a block from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Les Wexner building named for the sugar daddy of sugar daddy Jeffrey Epstein

    In my view, these are serious, serious issues worthy of sanction, though I'm not sure what. Would an Epstein topic ban be enough? A BLP topic ban? Or more? That is up to the community to decide. starship.paint (exalt) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, let's start with something more basic; that the whole article needs some work. I just stripped out some redlinks from the long, long list of "notable" names, but the biggest flaw is this: we just don't need the CVs of everyone listed, especially when one can just click on the link if you want to know more about a person. Why do we need to know, in the text of this article, that Priscilla Presley is the former chairwoman of the board of Elvis Presley Enterprises? Why is it important to know here that Brent Scowcroft was the Aspen Strategy Group founding co-chair? Do we need to know, here, that Robert Kagan is husband of Victoria Nuland, brother of Frederick Kagan, son of Donald Kagan? And never mind that of all the things Herbert Hoover did in his life, the important thing this article cites beyond him being POTUS is that he appointed Eugene Meyer as Fed chair 1930–1933? I'll start tackling that now, but for pity's sake, what's the value in all this debris? Ravenswing 13:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's great, Ravenswing, but this is WP:ANI, not the article talk page... I think we're probably here to discuss the editors' behavior and whether or not sanctions are required rather than to improve the article in this specific venue. AlexEng(TALK) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      One might consider it context to know that the entire article is a mess, and that one editor putting in Epstein comments -- which, after it was mentioned on the talk page, have been both stripped out and not readded -- does not appear to have been a full-on edit war worthy of ANI's attention. But, of course, you do you. Ravenswing 04:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing: - does it need to be an edit war to warrant ANI attention? These additions are already beyond the pale. This editor used an list entry for Mario Cuomo to attack his son Andrew Cuomo for associating with Jeffrey Epstein. Are we going to excuse this without even a warning? starship.paint (exalt) 05:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      An admonishment is appropriate, the more so in that he's pushed this anti-Epstein fluff into other articles [48]. But we're also not talking a drastic situation. Æthereal is not edit warring to add this edits back in. He is not being uncivil in the exchanges. He's not posting unsourced lies. Obviously he needs to stop treating list articles as biographies -- something he does do a lot -- but I'd recommend slowing your roll. Why does this bother you so intensely? Ravenswing 13:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      He's done far more than treating list articles as biographies. He's weaponized our list article into attacks on living people, even if these people are not members of the list themselves. Eileen Donahoe's entry, which failed to describe her actual profession, was turned into an attack on her husband John Donahoe [49] / [50]. How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      ... that's what you call an "attack?" The worst example you could throw up was a public statement quoted in a BBC article? It's certainly unnecessary, and it's certainly superfluous, but Æthereal Delenda Est!! and rhetoric like "weaponizing" a list is over the top. This is the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 14:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The superflous information came about from either incompetence (WP:CIR) or malice/some misguided sense of justice (WP:NOTHERE) or both. That disturbs me, but it clearly doesn’t disturb you, or it hasn’t occurred to you. The encyclopaedia needs to be protected from both. starship.paint (exalt) 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I will rephrase this as simply as I can, and please feel free to ask if any of this is unclear: yes, these are problematic edits. Yes, they should not have been made. Yes, Æthereal should make no more of them. Yes, Æthereal should be warned against doing so. (Hey, that's already happened, and they even promised not to do so.) Yes, these problematic edits should be reverted. (Whaddyaknow, I've been in the process of doing so.) And yes, I've already said all of that above, and I'm rather at a loss as to how you could have ignored my prior comments.

      Got all that? Hope so. But no, I do not go from any of that to suggest that Æthereal should be defenestrated, burned at the stake, community banned, or whatever else extreme measures that one can infer you desire. Æthereal has a clean block log, there's only one other warning in their talk page history, and they've been steadily editing since March without hitherto running into significant protest. This is not -- yet -- a situation where shrill and strident calls to man the ramparts are at all called for or necessary. It is not that I don't comprehend what you are saying. It's that I don't agree with your conclusions. Ravenswing 09:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravenswing, where exactly did Æthereal "promise" to stop making these kinds of sly coatrack "defamation by implication" edits? I couldn't find that comment. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I very much support the remarks made here by Starship.paint. "Beyond the pale" was my exact reaction at first encountering this bulging coatrack, quite beyond any I'd previously seen. I saw an extensively woven pointed point-of-view agenda at every turn, so turned to Administrators for input, seeing that this is no one-off, nor an off-week, unfortunately. This editor's actions would seem to now require on-going scrutiny, were they allowed to proceed on Wikipedia. I expect that sanctions would be called for, and await the wisdom of experienced Administrators to see to that. Lindenfall (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's clear that Æthereal should be indefinitely topic banned from editing any article with mentions of Epstein or his associates. Is something more needed? An indefinite WP:BLP topic ban? Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not only surprisingly pervasive Epstein; here is a similar treatment of a different subject:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barnard_College_people&diff=1057955321&oldid=1057954419 Lindenfall (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal)

    In light of the additional evidence presented above by Ravenswing, RaiderAspect and Lindenfall, that this disruption is prevalent over multiple lists/articles [51] and multiple topics involving living people including Black Lives Matter [52], Washington Post and its Pulitzer prizes [53], Communism [54] and China [55], I propose an indefinite BLP topic ban for Æthereal. This will leave them the opportunity to edit in historical/non-human topics in the meantime to demonstrate that they are indeed HERE to build an encyclopedia, and with six months of this maybe they can appeal the topic ban to lift this. However if they instead continue to disrupt in other topics, then we can proceed with further sanctions. Naturally as proposer I support this. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravenswing, RaiderAspect, Lindenfall, Sennalen, and Johnuniq: - notifying commenters above. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Novikoff keeps removing WP:DECOR per template

    Mike Novikoff (talk · contribs) keeps removing flags and symbols for Russian oblast templates without consensus. Russian oblasts might be accompanied with a flag and coat of arms, which is similar to country/region infobox. Weeks ago, Novikoff reverts and reveals Ymblanter's name for indistinguishable for trolling, as a personal attack from edit summary to Template:Moscow Oblast.

    Since that restored versions for Russian oblast templates might be affected:

    --49.150.112.127 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG. So I should have a special permission to implement the MoS, and I should discuss it with every IP user. "Please, IP, will you let me implement it?". Frankly, I hereby ask for WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, it's rather suspicious that an IP user knows who Ymblanter is, addresses his first complaint against me exactly to him, and files a properly formatted ANI case then within few minutes. — Mike Novikoff 08:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, MediaWiki nowadays is smart enough to tag some edits with "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits". Thank you Volker (or whoever does this there now at Fab). Jokes aside, what will you recommend to me? I suppose to start a discussion at WT:MOS, but is it really needed? It will be about "is MoS a guideline, or it isn't". So. While we are at it. Can you please just do something against this very disruptive IP, to save a lot of effort? — Mike Novikoff 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a placeholder to acknowledge I have seen this, I might react later of needed. May be to specify that the Op clearly means templates such as Template:Pskov Oblast, not the articles. The ANI discussion on Mike Novikoff was closed two weeks ago with a serious warning, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Mike Novikoff and a strange way of edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not doing nor even saying anything against you, so what it's all about? — Mike Novikoff 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But still no consensus for WP:DECOR only for headings, some regional templates has a flag and coat of arms. For example, any regional templates like Template:Kyiv Oblast in Ukraine to accompany with a flag on the top and coat of arms on the right. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCONTENT is a well-known invalid argument. — Mike Novikoff 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this (permalink). All we have is a content dispute started by an ignorant anonymouse who believes that it is recommended to need a flag and symbol per template but cannot support his belief. That's all. — Mike Novikoff 10:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ymblanter: FYI: Content dispute over Russian oblast templates. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having it closed as "content dispute" would be too weak. I'd rather see it as "49.150.112.127 is gone", before they point to my SUL and so on (that is, before they cast aspersions on me). — Mike Novikoff 11:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, please save me from this disruption. For almost ten years I only do things prescribed by the written rules, especially by the MoS, and thus strive to avoid any conflicts. So I'm really hurt by these weird accusations of the anonymouse. — Mike Novikoff 11:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been suspected for manipulation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style without seeking for consensus. @Ymblanter: I would like to impose community sanctions what have you done for WP:MOS, as a result of disruptive editing, personal attacks and oversight. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are saying is almost incomprehensible. Just note that Ymblanter won't take any action here as WP:INVOLVED (because of {{Moscow Oblast}}). And you have quite a chance to get {{uw-mos4}} and then be reported yourself. (Admins: correct me if I'm wrong). — Mike Novikoff 13:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, now I have a bit of time, let me write what I think about this. First, I do not know who the IP user is, I can not really comment on their motivation, and I do not think I interacted with them before today. (It is obviously not me, the IP is based in the Philippines, and I am in the Netherlands which is obvious from my recent uploads on Commons for example). I however interacted with Mike Novikoff. He is generally doing fine, but he is fully convinced that he is absolutely right and his opponents are always wrong, which is why he on a regular basis resorts either to personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS, going sometimes to the degree of lunacy. One example was his crusade against stress marks in Russian words. He was 100% positive that WP:MOS prohibits usage of stress, and started to mass-remove these stress marks. Users started to come to his talk page and protest: one, two, three, four. He responds that stress marks are not allowed, period. Finally, after I come there and say it must be discussed, he opens a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 222#Stress marks in Russian words, where he goes ballistic, his main opponent goes ballistic and gets blocked indef and eventually globally locked, and the discussion finally gets closed as approximate consensus (there were quite a few opposers), which apparently Mike Novikoff perceives as a confirmation that he just knows best. Fine, then he goes on a crusade on templates, which was the topic of the previous ANI and also of this ANI. When he gets opposition, he instead dismisses it and resorts to personal attacks, as we see in the linked ANI thread and also here. He has learned from the previous ANI thread that it is dangerous to attack me personally, presumably because I can do something bad to him. However, he has not learned that his understanding of WP:MOS is not necessarily the one everybody else shares, and that if the edits get reverted multiple times they must be discussed. Again, they were blocked indef in the Russian Wikipedia for a similar type of behavior, and they clearly are moving to the same end here. May be somebody could try to explain these basics to him, because if he learns this he might be a valuable Wikipedia user. I blocked him on Wikidata before for personal attacks for three days (and that was the first time I have seen this user); he asked that the block were revision-deleted from the log else he would never edit Wikidata. This is probably going to happen here after the first block, so his direct interest would be to listen to the advise and to correct his behavior to avoid blocks in the future, but for the time being I do not see this happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was 100% positive that WP:MOS prohibits usage of stress – I've never said that. Even though some references to the already existing policies were eventually included in the discussion closure, I've presented my own arguments instead. Users started to come to his talk page and protest: one, two, three, four. – First of these users didn't revert my edits, he agreed with my explanation and even encouraged me to write an essay. The second user is the same as third. He responds that stress marks are not allowed, period. – Anyone can see that these discussions were much more elaborate. Fine, then he goes on a crusade on templates – It's not a "crusade", it's one of the many things that I did regularly since long ago, so there was at least WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, if nothing else. — Mike Novikoff 08:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No, if your edits get reverted on a regular basis, it means WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS does not apply. If you see that other templates of the same type has the images - well, there is a tiny chance that the templates are there but in 10+ years nobody noticed they do not comply with the policy, but more likely it is that people interpret policies differently than you do. The policy you cite does not say "Coats of arms are prohibited in templates related to the Federal subjects of Russia", it says something else which you interpret this way. If you see your edits reverted, you should check whether there is actually consensus to do it, and preferably in a broader forum, not on a page which is only watched by a couple of people. WT:MOS is probably a good venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It surely is a good venue. See it there. — Mike Novikoff 19:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is probably going to happen here after the first block – Certainly, I won't tolerate any block, even the smallest one, as this would mean a ruined career. A ruined ten-year tenure. Ten years in vain. I really wonder why you, knowing that, are still doing efforts for this to happen, while even acknowledging that I'm generally doing fine and might be a valuable Wikipedia user.
        Let me make it clear: I knew from the very beginning (ten years ago) that enwiki is THE Wikipedia and ruwiki is a pale shadow of it. It's not a coincidence that enwiki is my home (see my SUL), it always had been a matter of principle. Moreover, in ruwiki I've been punished several times for saying this: "enwiki is THE Wikipedia and ruwiki is a pale shadow of it". I wonder if I will be punished for that now here. :-) So, when you are talking of my behavior, please clearly distinguish between ruwiki and enwiki. The former is a bloody mess where one can get "prevented" for either disobeying the unwritten rules or just for misunderstandings (such as for putting in a discussion [a link] to Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-Ling", where he says "... Also, it happens to be a song of togetherness. You see, if it wasn't for togetherness, I wouldn't be here. And none of the rest of you would be here, right?"). They ruwikians just can't hear. And their accusations are so absurd on absurd on top of yet another absurd that I won't even start to apologize there. On the contrast, I've got nothing to be ashamed of in my home enwiki (feel free to prove me wrong if you can), so please don't pollute my reputation unless you can prove it with a diff. — Mike Novikoff 01:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, last time at ANI you were pretty close to a block, and apparently you have learned nothing if you say "I've got nothing to be ashamed of in my home enwiki". But I do not think it is my problem. I tried to explain to you what I think - you are not interested in listening. Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang The edit history at Template:Nizhny Novgorod Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) clearly demonstrates that Mike Novikoff's behavior is fine, and the IP editor's is not. Reverting an 18 month old edit with the edit summary of "indistinguishable" (apparently some allusion to the IP editor being accused of behavior indistinguishable from trolling) is the type of edit that should be reverted on-sight, and starting an ANI thread after a few of those edits are reverted is absurd. I don't know who the IP is either. I assume they are some form of banned user. If they are not, they should be warned that a pattern of tendentious editing will cause them to soon become one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't make heads nor tails of the IP's comments, but "indistinguishable from trolling" is a reference to this edit summary of mine (mentioned also in the previous ANI discussion), which was about one particular edit / edit summary. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    editing thousands of articles to enforce a rule that does not actually exist

    I became aware of this just now because of an edit at Kongiganak Airport [56], which I reverted [57] with a detailed edit summary. Since I used Twinkle to do the revert, it automatically opened The Banner's user talk page, where I found the above-linked thread where edits like this have been under discussion for several days. See that picture on the Kongiginak Airport article? I took that while waiting to get out of there nearly two years ago, it was −40 °F (−40 °C) and we were two days overdue to go back to Anchorage with Ravn Alaska, who soon afterwards stopped flying to the bush. The overall change was noted in the press (they shut down entirely for several months and when they resumed operations the bush was left out) but nobody specifically noted that they weren't flying to Kong anymore. That shed is the entire extent of the airport facilities other than the runway itself. Nobody is writing regular updates about who is flying there besides the carriers. An argument could be made that we just shouldn't have such information in airport articles, but that isn't the argument The Banner is making, they are asking for sources that they know do not exist. The Banner is systematically adding this same edit to thousands of articles, attempting to enforce a rule that I do not believe actually exists. My preferred outcome here would be that The Banner see that what they are doing is out of step with policy and practice, but failing that a ban on robotic mass edits would do, and perhaps an actual bot could be tasked with undoing these as there are so very many. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am pretty sure there was a discussion on carriers and destination tables relatively recent that concluded that such details are excessive and fail WP:IINFO. And if no sources independent of the airport or airline is writing about these, we shouldn't be covering it either by the same principle. These edits by The Banner seem right in line with that. --Masem (t) 21:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I do think we have excessive coverage of who flies where. I tried to get all "list of airline destination" articles deleted a few years ago, and actually got a consensus to do so, but when I actually tried to do it a bunch of people freaked out and I was threatened with being blocked. So, I'm very awate of the gatekeeping by aviation fans. If the consensus you mention exists, The Banner should be linking to it while removing the tables entirely, not addding hidden comments demanding nonexistent things. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not demand, I request. And with your edit here you not only removed that request but you also removed a maintenance template asking for an update. That seem realistic in the present pandemic. Ow, and all edits were done manual. The Banner talk 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not accusing you of being a bot, but you clearly were making mass changes in a bot-like manner. Doing something like that without a pre-existing consensus to do so is almost never a good idea. I would add that I was easily able to find examples where the articles have been updated, after the Ravn bankruptcy I already mentioned that affected a great many of these communities. I'd like to know where there is a rule that airline scheduling information should not be sourced to the airline doing the scheduling, as that is the crux of the hidden comment you have added to so many articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS. The Banner talk 02:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NIS Singularity42 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the non-independent source was being used to fill in a few gaps of information, that would be reasonable. But the articles I'm seeing tagged by Banner are overly reliant on non-independent sources to support having carriers/major destination tables, which have been previously identified as indiscriminate information and would really need secondary, independent soruces to show that that information is significant to include. Also, to add related to Beeblebrox's comments, all Banner is doing is adding an invisicomment and a tag, not adding or removing actual content. And judging by the rate of edits, they are reviewed if the tags are appropriate to include (roughly a minute per edit, which seems sufficient to make that assessment). Were The Banner removing tables in this fashion I would fully agree there's a problem, but tagging gives those editors a chance to fix them. --Masem (t) 02:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see any problem with preferring independent sources, and I agree that adding a hidden comment requesting as much is pretty harmless. I would, however, suggest that it's reworded to make it clear that independent sources are preferred wherever possible. At the moment, it implies they should be removed altogether, and while I appreciate that there might be some traction for doing that, I think that goes way beyond the scope of the present discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, at least this article doesn't refer to the airport's location relative to the "central business district" of the locality it serves, unlike countless other articles on airports out in the middle of nowhere. Anyway, what caught my attention is the way the section is formatted. The table is superfluous for such a tiny airport. Furthermore, it segregates the two airlines unnecessarily. Are we here to write these articles as historical records or as current events/news/social media mirrors? It's undue weight. What about any other carriers beyond the past few years? I don't know how long this airport has existed, mainly because this article seems unconcerned with offering that information to readers. As puffery in lieu of substance is rampant in these sort of articles, I think it's safe to say that this problem isn't isolated. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Banner's contributions show WP:POINT on steroids. It would be fine to argue that airport articles should not have destination lists—start with an informal discussion at a wikiproject and hold an RfC if needed. But tagging thousands of articles is disruptive. I support a block if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like one of those situations where people are trying to implement a standardised format, even where it makes no sense and looks ridiculous in isolation. It's obvious why it happens, but pages should be laid out for the benefit of the reader, and not rigidly fixed to suit whoever's trying to maintain them. Single airport destinations are a bit of an extreme example, but this applies to any with only a few, really.
    In any event, this whole situation seems to exist because "it's always been done that way", when there are obvious better options. My gut feeling is that structured data like this is ideal for porting over to Wikidata, which can then be drawn down to individual pages in a logical way. Prevents giving undue weight as it has done here, or creating monsters like this at the other extreme.
    Theknightwho (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is that this is barely disruptive, i.e. it's disruptive only because of other editors' reactions to it. These comments don't affect the reader, and the worst thing that could possibly happen is that a well-intentioned editor might question whether or not to add some poorly sourced content. In The Banner's defense, one could maybe make the argument that these non-independent sources risk violating WP:PRIMARY, but I don't think there's much to discuss on either side of the debate. Much ado, as they say. AlexEng(TALK) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a ridiculous argument to make however (re Primary). Carriers are likely to the be the most reliable source for the current services they provide. So tagging refs that are clearly reliable for the information they are sourcing, when you are well aware there is almost certainly not going to be a better source, and doing it en-masse via some form of automation, is disruptive. If the end goal is just to annoy people enough they get rid of the information from the article, at least that would have a deliberately disruptive point to it, but otherwise its just pissing people off for the sake of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right that carrier data is reliable enough to be used for this purpose. I don't think you've been quite fair to The Banner, though. He said above that these are manual edits, which must have taken a colossal amount of time and energy, even if the end goal is not particularly desirable. I don't suspect any malice or attempt to piss people off in this effort. AlexEng(TALK) 10:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And where do we go from here? The Banner talk 23:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it is your approach to this issue that is objectionable. I think we are basically in agreement about the underlying issue of Wikipedia maintaining, or rather failing to maintain, lists of airline destinations. If there is a consensus that this material should not be hosted on Wikipedia, I'd be more than happy to simply see it removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you can also improve the articles. It looks a bit strange that the whole world and half the US (the major airports) are done and the rest is to be untouched. The Banner talk 16:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for topic ban of Snooganssnoogans for CRA International

    I’d like to request that the editor User: Snooganssnoogans be topic-banned from editing the article on CRA International based on their openly-stated animus toward the subject of the article. I have a disclosed conflict of interest as an employee of CRA International. In the course of an RfC challenging their addition of a statement to the lead of CRA based on possible violations of WP: Undue, WP:Impartial and WP: Balance. Snoogans said, “[If] CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work.” Snoogans’ call for an apology and their completely unfounded accusation that CRA is currently engaged “with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation” are attacks unrelated to the substantive discussion of the RfC, which involves the work of four former CRA economists between 1993 and 2009. (FYI, Snoogans is completely wrong - the company currently has a robust practice advising clients on implementing green energy and climate change mitigation [58] [59] [60].)

    Snoogans has persisted in using the Wikipedia article to attack CRA despite an editor warning them during the RfC that their Talk comments felt like advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (diff and multiple editors during RfC pointing out the language Snoognans used in the lead was biased/violated WP: NPOV. diff diff diff After their language was removed based on overwhelming consensus, Snoogans inserted the identical language into the body of the story. diff). An editor removed this language, but Snoogans still persisted, this time inappropriately creating a new sub-section on the same topic and adding reformulated attacks that continue to POV-push. I am not trying to use this forum to discuss the details of the latest policy violations, which I have yet to address on the Talk page (which will take weeks or months to resolve because Snoogans fights every proposal to fix obvious policy violations) since it is more important to first get to the root of the problem - Snoogan’s abuse of Wikipedia to repeatedly violate WP:NPOV on the CRA article by using tactics they know violate Wikipedia policy.

    For example, Snoogan’ insertion of undue material in the lead of CRA to POV-push is the same method that was an important component of Snoogans’ topic ban in 2017, as explained by User: TParis. “...Snooganssnoogans started adding material en masse to the leads of articles regarding political positions that they personally find unsavory to articles of Republican politicans [sic]” ([61][62][63][64][65][66]). This led to the first ANI case where Snooganssnoogans was warned about WP:UNDUE and how it affects WP:NPOV in articles. Particularly, that WP:LEAD prohibits adding undue material in the lead.”

    Since then, Snoogans has reversed and criticized the work of other editors for using leads to insert undue content to push a POV (diff diff), while repeatedly continuing to use the same method themselves (diff diff diff diff). Snoogans has been warned, cautioned and/or topic banned at least five times for various WP violations. (ANI warning, 2020 caution, 2017 topic ban, 2016 AN warning, 2016 block.)

    Based on their history, and given their open animus to CRA, there is no reason to expect anything but a topic ban for the CRA page will change Snoogans’ behavior of squatting on the article with biased and inaccurate statements as long as they can manage. Basslonick1220 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I think it's very problematic that a COI account is calling for a ban on a veteran editor and that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors. In particular when the veteran editor has been responsible for preventing undisclosed COI accounts[67][68] from adding poorly sourced puffery into the article. It's hard not to see this as an attempt by this company to get a carte blanche to edit its own WP page uninterrupted.
    2. As for the substance of the complaint, I added a peer-reviewed study from Environmental Politics (journal) to the CRA International article on the history of CRA on climate change policy (Page 4: "Charles River Associates, a US-based consulting firm that played a key role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of climate policies over the following years, including US carbon pricing proposals and international climate agreements")[69] which several COI accounts sought to remove from the article. When a non-COI editor removed the text in question from the lead[70] and other non-COI editors did not show consensus for the text in the lead, I abided by the decision and did not restore it to the lead.
    3. As for the quote that purportedly demonstrates "openly-stated animus", the context for that is that the COI editor was arguing that the content of the peer-reviewed study was false and I replied with the following: "Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. If CRA disagrees with the peer-reviewed study, CRA can publish a response in an academic journal, CRA can ask that the journal correct any errors, and we can then consider whether to include that rebuttal or correction. Or CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work."[71] In short, if CRA is upset with what RS say about it, then CRA should get RS to change what they say about it (either by rebutting the RS or by getting RS to cover their purported pro-environment behavior). It's a basic WP-sticks-to-what-RS-say argument. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any issues here, at least not from the diffs presented by Basslonick1220. I checked and Snooganssnoogans is correct that, after an RfC resulted in a consensus to remove the sentence from the lede, they abided to it. I don't see how Ralph Northam and Cory Booker relate to the matter (the diff link appears to be broken and only shows the latest edit). The other diffs show Snooganssnoogans reverting removal of sourced content, which, unless there are WP:BLP issues involved, seems fine. Isabelle 🔔 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Basslonick1220 is in violation of WP:PAYTALK, which states "Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. ... Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them." It is, as Snoogans says, problematic that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors, and, I'll add, that they attempt to remove critical editors from the company's page. I suggest this thread be promptly closed, as already having cost volunteer time in arguing with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Also, I would like to ask Basslonick1220: what's your relation to the account Altwjh? It was blocked as an advertising-only account on 27 September 2021, a week before the Basslonick1220 account was created. Is it yours? Or did you otherwise create the Basslonick1220 account in response to the block of the previous account that also promoted the company? I'll put that query on your page as well, in case this thread is closed before you can answer me. Bishonen | tålk 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    • This is clearly OWNERSHIP behavior from Basslonick1220, so a topic ban is in order. They are placing their paid relationship above their duties as a Wikipedia editor. -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Perhaps I did not do a good enough job explaining that Snoogans has previously been topic banned, in part, for very similar behavior [72]. I would think ANI editors would want to look at this carefully. I am not a paid editor. I am a long-time, full-time employee of CRA, with a disclosed COI here. Since I am not WP:PAID, WP:PAYTALK does not apply. 2) This is my only account on Wikipedia. I am not User:AltWjh. The insertion of a biased and unduly weighted attack as the second sentence of the lead (positioned so the biased statement appears on page 1 of Google Search results) is going to attract the attention of more than one person at a large public company. I have gone to great lengths to learn and follow Wikipedia policy as a result of this attack. Rather than trying to cheat with undisclosed direct editing on the page, I have only used Talk and now, ANI. 3) By contrast, Snoogans has not declared they are an being an advocate WP: Advocacy, despite open hostility expressed against CRA on Talk: “[If] CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work.” RfC This wholly invented statement - that CRA currently hinders climate change activity (without any sourcing whatsoever) and should issue an apology - combined with inserting biased attack on the company into the lead, could not be any clearer an expression of advocacy. Advocacy editing is just as severe a violation of Wikipedia policy as undisclosed COI editing. And in this case, it is part of a pattern that already led to another topic ban. Basslonick1220 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that you are a long-time, full-time employee of CRA. Are we to believe that you do this on a voluntary, unpaid, basis? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a paid employee of CRA editing from an IP geolocating to the CRA offices, it's reasonable to assume you are being paid to edit. It's true unless you only edit Wikipedia while off the clock. Firefangledfeathers 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm a longtime employee of a company, attempting to get an editor topic-banned from editing the article about that company because I don't like their edits about the company." Textbook example of why COI editing is problematic, and a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basslonick1220, you say I am not a paid editor. I am a long-time, full-time employee of CRA. Good heavens, don't they pay their employees? You are of course a paid editor, and WP:PAYTALK very much applies to you. Also, you seem oblivious to the inappropriateness of your opposition research, which I already referred to above ("It is, as Snoogans says, problematic that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors"); you cheerfully repeat its meager results again. No, the conduct Snoogans was topic banned for in 2017 is nothing like his pushback against your promotional efforts today, let alone "part of a pattern". You have done one thing right at Wikipedia, and that is staying on Talk:CRA International, and not editing the article. That's good. But, while you're entitled to use ANI just like anybody else, the way you have used it shows both poor judgment and a failure to listen to what you're told by experienced editors. You should stop digging, or you will in fact be lucky if a WP:boomerang doesn't head your way. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm concerned that there may be other editors who behave in the same way as Basslonick1220. My attempts to change the article from anything but a hagiographic puff piece have all been reverted. They seem clueless about our NPOV policy to prevent such things. Criticisms and their climate change denial stance must be mentioned in the body and lead. Experienced editors need to edit there. -- Valjean (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of experienced editors agreed with the climate change issue being omitted from the lead at the October RfC. If you have a problem with your edits being partially reverted by Whizz40 and me, you can discuss the disputed content at the article's talk page instead of insinuating here that other editors don't understand the NPOV policy. Best, 15 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As discussed on the talk page of the article, the article is currently fairly brief. I think what's needed is to expand the article in the normal way until it provides good coverage of the topic, then the climate change issue could be mentioned with due weight in an expanded lead. Whizz40 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Valjean I was the editor who added the Climate change denial link to the See also section of the CRAI article. I thought it was relevant to include, per MOS:SEEALSO. However, I note that I have not noticed any of the sources use the words climate change denial to describe CRAI, although I have not search for this term specifically. In addition, the RfC on the talk page has taken place since then. If there are reliable sources that say this then we should cite them and include the context in the text of the article. Without this, we just don't know. It's possible the company, or the authors of the papers, had no opinion on the science, or believed the science on climate change, even while they wrote the research into the economic impact of climate change policy that has generated the controversy. Therefore, I think it may be Synthesis or OR to include a see also link so boldly in the article without a citation. Whizz40 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is going to end up in a boomerang - withdraw, mate. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Basslonick1220, you are correct that a lot of people have had concerns about Snoogan's edit patterns. I don't think the evidence here is sufficient to take action. I agree that being an employee of an organization and editing their page doesn't mean you are being paid to edit it. For example, an engineer at Ford might decide to edit the Ford Motor Company page. As an engineer that person is unlikely to be requested to make such edits. That seems to describe your situation. You are employed by the organization and feel the presentation here is problematic. That is understandable. That said, the wp:COI guideline is rather clear that if you are employed by the article subject you have a COI. "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. ". I can understand your frustration and I get that some editors have a rather clear POV in their edits. This is not a battle you will win and it's clear some feel you should be blocked from the topic. I would suggest requesting a close and stating you will strictly adhere to the COI guidelines. Springee (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTHERE ViP?

    Just noticed likely vandalism in the last two edits by Aaron da Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and in the history of one of the edited pages I noticed a blocked editor Aaron da Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), indeffed few months ago by User:Ferret. Maybe someone should review all accounts whose name begins with "Aaron da"? LTA? SPI? Or just block and move on? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I indeffed the user, obvious vandalism. The only other name with this pattern is Aaron da killa who has not edited for 12 years and is presumably unrelated.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Youngkyf

    Youngkyf has been indef's as NOTHERE by Bbb23 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Amongst other things, this new user treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, casting aspersions, as well as making attacks/threats against his fellow users;

    1. "Dude, I really don't care...but your argument is ridiculous...If you continue this nonsense argument"
    2. "you need to have less emotional, more rational, objective participation"
    3. "You have honestly embarassed yourself"
    4. "The edits I have made to which you have attempted to call disruptive, are fully factual, completely sourced, and will be the permanent change after the full resolution process. You are harassing me for factual, cited edits. And I will be going through the process of seeing that you no longer harass editors because of your personal, subjective disagreements. You have the opportunity now to stop what you are doing. Please take it."
    See also User talk:Black Kite#Including you in the dispute resolution process. I’ve given them a DS alert but I think that won’t help as they may be on a mission. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "User: historyofiran has reversed a factual, cited edit, and deleted an attempt for discussion from the articles talk page. this is a second attempt for discussion. historyofiran threatens other users for well sourced, fact based correction. historyofiran failed to cite the article on the editors talk page when making the threat. historyofiran failed to respond or explain the reversal on the article's talk page. historyofiran is warned not to falsify facts."

    Some of these comments were recently made because I reverted him at Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, where he attempted to write about the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan... in an article about Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, clearly violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot. I think the comment he posted at Black Kite's talkpage really says it all [73].

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not be too quick on this one. There are rooted issues here. --SVTCobra 13:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @SVTCobra: that’s too cryptic for me. Please spell them out. Obviously no one should be too quick to take action. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The note that I placed on the user's talkpage was the same one that I'd place for any new editor who was issuing passive-aggressive proclamations/warnings/accusations in a contentious area (basically "the article will look how I want it to look, your edits are false, so back off or else"). Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Aspersions are an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something. I said "the arguments are ridiculous" historyofiran should know the difference between attacking a person and attacking an argument. The claim above that tries to modify what I said into "back off or else." Is very clearly emotional. Please see what I wrote. I merely said that I would be following the full dispute resolution process, and that if they did not wish to go through this process, then they should take the opportunity to look again objectively at the factual content of my edit and consider reinstating it. That doesn't amount to "back off or else." 2. I wrote, "you need to have less emotional, more rational, objective participation" because those ARE the expectations, and the reversal of the edit was not done on the merits, for example: when I fixed the chronology and added citations to information already in the article, the user LouisAragorn said I "added" information, one of the examples this user gave, was when I wrote "instability in Persia" and the user said that was "adding information," but the original said "unstable situation in Persia." This was what this user called "changing information." I believe it speaks for itself, but just to be totally clear, "unstable situation in Persia" EQUALS "instability in Persia." Please see my edit, the edit history, and discussion on the page in question here: Melikdoms of Karabakh 3. I correctly said that the user embarrassed him or herself because calling that a content change SHOULD be academically, scholarly, and factually embarrassing. 4. At no time did I use any foul language or threats of any kind whatsoever. I never called anyone stupid, ignorant, or any other insult. I repeated the same "threat" I received, namely blocking for disruptive edits, which is truly what the reversal of my edit here is, and stated that I would be pursuing the full and total dispute resolution process. If telling someone they'll be blocked isn't "threatening" neither is telling someone they'll need to expect "going through the full dispute resolution process." 5. I stand fully by this statement, "The edits I have made to which you have attempted to call disruptive, are fully factual, completely sourced, and will be the permanent change after the full resolution process. You are harassing me for factual, cited edits. And I will be going through the process of seeing that you no longer harass editors because of your personal, subjective disagreements. You have the opportunity now to stop what you are doing. Please take it." I admit, I really can't predict that my revisions will be the permanent change, but if facts and citations and honesty win, as I believe they will eventually, then something like my edit will be the permanent, long-lasting edit capable of withstanding scrutiny by the nature of all the 100% objective truth contained within. It was an attempt to keep my edit and make the user aware that I will be undertaking this process to the highest possible level and farthest extent and I will never stop, and hopefully save the user from the requirements of this process and the subsequent embarrassment of having to permit the revisions, or something very like my revisions, and I felt confident saying it because ALL of my edits were cited and 100% factual. PLEASE see the edit history on the page in questions: Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment. I sincerely apologize, my google chrome editor wasn't highlighting mistakes at all and I ended up completing several subsequent grammar and spelling changes. 6. At NO time and in no way, did I do what the user, historyofiran claims in her statement that, " where he attempted to write about the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan... in the article: Anti-Azerbaijani Sentiment, clearly violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot." None of what I did was merely to write about the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan, it very clearly dealt with NAMES, my entire revision stuck to NAMES, and in support of this, I included the date of Oghuz-Turkic Migration, appearance of the Turkic Language, the presence of older names, in an ATTEMPT to show that the NAMES (again the section I edited is the Changing of Names section) were not new inventions of the Armenians, which is the false claim made in this section of the article. "I think the comment he posted at Black Kite's talkpage really says it all" I fully stand by every word on that page. ...RATHER, I correctly attributed Turkic history to when it occurred in the region, that being AFTER the 10th century, thousands of years after well established governments and civilizations of the well-attested-to-in-the-historic-record, Satrapy of Armenia/Orontid Kingdom of Armenia, Median and Achaemenid Persia, Caucasian Albania etc. The claims on the Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment page that Armenians xenophobically "changed" "original Turkic names" is ludicrous because what they did was return the official names to the actual original Armenian, Caucasian Albanian, and Iranian names that were in use no less than 1,300 years before the first Turkic speaking person arrived in the region. None of that is an opinion. ALL of it is about the claim in the article. When I say "the actual original," that is not an opinion, it is a fact, by definition of the words: origin/original. The Turkic place names came later and none of the Armenian names were new inventions. All, every last one is attested to earlier dates in the historic record than the Oghuz Turkic Migrations into the region.

    • I AM on a mission. A factual mission. A mission to stop the falsification of history and truth. I am not Armenian nor Iranian. I changed these for the very same reason wikipedia exists and that purpose to which they strive: Factual, accurate, honest, and cited information. I fully cited my sources: Sources concerning when Turkic migrations began; gave examples of place names and their sources; gave examples and cited linguistic origins; linked to every possible relevant page; and intentionally DID NOT link to the falsification of history by Azerbaijan page because I am not just trying to stir things up, I'm trying to promote honesty and factual accuracy. I did link to this page in the talk portion, where I also put my revisions for discussion, and all of that was also deleted by historyofiran from the talk page.
    • I also specifically stated that the reversals may have been done from a hateful, racist motivation on the part of the Armenians, but did not clarify that is likely because of having suffered the Late Ottoman Genocides, the Armenian Genocide (nor did I cite the denialism), the Sumgait Pogroms, the Baku Pogroms, the Kirovabad Pogroms, or other reasons. I simply said, it may have been hateful, but these were the older original names. All of these I could have thrown in there with citations as well if I was just trying to be disruptive or had emotional motivations. Afterall, they're all well documented, Sumgait alone is documented in the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, in which men, women, and children were murdered in brutal ways, girls and grandmothers were raped, their breasts cut off, and dead bodies were burnt and mutilated. I did NOT cite any of these reasons, I stuck to the NAMES ISSUE ALONE and nothing more than stating none of these names were new Armenian inventions and Turkic and Arabic names had actually replaced the far older, Armenian, Iranian, Udi, and Caucasian Albanian names and Armenians returned these older names in the official record IN the area that the Armenians governed. Not very different from changing the name of Constantinople to Istanbul, or Byzantium to Constantinople. Nor the Constantinople Massacre. Original first names are original first names. Full Stop. The page falsely claimed Turkic names were first, in the face of the presence of the names of these places as being 100% named THOUSANDS of years before any Turkic Migrations of Oghuz Turkic Peoples into the region. I fully cited ALL of the NAMING-relevant information and included nothing connecting this to any other issues, like those I just listed. PLEASE see the edit, see the citations, look at the evidence. This is a strawman that is being presented to you by historyofiran.

    7. I proudly stand by the pursuit of absolute total historical accuracy. 8. I NEVER denied Turkic history in the region. I never said they have no right to live or govern land in the region. I never said anything about the Late Ottoman Genocides. I did not mention any other relevant issues like last year's war, the 90s Nagorno Karabakh conflict, nor did I mention Artsakh as being the older Armenian name, given during the Kingdom of Artsakh, again, before Oghuz-Turkic arrival or governance. I merely corrected the entirely false claim that the names that existed thousands of years prior to Oghuz-Turkic arrival don't have every right to be reversed to their Armenian, Iranian, and Caucasian Albanian origin, especially by the people governing the territory. I also did not address the changing of Shushi to Shusha by Azerbaijan, nor the Shusha Massacre of Armenians. I also did not go through the list of Turkish place names that Turkic people changed from the original Armenian, Caucasian Albanian, Udi, Greek, Assyrian, Cappadocian, Iranian and others inside both Azerbaijan and Turkey. Most importantly not the famous name change of Istanbul. Doing the very thing the article accuses Armenians of doing! I know this is a bit repetitive, but it is a clear explanation for how I did NOT deny Turkic history or their right to live and govern in the region. 9. I fully stand by every word mentioned on the talk pages of both historyofiran and blackkite and encourage all to please see those statements. 10. I absolutely believe that the facts will win out, and sustain scrutiny of anyone who wishes to view them and the sources I cited on the Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment page edit history. 11. If the absolutely dishonest and disingenuous section on that page: "Change of Names" is highly modified to be accurate, factual, and honest, or if it is removed entirely as it doesn't even attain the level of pseudoscience, and instead contains easily identifiable lies, I will stop the pursuit of my revisions. This is about truth, and not a word of my revisions is untrue. Every last word is 100% factual and cited. 12. Something has to be passive aggressive in order to be called passive aggressive, I very directly stated my purpose and intentions, and encourage all to view my statements on both historofiran and blackkite. Saying that I threatened them by stating they should expect to go through this process, take the opportunity to not, and to look again at the facts, is not rude or threatening any more than them telling me I will be blocked for so called disruptive edits that are actually factual in every last detail. Again, PLEASE look at my edit. PLEASE look at my citations. THEN decide what is accurate, true, and factual. 13. I absolutely believed I was being harassed, and I said so because ALL my edits are factual and I am confident they will withstand scrutiny. I can only guess at the reasons or motivations for the reversal and "threats" of being blocked, but if one looks at the totality of the facts, I believe it is apparent. So, PLEASE look. 14. The claim of the Changing of Names section of the Anti-Azerbaijani Sentiment page is literally the equivalent of thinking that Chichen Itza is a "Spanish" city, or that "New York" is the original Algonquian name given by the Algonquian people of the region. 15. I also suggest that, rather than reversing the entire edit, and allowing this false narrative of Armenians somehow inventing new names, and not simply using the actual, older names that remained in continuous use while they lived side by side, for places of Turkic "origin," we deal with any specific mistakes or factual errors? If there are any individual mistakes, errors, or misrepresentations, let's deal with them individually. I do not believe there are any at all, but I am happy to accept changes based on facts that can be presented. I can paste my edit in totality here if it helps. Youngkyf (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    CeRcVa13

    CeRcVa13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    CeRcVa13 seems to be determined to rewrite the history of the country of Georgia, completely disregarding the narrative of the majority of WP:RS and not even paying attention to how his edits affect the general state of an article. These are mainly attempts to minimize the rule/influence of non-Georgian cultures in Georgia.

    Colchis:

    14:10, 25 December 2021 - Removed sourced information about the impact/usage of non-Georgian languages in Colchis (a Georgian region), attempting to justifiy it with his personal opinion

    Safavid Georgia:

    14:47, 28 December 2021 - Removed the fact that Georgia was a province of Safavid Iran, added that they were 'vassals' instead. Mind you, this is a GA article.

    14:51, 28 December 2021 Removed the Persian name for the Province of Georgia, claiming that it was an 'Ottoman' one

    15:01, 28 December 2021 - Swapped the position of the Georgian and Persian names of a Georgian vassal ruler, so the former appears first

    Accusing sources which regard Georgia as a Safavid province of lying; 19:05, 28 December 2021 - "so those pages are lying, and here I find the story written by unknown historians that Georgia was a province of Safavids."

    Achaemenid Empire:

    Removed a well-created infobox map which was supported by 4(!) citations because another source didn't regard a part of present-day Georgia (Colchis) as having been ruled by the Achaemenids, which fits perfectly with his POV; [74]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP geolocating to Tbilisi, Georgia[75] tried to make the same sort of edits back in September 2021.
    1. User: CeRcVa13 (7 January 2022): "Since the map does not fall apart due to a small error and no source writes that Colchis was in the 18th satrapy or any of the satrapies at all. That's why I'm adding information because people were not misled by the wrong map."[76]
    2. User: CeRcVa13 (7 January 2022): "Sorry, but you did not show me the research where it says that Colchis was the 18th satrapy. Nowhere in any study is it written that it was a satrap."[77]
    3. IP 5.152.72.140 (24 September 2021): "Colchis was neither in the 18th satrapy nor in the satrapy in general. This map is a falsification."[78]
    4. IP 5.152.72.140 (24 September 2021): "Until you show me the source where it says that Colchis was in Satrapy and part of the Achaemenid Empire, until then I will always deleted these fake maps." [79]
    Random "coincidence" I guess. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will re-post the same source that I posted at the time[80] vis. to the IP's disruption (I see user HistoryofIran has found it as well). It is from the most up-to-date, high-quality WP:RS on the Achaemenid Empire, and published by Wiley-Blackwell:
    "The situation is reminiscent of Colchis and Caucasian Iberia. Once, it was inconceivable that they had been under Achaemenid rule; now, ever more evidence is emerging to show that they were, forming a lesser part of the Armenian satrapy" -- Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, The Northern Black Sea (2021). in A companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, Bruno Jacobs, Robert Rollinger (eds). Wiley Blackwell. p. 665
    - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:CeRcVa13#Indefinite_block. El_C 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel national football team

    Hi,

    I have tried to discuss changes made to Israel national football team's page but have met with persistent reversions, a lack of constructive communication, accusations of trolling and strange nationalistic ownership - either on the Talk pages that I've reached out on, or via the change logs.

    To set out my case:

    Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams as a guide, I made the following changes: deleting the Current Competitions section (as per this discussion), deleting the Previous Squads section (as these have since been merged into the Competitive Record section) and moving the images of two players (Yossi Benayoun and Eran Zahavi) to the Records section as they are both the most capped player and top goalscorer respectively, and therefore relevant to the section - unlike the 1964 Asian Cup winners.

    The following IP addresses and usernames have been involved in reverting these changes persistently and without explanation:


    I have attempted to discuss these changes, both on their Talk pages and in the change logs:


    I have added a list of some of the revisions over the past six months below but please feel free to check the behaviour for yourselves.


    User:HerzlTheGoat has also made edits to the Scotland national football team page to act as act as validation for their changes - however this edit was reverted.


    Let me know if there's any more information I can provide or what the best course of action going forward is.

    Many thanks,

    Felixsv7 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't address your kind of Wiki trolls, @Felixv7. HerzlTheGoat (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The above account has been indeffed for socking by Ponyo. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Much appreciated, thanks all Felixsv7 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My talk page message re AIV

    Please have a look at a message on my talk page: User talk:Maile66#Recent edits to anv. If I understand what this person is telling me, it's that our AIV templates are causing issues for screen readers with its use of colon indentations. If this is the case, maybe that formatting needs to be looked at. If it's just that I'm not understanding the message, please let me know. Thanks. Pinging Levi_OP so they know this message is here. — Maile (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've often wondered about this myself actually. The issue is described at Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks (which is 'just' an essay, but explains the problem well) - I always thought that indentation at venues like AIV and UAA is frequently non-compliant. Something must be done! (Ideally by somebody else.) Girth Summit (blether) 15:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since most of the pages where this is an issues have their own editnotice and template showing all the available responses, I would think that someone could just go through the ones where lists (*) are used and replace all indentation that uses colons with indentations using multiple asterisks. It would comply better and I can't see why it would be an issue. I'm assuming that when the editnotices/templates were originally made there wasn't any thought put into whether it would be an issue for any reason, and no one cared to change it yet, letalone notice. ― Levi_OPTalk 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an example of asterisk indentation. I have no idea how many projects and templates are involved, but the resolution probably should be uniform across Wikipedia. Otherwise, sooner or later someone will create a new template using colon indentations. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Maile66: If I understand right, we don't need to change templates, you (adding: and a lot of other people, probably including me sometimes) just need to change how you respond. If the reporter uses the typical template, it creates a report that starts with a bullet. When you replied, you typed ::{{AIV|ns}} ~~~~. What you need to type instead is *:{{AIV|ns}} ~~~~. The only thing I might be missing is if you weren't typing the "::", but some script you're using was doing so. If so, the script needs to be fixed. But the problem - I think - doesn't involve the template itself. If it does, could you explain further by giving an example? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The table of notation templates in the AIV editnotice use ::, so maybe it would help to change those to *:, as well as the default indentation in the responseHelper.js script. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's important to note that my comment above originally had two asterisks to indent, as an example. IndentBot read that as erroneous, and replaced one of the asterisks with a colon indent. In that same edit, the bot made a similar change to a post by Robert McClenon and one by CambridgeBayWeather. Diffs. So, if we make changes on indentations, they would have to work with IndentBot, or else we'd just be endlessly spinning our wheels. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Quickly becoming too complicated. But If I'm reading that diff right (Diffs) the bot is actually wrong. Isn't it? (I see what it did now) Is IndentBot active at AIV? If so, and if it was working propoerly, it seems like it could fix some of these things too. As for the other items, anyone can change that table to show "*:" instead of "::", and whoever maintains the helper script can be poked. -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know that the bot is wrong. I'm just saying that's how it's programmed. Don't bot creators have go through approval? I think it's just that a colon indent - any colon indent for any reason - can confuse screen readers. I don't have an answer, and maybe don't even fully understand the entire scope of this. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You and I certainly agree on one thing - this is too complicated. One size does not fit all, you might say.— Maile (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The bot wasn't wrong, I got confused. The general rule is, use whatever colon/bullet combination the person you're replying to is using, and then add a colon or a bullet, whichever you want it to look like. In this very thread, you're kind of all over the place, so screen readers would have a problem with this discussion too. It's not a problem with colons, it's a problem of consistent indentation. Things would be perfectly fine if *:{{AIV|ns}} ~~~~ had been used. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand the post on my talk page, the original issue is about screen readers for the visually impaired, and how they see colon indents. Not my area of great knowledge. I'm dropping out of this discussion entirely now. You folks can figure out what is needed. Or not. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Only use asterisks when posting a 'vote', like RFC surveys, MFDs etc. Otherwise, don't use them, as they're messy in regular discussions. I've tried getting editors to adopt this approach for years, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree; asterisks are OK if used right. In particular, I like to use them to start a new thought in a thread (i.e. when I'm not replying directly to anyone. Like below.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, you've been popping up in the middle of discussions for a long time (for years, as you yourself say) insisting that people conform to this idiosyncratic idea of yours. To make it weirder, you always do this (as you did here) with a new, hard-left-unindented comment just dropped into an existing thread, with nothing to signal you're starting a new idea -- something no one else does, ever, except newbies who with no experience of talk page. No one pays any attention (as you yourself say, it's been to no avail), and for good reason, and yet you keep doing it over and over. Please stop it. You're wasting everyone's time. Write an essay somewhere. EEng 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, ha, that sure is a good one. But you not reading what others have written is a big reason your posts frequently make no sense. EEng 23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the instructions in the edit notice, at least: [81]. I can't help with any responsehelper script. I'll look into who runs IndentBot and see if they'd be willing (or allowed) to run it on AIV. The indent situation at AIV is much simpler, so a bot would handle it better than an ANI discussion, which must give it bot headaches. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You've done the right thing. But ...
    • What the hell is this doing at ANI in the first place? EEng 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Because ANI is often a default place people post when you're not sure where to post. Also, at least the problem with the edit notice instructions could only be fixed by an admin. ANI isn't just for getting people in trouble, it can also be used to try to fix problems that require the admin bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. also, I recognized the cleverness with the indentations, but only about 3 seconds after I posted this.[reply]
      Yeah, that about sums up how this got here. Because the original was posted on my talk page, and it was a larger subject matter than just my one lone edit they cited. The original editor on my page needed a better understanding of what they were requesting. The real brainiacs of Wikipedia are hanging out here. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Maile, surely you could have contacted some friendly neighborhood admin of your acquaintance directly to handle it. This is close to the most-watched page on the project, and the very opening of a thread absorbs literally a dozen hours of combined editor attention -- that's why it's for urgent incidents and so on. If there's any way to handle something elsewhere, it should be. Not chastising you, just a reminder to all. EEng 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack in edit comment

    An IP editor used an edit comment to make an unprovoked personal attack about me on the following edit: [82]

    Can the edit comment be revised to remove the comment?

    Jedzz (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jedzz - Although that word is a personal attack, it is not grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material or purely disruptive material. I haven't looked at the IP's history to see whether a warning is sufficient or a block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like there's an editor with an interest in historic Mexican cinema, operating across the range Special:Contributions/2806:107E:1A:2FD4:DDE1:BE3E:A8E6:6204/48. They are given to the occasional spicy edit summary, usually in Spanish, and clearly have a healthy disregard for WP:V. Does anybody recognise the habits? Girth Summit (blether) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has called someone else stupid in an edit summary today, so I've blocked the above range for 31 hours. Communicating with them is difficult, since they switch addresses very rapidly, but I've left them a note in an edit summary on the page where they last insulted someone. I've also gone ahead and revdelled the above edit summary as RD3. I do see it as purely disruptive, it did not describe the edit that was made in any way and merely insulted another contributor. Girth Summit (blether) 11:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Jedzz (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment

    MojaveSummit undid my edit with the summary Undid vandalistic revision by this user who was already warned for their behavior on the article previously. Other users and admins did agree in previous discussion sections that these sentences had multiple issues, [83]. I have responded with undoing their deletion and two warnings at their own talk page. One warning was for deleting text (levels 1 and 2 don't apply, since they ask them to give a reason for deletion, which they did). The other warning was for calling my edits vandalistic revision by this user. About six months ago I was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#BLP violations about Mark Skousen of WP:BITE behavior in respect to MojaveSummit, for which I have apologized. However, I will never apologize for demanding evidence for unsubstantiated claims, especially those running afoul of WP:BLP.

    They subsequently complained about WP:HARASSMENT at User talk:El C.

    This is what I wrote upon the talk page of the article:

    You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.
    If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, MojaveSummit, name another editor who agrees that my edit is POV. This time you're expected to provide evidence (diffs) for your claim.
    If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.
    I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.
    My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.
    Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.
    Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    I have responded at User talk:El C with

    @MojaveSummit: From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#BLP violations about Mark Skousen the straightforward conclusion is that you have misread the sources given. El C too hastily agreed with your reading, but that has also been shown there to be a misreading, by other editors than me.

    The gist: no other editor agrees with you that my edit is POV. If you disagree, name that editor and present the evidence for your claims (i.e. diffs). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    El C has responded with

    MojaveSummit, well, it isn't straight forward to me. Again, too much time has passed so I no longer have a firm recollection of the incident. You haven't shown any actual WP:HARASSMENT. That I would act on and would prioritize, but it would need to be proven as such (again, the trifecta: diffs/quotes/summaries). El_C 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    So, MojaveSummit demands a solution from admins. I also demand such a solution for MojaveSummit making claims they cannot substantiate, either with quotes from WP:RS, or with quotes from diffs. Which WP:RS claims that Prof. Skousen is an adept of the White Horse Prophecy? MojaveSummit claimed that the professor would be an adept of that prophecy, but has provided no WP:RS to that extent. Which other editor than MojaveSummit has agreed in the past that my edit is POV? They cannot speak of WP:CONSENSUS if they are the single user who claims my edit is POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    tgeorgescu has recently engaged in behavior towards me that he was already told multiple times by different admins in the previous ANI case that he linked above to cease. After that previous ANI case, the talk section for the Prosperity Theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules) that this incident stemmed from was closed by another user, and it was recommended to make a new section on the talk page about it free of insults and personal attacks. I did so, and included a multiple-point approach as to the issues I found in the sentences that tgeorgescu insisted be included ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Issue_with_sentences_appended_onto_criticism_section). These points included things that other users had already concurred with, such as Lindsay saying in the original talk section " I have to say, i understand the editor's desire to remove the sentences in question, as they seem to me to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which we ought not do," and Power stating " The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" on the NPOV thread about these sentences (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1035339051#Prosperity_theology). After a month had passed with nobody commenting on the new talk section, I made the proposed changes, since they were part of a consensus, even if tgeorgescu personally disagreed with those other users as well.
    I checked on it for a while after making that change, but nothing happened for a couple months, and then I was away from Wikipedia until a couple days ago. I discovered that tgeorgescu had on November 2 undone the change, while falsely stating in the log "(no WP:CONSENSUS for removal, I guess nobody agreed that this is POV)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=1053116526&oldid=1053112078). On that same day, he also made the following statemnt on the second talk page section, which was his first contribution of any type to that section: "You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.
    If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC) He further added another comment on December 3, stating "In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC) These are exactly things that tgeorgescu was already warned about in the previous ANI case by admins. He clearly violates WP:IDHT here, as he had already been told by an admin in the previous ANI that he was in violation of it by ignoring what other multiple users had said about the issues with the sentences and his repeated insistence on trying to derail the argument by hyperfocusing on Mark Skousen specifically instead of focusing on the actual points being made. So when I read that as well as his false claim that nobody agreed with those sentences having POV issues, I recognized tgeorgescu's Novemeber 2 revision to the article as vandalism. As such, I undid it and noted the reason why.
    I awoke this morning to multiple warning templates on my talk page from tgeorgescu, which he had already been warned by admins in the previous ANI case for attempting to use as a weapon to browbeat me on this specific article. He had also reverted my change on the article again, stating " Don't accuse me of vandalism, you have no consensus." Which, he had already been warned about previously for using this line of argument. There was consensus from multiple other users, and he was told to stop committing an WP:IDHT violation in this regard and falsely insisting that nobody had agreed with me and that the entire issue was all about Mark Skousen. He also added today onto the talk section multiple lines which violate WP:BITE, with those reading "If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.
    I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.
    My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.
    Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.
    Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)." He was already warned for doing this towards me on this specific article. In addition, these are further WP:IDHT violations, as he knew full well from previous discussion that Lindsay, Power, and even some of the admins had already agreed with some of the points that I had made as a reason to remove those two sentences, and instead was trying to poison the well on the talk page if any other users got involved. I haven't responded to any of his personal demands that he cites as his reason for making this ANI case, because I know full well that he made them in bad faith and was doing something he was repeatedly told to stop doing towards me and that article by multiple admins.
    I was trying to solve this more civilly through El_C, one of the admins most strongly involved in the previous ANI case. But tgeorgescu decided instead to open a case against me for not responding to his demands, something he was specifically warned for doing in the previous ANI thread (attempting to weaponize the ANI process against someone acting in good faith because they didn't comply with his unreasonable demands). So I guess this issue will have to be resolved here in ANI afterall, although it's tgeorgescu's, not my, behavior which warrants it. I have no interest in personally interacting with tgeorgescu any further after his recent behavior toward me which continues what he was already warned for. His action on the Prosperity Theology article at this point is also clearly in bad faith when viewed in this fuller context. I will be gone for a few hours right after this, so if any admins have something they want me to respond to, I'll get to that once I get back. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am asking from you: provide evidence in order to substantiate your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the disputed edit is:

    In comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth.[1] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.[1]

    tradition of entrepreneurship—why is that bad? Why is that a false allegation?
    The second part uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
    There were two edits from Valereee: [84] and [85]. So, an admin looked at the edits, has corrected them, and in the end found them valid.
    Therefore MojaveSummit is opposing both my edits and admin edits. It is WP:1AM, because GenoV84 also undid their removal at [86]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in trying to figure out the wall of text from MojaveSummit (MS, seriously: take out all the sarcasm, etc., that doesn't actually prove your case. No one wants to read a 1200-word post, and none of us are obligated to. Say it in 100 words), but after six months all I can say is I was probably attempting to tone down statements that overstated what could be supported by sources. valereee (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore, now, the edits are properly supported by a WP:RS and unopposed by any WP:RS. MojaveSummit simply does not like the edits, and that is not a reason for deletion. GenoV84 is semi-retired, but still a user in good standing (i.e. not blocked).
    About focusing on the actual points being made: please do make actual points which are supported by evidence. No evidence, no points made. Simple to understand.
    And, please, since you have already found the shortcut WP:IDHT, you may no longer claim you're a newbie. So WP:BITE does not apply to you this year (2022 CE). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu, I don't care how many shortcuts someone has found, if they have 33 edits they are still a newbie and shouldn't be bitten. In general don't bite anyone. valereee (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm simply asking them to provide evidence for their claims. I suppose this isn't asking too much. If they want to retract their claim that Mark Skousen is a believer in the White Horse Prophecy they may do it here. A statement from them that they admit they were mistaken will do.
    @Valereee: I continually asked them to provide evidence and to prove me wrong, for all to see. If this is harassment, then I'm in the wrong place.
    Like how many times I'm supposed to tell them that their claims need evidence, otherwise their claims are bunk?
    They have reproduced this view in their own defense:

    I'm not sure about either editor's position here. The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

    But even this view does not support the removal of the edits from the article. Now you're beginning to see that even the quotes they provide don't support their own position.
    MojaveSummit pleads that the edits should be removed, and they quote 力, who has pleaded in that quote that the edits shouldn't be removed from the article. So, MojaveSummit stacks bad misreading upon bad misreading in order to build their case. Now you're getting my point about their reading with comprehension ability? MojaveSummit does not have WP:CIR to understand what they're reading. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, my conclusion is, therefore: a reading disability is preventing MojaveSummit from properly participating in the Wikipedia Community. MojaveSummit made unsubstantiated claims about Mark Skousen, and MojaveSummit made unsubstantiated claims about the restored edits running afoul of WP:NPOV. Enough is enough. MojaveSummit should receive time to improve their reading ability offline. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b Lehmann, Chris (1 October 2011). "Pennies from Heaven: How Mormon economics shape the G.O.P." Harper's Magazine. New York City. Archived from the original on 29 July 2013. Retrieved 1 May 2021.

    valereee If you want short, simple evidence of the misconduct tgeorgescu is involved in towards me, just look at these most recent comments by him in this ANI here. He also intentionally misconstrued what Power said, as Power said in the provided quote that those sentences clearly didn't belong in that section of the article, but a connection between similar teachings would be appropriate for elsewhere in the article. That information has already been in a different part of the article the entire time, so tgeorgescu claiming I'm trying to censor it, being disruptive, or lack reading comprehension was already contradicted from the start. Also, tgeorgescu keeps repeatedly insisting on making this entire thing about Mark Skousen, when none of the points listed in the newer talk section of the article about this issue ever mention it even once. He is clearly still engaged in misusing rules to attempt to browbeat me, which he was already warned against. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me check your evidence: at the moment 力 wrote their comment, the article looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&type=revision&diff=1035276348&oldid=1035274894&diffmode=source tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And what does it say in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article at that moment? "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology,[78] such as a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God.[79]" What Power said should be in a different section of the article was already there at that exact moment. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a non sequitur (fallacy). The gist: 力 did not want those edits removed, you wanted those removed, not them.
    Till now you have produced no evidence that 力 wanted those edits removed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely false. Power said those edits didn't belong in the Criticism section of the article, but then described what type of information would possibly belong elsewhere in the article. As we can see, that latter info was already included in the "Comparisons with other Movements" section of the article at the time Power made that comment, and at no point have I ever objected to that information being there. Power did support the removal of those sentences from the Criticism section, and the information they said should be included in a different section was already at the time included there, which does not in anyway support edits keeping the two disputed sentences there. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do provide a quote from July 2021 wherein 力 said they want those edits removed. Or any quote to that extent by 力 from the year 2021.
    Let me tell you something, pal: your interpretation of what 力 wrote does not prove anything. Only what 力 actually wrote proves something.
    You continue to peddle your own interpretation when only a verbatim quote would do the job. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And what did Power actually write at that time? " The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)." That explicitly supports the removal of those lines from the Criticism section, which is what tgeorgescu's edits insist on ignoring. Additionally, it does not at any point call for the lines as they are written to simply be moved elsewhere in the article, it gives a view into what sort of information comparing LDS beliefs to prosperity theology would be appropriate in a different section of the article. We can see that this information was already contained at that exact time in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, fulfilling that portion of Power's input here. Also, admins, please note that tgeorgescu kept insisting that I was refusing to provide the quote, when it was already provided verbatim in my original post on this ANI, and tgeorgescu even already responded specifically to it. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote you provided does not support your own position. As simply as that. We were discussing your WP:CIR to read with comprehension, don't dodge the issue, it is quite important. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    valereee Here's more short, concise evidence. I provided the exact quote, tgeorgescu then ignored it, made a personal attack, and then intentionally attempted to misuse a rule to attempt to browbeat me, which he was already warned against in the previous ANI. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not at all mean that we don’t in loose, rough and ready ways judge interpretations… all the time. And this does not at all mean that practically speaking that some interpretations are obviously slightly better than others. Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading. But this is a familiar mistake and it is made about a lot of Derrida’s work. Philosophers call someone a relativist by which they mean it’s a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this: that is a straw person argument, no-one in the world believes it or ever has believed it.

    No-one – Derrida or anyone else – believes that every view is as good as every other view. That’s only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. I mean no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view and since this tape will be going out, if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar, okay. That’s where we will find them, if anybody believes that. No, Derrida’s kind of slippage is to remind us that the text of philosophy is not fixed; can not be fixed. It is of the nature of the text of philosophy and its relation to language that we cannot fix it once and for all. In a way it’s like the leaky ship where we haven’t got anything to stop the leak so we just keep bailing. I mean, the leak is in the language.

    — Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993)
    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure we have a rule that the moment someone references Derrida the thread must be instantly closed. EEng 01:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sad truth is that MojaveSummit cannot make heads or tails of what 力 wrote. Or of what WP:RS wrote about Mark Skousen.
    I'll grant them that 力 wanted the edits removed from that section. However, 力 never stated they want those edits removed from the article. MojaveSummit could not produce any verbatim quote to that extent.
    Conflating between section and article is once again a testimony of their poor reading ability. My argument to Valereee wasn't about section, it was about article. So, MojaveSummit was addressing a point I never made. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    tgeorgescu blocked

    I have blocked tgeorgescu for 48 hours. My block summary reads (User_talk:Tgeorgescu#Block): doubling down on diagnosing "reading disability." Lack of self-awareness to retract is concerning. This is also in the context of WP:BITE concerns. Please do better. A less aggressive conduct is expected moving forward. El_C 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Landachuda - Not here and GS/SASG caste POV edits

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

    See edits [87] [88] (and those page histories for more context) [89] (this change is unsourced BLP violation). I gave WP:GS/SASG notice couple of days ago [90] — DaxServer (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) (Updated 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

    Landachuda often removes citations w/o explanation, tags such as pp, Use dmy dates, EngvarB, Failed verification, citation needed, and others. Repeatedly adds unsourced content. WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE issues. uw-unsourced1, uw-unsourced2, and uw-unsource3 warnings added to Landachuda's talk page. Adakiko (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User HazelBasil engaging in outing and targeted harassment of Cher Scarlett, GorillaWarfare and myself

    I saw the mess on COIN and I do not see anything here that isn't a rehash or venue change of that mess. Leave SPIs at SPI if you don't have any evidence to offer other than hunches. If there's info demonstrating that sockpuppeting that cannot be shared publicly, email ArbCom. I see nothing specific here that's actionable by admins. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yesterday, I flagged HazelBasil (who has claimed she is Ashley Gjøvik) as possibly engaging in sockpuppetry using the accounts Igotthistoo and Thistechworkertoo (archive of checkuser here) because of the similarity of their complaints on WP:COIN (see here) about my edits on Cher Scarlett, aspersions cast about GorillaWarfare, and HazelBasil's investment in the expired incident on this board about contentious edits on Cher Scarlett by Igotthistoo (see here), all involving people HazelBasil has said she has a COI with due to a personal relationship with them, including Kate Rotondo and Chelsey Glasson, who were both shoehorned into Scarlett's article, alongside Gjøvik, by this group of 4 users. I previously thought that the IP users also involved in editing the two articles that the socks edited both in timing and purpose was curious, and because of their locations, were likely an Apple employee with a vendetta against Scarlett, but given that they are located where Gjøvik's office reportedly was located, and where her University is self-reported to be located on HazelBasil's self-page, I strongly believe one or all of these users is HazelBasil. Checkuser did not believe my argument was compelling enough on its own, but because HazelBasil is using a VPN, I believe the results have been skewed.

    During her COIN request, HazelBasil has continued to state that I am Scarlett, linking to Scarlett's tweets as evidence that I am harassing her, that I am working on behalf of Apple Inc, referring to me as She/Her, and cast aspersions on GorillaWarfare for sharing her perspective on HazelBasil's concerns that I have COI, or that I have edited Gjøvik's article in a way that introduced a unfavorable bias against Gjøvik and/or a favorable bias toward Apple. I disagree that I have done this, as I added information I thought helped highlight the wrongs that Apple has allegedly done to her.

    (Redacted) SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated content redacted - addition to COIN was oversighted -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am extremely upset to see that my attempts to document some of the recent tech industry activism on Wikipedia has somehow ended in the subject of one of the articles coming to Wikipedia and attempting to dox someone known to the other. At this stage I will be abandoning my work on the Ashley Gjøvik article to other editors—I don't wish to have anything more to do with this. Please ping me if my input in this discussion or the COIN discussion is needed for some reason, otherwise I will be leaving this to others in the community. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I previously mentioned on the COI page a couple hours ago, I already submitted a report about the harassment by SquareInARoundHole against me to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. We have been emailing about it tonight and I've now also notified them of this latest retaliatory reporting/harassment. HazelBasil (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jakartan IP block evader/vandal/edit-warrer is back 3

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Jakartan_IP_vandal/edit-warrer_is_back_2.

    The IPs are now:

    IP Location ISP Edit history Block history
    149.110.92.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 15:57, 18 November 2021 –
    12:03, 18 November 2021
    139.192.193.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 02:04, 22 November 2021 –
    07:26, 27 November 2021
    149.110.232.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 15:19, 21 December 2021 –
    11:25, 24 December 2021
    149.110.232.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 05:50, 4 January 2022 –
    04:25, 8 January 2022 (as of this post)     		11:31, 8 January 2022 –
    11:31, 8 February 2022

    Same as last time. Had to revert a bunch of (often the same) short description removals by the user (seemingly targeting those created by me and copying and pasting my edit summaries, as they've done before and with others'). Short description removals/reversions are basically all of their edits on this IP, so just check their contributions. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked one month for block evasion. Girth Summit (blether) 11:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I added one more IP from the user I just found: 149.110.232.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Again, removing short descriptions left, right and centre. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP hasn't edited for a couple of weeks now - it's probably been reassigned, there's no point blocking it unless it starts up again. Girth Summit (blether) 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Yes, though this is for documentation purposes. Found another one, same short description removals. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: There is a point in range-blocking, though, as has been done to this user before. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    Vecire99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I made a number of bad reverts all targeting the edits of the same user ([91], [92] [93] and especially [94] [95]). It's only natural that the user was a bit annoyed with this, but their reaction autistic chink lmao really was bit on the strong side.

    Not thinking too much of it, I proceeded to apologize for my bad reverts.

    Vice regent was of a different opinion and asked for a block on their talk page. Their reaction to this: go fuck yourself pussy, that retard was messing with my page [96]. I think that perhaps Vice regent may have been right to ask for a block. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be willing to tolerate a certain amount of incivility from someone whose edits have been repeatedly reverted inappropriately - it's annoying, it's natural to be pissed off about it. Those comments are a long way outside the realm of what I'm willing to overlook however - indeffed. Girth Summit (blether) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP range imposing religious POV

    Special:Contributions/2405:201:680E:1093::/64 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to impose their religious (Shi'i Islamic) point of view:

    All of their other edits are in a similar vein. When reverted, they try to edit-war it back in: [108] [109] (the latter page has been semi-protected because of their disruption)

    Some of their talk pages have received warnings [110] [111] and welcomes [112] [113], but they never respond there, and they don't use talk pages. Perhaps their edit summaries speak for themselves though:

    • now don't tell me any "source" except for the extremist would have Ali calling Umar as the Commander of the Faithful [114]
    • sources which are partial? and only highlight the other end of the spectrum? [115]

    I think that, especially given the content of their actual edits, a range block is in order. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree entirely. The IP editor is on a crusade to impose his/her personal religious beliefs about Ali on reality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor wants to report me to the FBI

    User:Catperson1. New, maybe CIR issues. They’re going to get blocked I think if someone can’t help them. I tried but it seems to have backfired. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And they've been indeffed by Amortias. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They also appear to bge of the opinion that my block is so out of line that it is illegal. Happy for someone else to review the block but threats to report someone to the FBI and claiming that an on-wiki action as illegal in an unblock request (after promising to not make any threats) are not helping their case. Amortias (T)(C) 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TPA revoked. El_C 11:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Crazy cat ppl again smh, I think this settles the dogs v cats debate. Clearly, dog owners are superior... ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stubborness and suspected disruptive editing (in Vietnam Coast Guard post)

    Hi there, I'm still not very familiar with Wiki's reporting and warning system so I decided to bring this here.
    In the last few weeks, there has been a user, who was not logged in and using multiple IPs to do disruptive editing in the Vietnam Coast Guard page. More specifically, I assume that all of those IPs are powered by the same person as those IPs keep doing exactly the same thing of changing the insignia of the Vietnam Coast Guard, while the current insignia which was inserted before was proven as accurate with citation and the other one was proven as outdated and inaccurate (for example: Vietnam Coast Guard is no more a part of the People's Army of Vietnam so the insignia with the "People's Army of Vietnam" label is obviously outdated and inaccurate).

    I have sent more than one warning of vandalism (then I learned that this case is not exactly "vandalism") and then disruptive editing, both by normal message on the IPs' talk pages and using Wiki's template on disruptive editing (or vandalism). Yes, I did revert all of those IPs' editing and try not to violate the 3RR, and I do notice that I potentially did engage in a not-very-appropriate edit war.
    I don't know what's the solution in this case, is there any way to ban all of his IP (as I mentioned, I am not very familiar with the system), and will I be affected by anything?
    Btw, I requested protection for the VCG page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Vietnam_Coast_Guard, and I assume that it is a sensical choice to deal with the disruption from the IPs.

    --Hwi.padam (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 01:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NPOV editing by user Graywalls

    Nothing actionable here, we're not going to debate what-ifs.Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I came across the page for Supervised injection site and noticed a large number of NPOV violations from the user Graywalls, with edit summaries such as "this is not about shoot up site, its about druggie needle dispensary", "community successfully blocked shooting gallery from opening up", and "Add illegal drug shoot up center in Lethbridge, AB" which clearly suggest a hyperpartisan tone and agenda to edits. The user is also very active in removing any sources they feel are too pro-harm reduction with similar language used in their edit summaries and on the talk page.

    The page is currently under protection due to a verified call to action by an anti-SIS group to edit the page, and I believe that this user's edits might be part of that campaign or similar. Given that they appear to have somewhat adopted an "ownership" attitude towards the page, and their edits are difficult to address due to page protection, I feel this could benefit from administrator attention to at least address some of the abusive and derogatory language being used and perhaps make sure an NPOV disclaimer might be added pending review and rework. 2605:8D80:4A1:78F3:C007:5E16:F75F:9903 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. The user you mention has made 2 edits to this page in the last 12 months. You have failed to notify the user of this talk page section as per the notice at the top of the page. I'm not sure what your intention was with regards to making a complaint but I'm seeing nothing here thats actionable. I've notified Graywalls for you but thats the only thing im seeing that needs doing on this request. Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it your position as an administrator that the kind of dehumanizing language used in those edits are acceptable in daily use, let alone what is supposed to be an NPOV platform? The user in question is responsible for 75 of the last 500 edits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:4A1:78F3:C007:5E16:F75F:9903 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My position is that we deal with (as per the notice at the top of the page) Urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems at this noticeboard. You've provided no evidence of this nor that you have entered into any discussion around the issue of the edits directly with the user in question. 2 edits over a 12 month period does not (in my opinion) reach the levels of chronic, nor intractable neither does it count (again in my opinion) as high. If you can come back showing that you've discussed the issues with the editor in question and that there is an ongoing issue (historical doesn't make it urgent) then we might have something to look at. At the minute we dont. 75 out of the last 500 puts us at 15% of the recent article edits (at what doesnt look like a high traffic page for editors). Amortias (T)(C) 23:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this position also apply to similar derogatory language when directed against groups you might find more sympathetic, by chance? For instance, something dehumanizing like "this is not about a clinic, it's about a (Redacted) mutilation shop" as a typical edit summary would be considered similarly nonactionable, in your opinion? 2001:56A:70D9:4D00:11BE:622B:AE39:33C6 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not going to respond to hypothetical questions. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you discussed this with Graywalls outside of this noticeboard? Several of the diffs are inappropriate, and the first step is to raise it with the user and see what they say in response. Given a situation where that has happened and the problem hasn't been resolved, then that would be a matter for this board. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Well, I still feel those are inappropriate comments by Graywalls. Graywalls, maybe you feel disdain toward people who suffer from substance dependency/abuse, or maybe you take a firm policy stance against injection sites, I don't know. But either way, you are dehumanizing that population when you use terms like druggie. That's not appropriate and should not repeat. Still, this was said like, what, almost a year ago, so is very stale/unactionable. IP, it's also highly inappropriate for you to use that derogatory term for transgendered persons, even in quotes and even as an illustrations. I've redacted it. Please don't do something like that again. Thanks. El_C 01:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Post-close comment for the record - concerns about Graywalls' editing in this general subject area (including their use of edit summaries) were discussed in October 2020 in this thread. I agree with El C that the edit summaries mentioned above are highly inappropriate, but they seem to predate that ANI discussion. Absent any indication that there is an ongoing problem, there is nothing further to discuss. I endorse the close - just noting the earlier discussion for the archive. Girth Summit (blether) 14:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jgstokes

    LTA disruption
    The following discussion has been closed by NightWolf1223. Please do not modify it.

    Lorelai1335 is being repeatedly harassed by Jgstokes. On the talk page for Art Rascon, Jgstokes refers to Lorelai1335 as a she, even when requested not to. This can be confirmed by referring to the talk pages of both users. Wikipedia is not the place for gender based harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebraskaCharles (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ... but it is the place for transparent sockpuppets posing as the misgenderdering police to go jump in the lake. What a crock. EEng 05:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is premature. Since Lorelai1335 mentioned being misgendered in this comment, Jgstokes has not made any edits. I've notified Jgstokes of this discussion (and Lorelai1335 for good measure). Firefangledfeathers 05:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input, Firefangledfeathers. I think that if we take a look at the interaction between Lorelai1335 and Jgstokes, we see a clear case of edit warring, with Jgstokes using gender as a weapon. Lorelai1335 asked Jgstokes to stop misgendering, which Jgstokes did not. -- unsigned by the OP sockpuppet
    I suspect it might be worth reminding the filer here that Wiki isn’t a place for legal threats, not even toothless ones.

    I would also suspect it might be worth reviewing the filer’s contribution history, and ask whether it suggests someone who is here to try to write an encyclopedia. (I would suggest not.) Qwirkle (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The filer is the latest sockpuppet of LTA GeraldFord1980 - already reported at AIV. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FyzixFighter and others, stop trying to change the subject. This is about Jgstokes' problem with gender harassment and nothing else. Even if your accusations are true, that doesn't take away from Jgstokes repeatedly, and purposefully, referring to a fellow editor by the wrong gender.NebraskaCharles (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the filer? Qwirkle (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure - the other editor (Lorelai1335) doesn't fit the LTA's behavioral pattern.
    While there might be behavior by both Lorelai1335 and Jgstokes that might warrant ANI attention, this is a bad faith report from a LTA with a known history of trolling Jgstokes. I'd suggest that any reviewing admin blank this report. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nobody else commented here and we should have !!consensus!! I think this is an idiotic thread. So Jgstokes misgendered Lorelai1335. That's bad and isn't cool. That being said though, it's a mistake that most people make unintentionally. Unless there's any evidence this was malicious I don't see the point. I agree with FyzixFighter. Blank this thread and pretend it never happened. If a non-LTA wants to reopen then by all means. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZX2006XZ, Trip 3

    The editor in question is again tendentiously resubmitting this draft of an unreleased film. This editor has previously been reported to WP:ANI at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Buck_Wild when I did not want to nominate the draft for deletion, because it probably will be notable in late January 2022. They said that they should stop resubmitting, but didn't stop resubmitting.

    We came to WP:ANI again at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Draft:The_Ice_Age_Adventures and they were told to wait until the film was released.

    The draft is pending review again tendentious resubmission is still continuing.

    I request that User:ZX2006XZ be partially blocked from the draft and article title. The two previous incidents were archived without action. Can we have action this time, because the subject editor has not learned from their mistakes? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not again! Personally I don't really see how this recent behaviour is actually that bad. One mitigating factor is Thriley, a well-established editor, saying more or less that they think the draft is submittable. ZX2006XZ went ahead and asked in a comment "Is it too late now to submit?" Given that there have been mixed signals on whether or not the draft was OK to submit, I don't really see how this behaviour convincingly demonstrates a need to indefinitely block from draftspace. At best, I would reiterate my suggestion to p-block from Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild until January 28th, 2022. This would show a clear signal that we don't want the article submitted until January 28th and wouldn't prevent them from productively using draftspace for other topics. Since the first few threads they've seemed to somewhat improve.
    Also, for the creator of this thread, this is "trip 4". While you have started 3 different threads on this user, I believe I started the first one. [116] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia

    This user appeared last week, vandalising articles and creating hoax articles that were speedy deleted. They received four warnings for this. After I gave them one final warning earlier today, they responded with this. This user has made few constructive edits since creating their account, and most of their edits are in their sandbox where they are creating more hoax material. Most of their mainspace edits have been reverted. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Czello 15:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • They have some behavioral issues, to be sure, including harassing with Bengali comments, the whole goat thing and calling you a fool on your page. You have been very active with their talk page and warnings, which kind of makes you a target, however. A lot of their editing is in good faith, although they don't understand our norms. This is why a couple of their new articles were converted to drafts, and why a lot of their edits have been reverted as being without sources. Not so much vandalism, but instead, causing disruption because they won't adhear (or understand) WP:V. Not sure the solution yet, I'm sure others will have some ideas. If Thebloodline were wise, they would come here and calmly explain a few things. Otherwise, you have to assume the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of tips from talk pages

    I sometimes create talk page entries to document tips on interpreting, accessing or presenting sources of information. User:lowercase sigmabot III is deleting such tips. (Example: Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Route length which I just restored.) Is there a way to suppress its actions for certain talk sections? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. The bot archives old discussions off, so you could pin that discussion so it doesn't get archived. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It had been 14 months since the last comment by you, and you were the only one commenting in that section, twice. I don't quite understand why you don't want it archived since is more of a monologue than a discussion. I don't rightly care either way, I just don't see the point, as the bot was doing what we normally want it to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP addresses attacking

    There has been two IP addresses attacking me, including 193.207.224.45 and 193.207.132.34. However, I did not vandalize the sandbox page. Can anyone explain why these two IPs attacked and how I vandalized sandbox? Thank you. Severestorm28 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I presume you mean this and this? Nothing for an admin to do at this time - just ignore them, but if they continue to post on your talk page let me know. GiantSnowman 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Thank you. I will let you know when that happens again. Severestorm28 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! In the meantime I have warned the IP, but I doubt they will see it if they are hopping. GiantSnowman 16:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: It has happened again, and it was reverted, but maybe we should protect my talk page possibly. Severestorm28 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the IPs involved have been blocked. Hopefully that will put a stop to it. Girth Summit (blether) 19:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Thanks, however more IPs have repeatedly vandalized my talk page, unfortunately. Severestorm28 20:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we need a range block here? GiantSnowman 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @GiantSnowman: Most likely, yes. Severestorm28 22:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite has rangeblocked. Severestorm28 22:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this is WP:LTA/SBT. Please have a read. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's why. Just IPs targeting users who clear sandboxes, I suggest? Severestorm28 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BERKİYA

    Reverts calling the edits of other editors vandalism. Seems to be on a pov mission about Kurds. His latest post (in a thread where I did threaten to block him if he continued to use edit summaries to call editors vandals) is: "listen, I am sharing information with sources but you are removing my information, why???? . You do not interfere with those who share the notes of a racist Armenian historian , it means you are not the racist me . By the way, Historyofiran is constantly hostile to Kurds. I have been using Wikipedia for months, whenever I see anti-Kurdish movements, there is Historyofiran. Why did I say democrat, because you are one of the fake democrats, you think that you apply "equal" rules to everyone, but when it comes to the Kurds, you suddenly have a strange attitude. I'm tired of dealing with you ce historyofiran. Historyofiran is exactly the country of "terrorist country" like "Iran" BERKİYA (talk) 4:58 pm, Today (UTC+0)" Doug Weller talk 17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for 31h. Since they apparently prefer to communicate with other users in a language they do not understand, I took a liberty leaving the block explanation in a language they will likely take all their 31h to decipher. (Sorry, yes, I know this is not a best practice for an administrator).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Look at the talk page. How many warnings and blocks before we give up on making someone a useful Wikipedia contributor? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the next block is likely to be of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XhainXpert

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

    This editor is struggling with the obligation to add sources to their edits, and to row in the same direction as other editors. It's beyond edit warring; this editor is now adding fraudulent sources to prevent edits from being reverted.

    At Shady Shores, Texas, they added this unsourced content, which was reverted. So they added the text back, along with two sources that were completely unrelated to the text. I deleted it here, and left this very detailed message on their talk page, specifically explaining policy and that bogus sources cannot be added. No matter. They reverted the edit and added back the bogus sources.

    The same at Denton County, Texas, where they have edit warred and finally added back the same bogus sources they were cautioned about.

    In a response on their talk page, they wrote here: "My edits are based on the knowledge of being born and raised in Denton County and Shady Shores but I have attempted to add sources that corroborate those additions."

    Several editors have tried to help XhainXpert, but they seem to feel they are being harassed and targeted. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a new user. This is my first week. I have familiarised myself with the community rules regarding Overzealous Deletion and unjustified deletions which I have flagged for Magnolia677 who has also repeatedly threatened to have my editing rights restricted (quite the welcome to the wiki community). My other issues have been resolved - another user deleted a full page and then restored it. But Magnolia677 seems bent on deleting my posts rather than enhancing them, I put the community rule citations on his talks. My only interest is contributing to this knowledge base in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1RR violation by an IP

    The article is under 1RR. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    After I submitted this request, I noticed this, so it seems no action is required so far. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Knowledge1253 at McGarry, Ontario

    Knowledge1253 (talk · contribs) Ove the past few weeks this wp:spa has been wasting a few users time over at McGarry, Ontario inserting OR both in the article and talk despite numerous requests]] to stop [[117]], [[118]], [[119]] and promises by them to learn. Despite this they continue to add OR [[120]] and justifying this on the talk page [[121]]. They seem to wp:nothere (As they seem to have an agenda about some tribal claims they have edit wared to include) account with a huge dose oif WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

    It has gotten to the stage of tediousness and is a huge time sink, for no real benefit to the article.

    Yes they are a noobbie, but this is getting beyond ridiculous.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, I almost started shooting blood out of my eyes when I tried to work through the talkpage. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1064768078"