Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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.

    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/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]

    User apparently trying to get to 500 edits quickly by removing and readding spaces

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

    This user has made more than 100 edits at The Avengers (2012 film), just removing and readding spaces. They did the same at Tron: Legacy. —El Millo (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked indef and only after that noticed EdJohnston' s request to the user to explain their behavior. Since this is a controversial situation, I will unblock if a couple of admins think I should.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block seems correct to me. If he asks for unblock we can find out if there is any method to the madness. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - good block in the absence of a very good explanation for this strange editing. GiantSnowman 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse the indef block. Even if they are not straight-up system gaming, they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I threw User talk:AgentEnthusiast in for free. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, Ymblanter! As far as I can see the only possible explanation for this is an attempt to game the system to get XC status. Could some clever filter-savvy person perhaps devise a way of highlighting this kind of series of pointless edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know anything about abuse filter markup, but I think it's probably going to be something that checks for any/all of the following:
    • The edit has added or removed a single character.
    • The amount of edits done to a page in a row by a specific user within some amount of time exceeds a set threshold.
    • The edit frequency of a user (that only includes very small edits, like adding one or two letters) exceeds some limit. (probably not going to be as important)
    172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Happy New Year ANI! 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Testing in 1180 . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Might want to look into ShootGuyFirst as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ShootGuyFirst continues to make large batches of edits removing spaces from section headers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    GalavantEnchancedMoon pblock needed on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

    I bring to ANI the case of GalavantEnchancedMoon (GEM), whose edits, in my view, seem to POV with subtle and not-so-subtle over-promotion of the south area of the RPSI against the north area of the RPSI and these have resurfaced with the edits on 25th December Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. The explanation today at Special:Diff/1063017973 claims [56] addresses my concerns ... per my background and research detailed at Talk:Mullingar railway station and concerns/background at [Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#Mullingar] it doesn't. While the Mullingar issues are relatively minor they are a continuation of the behavior which caused this oversighter comment: Special:Diff/1038917193 ... (additionally BLP matters were brought forward and Wikipedia:Revision deletion needed at the RSPI article). The exchange between between Drmies and Mjroots at Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#COI/Neutrality concerns of 25 December 2021 edits. seems to suggest Drmies is encouraging Mjroots to raise at ANI (or maybe Pblkock? directly). GEM has currently won the edit war (I would have to do {{request edit}}, and the nearest a neutral came to trying to sort it out was at Special:Diff/1062501269 where they declared As an uninvolved editor (I've never even set foot in Ireland), my understanding is that this is a long-running dispute, and essentially all major contributors to the article have a COI. Which makes sense, because everyone else doesn't want to wade into the middle of a war zone (I certainly don't). I don't know how to resolve this beyond banning everyone with a COI from making direct edits to the article entirely and having someone neutral rewrite it (I am NOT volunteering to do this). (NB: I dispute need to TNT). In totality I suggest there is a substantial case for a Pblock of GEM, (which is what I have myself), with use of {{Request edit}} if appropriate, which I have to do myself. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Happy new year, for your part of the world. We got a few hours to go. Yes, your COI is noted; you do not need to explain that every time. You placed one diff here of GEM's edits; I simply do not see, in that or other recent edits, how that somehow sets up one part against the other, and favors it. Now, I really don't mind a partial block for GEM, but I don't think you have made the case for it, despite the many words in this post. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies: Your're an oversighter so you've access to the controversial edits. Given the nature of your previous comments this will end you with GEM being BLOCK'ed or me being me SEALION'd ... but was that your intention? I could make a better case but I'd to dox people? Is that what you want? Perhaps your conduct too needs to be scutinised? I need to work out if I need to dox people to make a stronger case? Were you goading Mjroots to take this here to take a "pop" at me? There are things to chew over. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't affect just GEM though, does it? There are five editors named at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland as having a COI. AIUI, Djm-leighpark is the editor accusing the other four of having a COI. He has self-declared a COI, which is why I PBLOCKED him from editing the article. GEM has denied being a member of the RPSI, which we have to accept in good faith in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

    I suggested that a community PBLOCK discussion here at ANI may be the best way to resolve this, although since I published those thoughts I've been thinking and maybe AN might be a better venue, as there is less drama there. I will say that I am not going to PBLOCK an editor from an article just because another editor says they have a COI. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @MMjroots: To repeat on 15 August 2021 at Special:Diff/1038917193 by Drmies which named the names: have rarely seen an article so clearly edited by "interested parties"--a quick glance at the history makes this clear already. Just look at all the redlinked names who sometimes just made a few edits and then disappeared--and most of those edits are adding unverified details about what trains the organization rides or what things they do. Like NAME1, or NAME2. NAME3 and NAME4 have a COI too, but it's the opposite interest. NAME5 looks like a former or current member who, on the one hand, wants to fluff up the article while taking stabs at old colleagues. I'm glad User:Pipsally came along in April to remove all those BLP violations, which I'm about to scrub from the history..., NAME2 is GEM, has been identified by oversighter Drmies as (Not just one editor Djm-leighpark) as having a COI. On 15 August 2021 I was not an RPSI member, and adding to COI on the talk page seemed appropriate. And if it wasn't many amdins have had employ opportunity to do so since. You might wonder why I'm singled GEM but they've resumed (what I allege is pointed editing) on 25 December 2021 ... which "feels" like sniping from "South" against "North" ... again. I would appreciate a need for a more private review forum .... and given evidence I've just had to elaborate here there miight need to be a WP:XRV, perhaps as well. Leprechauns couldn't had engineered a start like this if they tried ... not that I'm accused anyone of being one ... but I'll probably get the boomberang on that one. Welcome to Wikipedia 2022 says me eyes rollling ! 08:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    And what is the administrative action that a review is needed on? The only administrative action I've taken in this case is to PBLOCK you due to your stated COI. You've not objected to that action. XRV is not for reviewing an admin for failing to do an administrative action. That I haven't PBLOCKED GEM for the reasons I stated does not preclude any other admin from doing so if they feel it is justified. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mjroots: Your actions, allegations, inconsistency and sometimes inaction. You repeatedly accuse me of being the originator of the suggestion of GEM's COI seem to fail to recognise Drmies pointed it out first. Totally appropriate action would be for you to remove the connected contributor from the article talk page first and say, "look Djm-leighpark" you made a mistake there and reverted that. I've no real desire to take this to XRV but unless I've misread something the inconsistencies are pretty horrible. Fundamentally your a good dude and doing useful stuff here. But your now involved (or perhaps better put dragged in) and it needs others not involved to sort out. And I am highly aware of the probability of a boomerang SEALION block at some point; thoug I promise not to do a picture injection this time as the consequence is still with us on the Chinese and Japanese trams! Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I don't consider myself "involved" re any actions I take re the RPSI article, either in the past or in the future. I'm not a member of the RPSI and haven't ever edited the article. It is probably for the best that the community PBLOCK discussion is held and a consensus is formed. I will not be expressing an opinion should such a discussion be held, although I may comment if asked to do so. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark, this is getting tedious. Drop the "oversighter" when you talk about me, please, since it is completely irrelevant. There's rev-deleted content, but that's old news and it doesn't concern anyone who is still active, and it certainly doesn't concern GEM. I think you need to stop trying to insult Mjroots, and you should stop trying to goad me. I don't know what a "sealion block" is. No, you don't need to dox anyone: what you need to do is prove disruption in the article (or the talk page) by way of diffs from the article or the talk page. I don't see any evidence right now of current disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Drmies:. Basically this boils down to a content dispute, doesn't it. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    : I agree there is a current content dispute: but I'd argue that also links to previous contributions by GEM and that objective continues. On that matter I'm doing at email to an oversighter I have some trust in. I have previously mentioned oversighter specifically as that position requires high standards, but I will respect the request not to mention it after this. As Drmies and Mjroots are currently in my opinion prepared to back their concerns expressed on the article talk page against what seems like SPA's and wish to classify this as a content dispute, perhaps they may conspire to close this, as content dispute should not be here? The chance of neutrals to sort it out, which has been requested for some time, seems remote, and I'd expect a {{request edit}} to get exoceted in the two months it might take to get implemented. I expect to be blocked for a month or more now or relatively shortly if not by a admin block then by a voluntary requested block to avoid a psychotic incident that would lead to a block. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    GEM arguably disruptive and POV edits

    • The general angle to watch for is GEM presenting a point of view that is disparaging towards the Whitehead in the North or the management committee of RPSI. However, some members regard this as a waste of money and effort that would be better used on their existing locomotive and carriage fleet. This unsourced and therefore opinion piece expresses about the opinion of members express to distain at the decision at Whitehead proceed from this. This is actually a controversial decision: It takes parts which could have been used to build either a NCC Class W or a NCC Class WT; and its a very valid and devisive debate to about whether to go for one or the other. This also expresses the opinion that was a long-term flagship project and funds could have been more effectively applied to short-term needs. The issue with this is not necessarily that the opinion is incorrect, the problem is edit is disruptive, Wikipedia has been used to express and opinion, and possibly shows connection with membership. Trivial in itself, but problematic when combined with other problemss. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of repetition, Special/Diff:1038917193 Special:Diff/1038917193 confirms extreme "interested party" editing over article revisions that have been Revision-deleted. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC) (Special diff fixed Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    • If we look at edits on 25/27 December 2021 ... the POV pushing resumes. Its valid to talk about operations ... but is selection of the phrase "The Society has extensive operations out of Dublin which are said to bring in the lion's share of income, according to Five Foot Three issue 43" the most neutral way to do this, and especially omitting the date of newsletter Five Foot Three issue 43 ... which is about 1996/1997 ... about 24 years ago. It still may be the case dublin generates more income ... but that's not the way to prove it. In terms of Mullingar needing to be at the top level ... its now a minor base if that ... it doesn't seem to directly have a safety case [57] (Section: If you would like to become a RPSI volunteer then you must:) .and seems to now be restricted to tow carriages [58]. The comment The last overhaul was completed in 2015 and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead, including a council decision not to spend money on the green carriages based there ... it again feels like a winge opporunity at Whitehead. Its not to decry Mullingar's work or voluntary effort there ... its just consistent problematic POV pushing. With regards the "green" carriage one this one at least seems to be at Inchicore. In totality sufficient for a PBlock I'd argue. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The "RPSI News Letter : date=November 1996" referred to seems to be located at located at [59]. I think its publically accessable but not google indexed. It is being used as a source to support the statement The last overhaul was completed in 2015 and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead, including a council decision not to spend money on the green carriages based there. To state the obvious to start with a 1996 source cannot support a 2015 event (albeit one of the later sources might). But is this cherry-picking out of context to get a POV across? IS it undue in the context of a 64 year history given the current state of the article? Its certainly too hard a read for me at this time of night. ANI is not being about a content dispute, and if I'm correct GEM has said they have an offline hardcopy of this document, but does an experienced editor feel happy about the use of the source, and is this primary source being used through biased eyes?. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a valid concern. I've raised it at the article's talk page and asked GEM to either correctly attribute it or remove it. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd also like to point out at this point any reference to the 5' 3" magazine should likely have {{Page needed}} added, "with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead" may need {{text-source inline}}. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The page numbers on the 5' 3" might be judged unnecessary as the title's, where present, may define sections. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mjroots I've waited 48hr+ for an action from this. And I've offered arbitrated mediation from this and its ended up being ignored. Its been a bank holiday recently so a 72hr wait may be more appropriate. But if concerns are not addressed will you confirm you will Pblock, revert to pre-25 December 2021, or expedite {{request edit}} (I am worried about some Pat of Mullingar giving me the run-around like the Peelers during the 2 month wait), or some other alternative timescale/action you might suggest. Thankyou. 19:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
      72 hours are up. I will try some Request edits to try to sort issues out as WikiProject Trains/UK Railways do not seem to have assisted, if they are interfered with there will likely be incidents. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Djm-leighpark: I'm amenable to an edit request to revert back to pre-25 Dec if you wish to make one. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @{{u|::@Djm-leighpark: I'm amenable to an edit request to revert back to pre-25 Dec if you wish to make one. Mjroots ([[User talk:Mjroots}}: Thankyou. I've actually (simultanously) just preped a number of request edits that work from the current version ... that avoids reversing a handful of spelling mistakes. It will leave the Mullingar section needing a little work (but this is actually quite hard to get a good prose that says the site formerly did good work but now has very limited use. Hopefully my suggestions are OK and do bring in the Dublin bases a small bit more. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unhealthy stalking (hounding?) by another editor

    I am coming here after Hatchens reverted my accept of Draft:PharmEasy to draft because they were unsure of notability. Please also see the talk page Draft talk:PharmEasy. If they were unsure of notability, they could have taken it to AFD or initiated a discussion at talk page. Moving it back to draftspace isn't a policy based move to begin with and here, this was done for incorrect reason. I find it utmost disrespectful and looking to have opinions of uninvolved editors about this move. It feels like they are trying to say that they are a better reviewer than I am and that I need baby sitting.

    There is of course history between us. Started when they felt that my accept of a page called Rattan India wasn't a great accept because it didn't have enough negative material as they would have preferred to. They tagged the whole world and led a crusade against me with AFDing many pages that I accepted. Only one of those were deleted after DGG gave a nuanced perspective on guidelines. Here are our discussions then [60], [61]. At Rattan India AFD [62], they said the wildest thing like the share price of the page improved because of a wiki page in 2 days amidst other.

    Overall, they have been very aggressive against me and I feel very pessimistic about this. In conclusion, I don't need a baby sitter. If they don't agree with a draft I have accepted for neutrality, they are welcome to add more negative things as they see fit. If they don't agree on notability, they are welcome to AFD it. But I don't want to see any more drama and tagging the universe to harass or draftify the pages that I accept because I disagree. I respect them for their work and I don't want them constantly doing what they are doing now.

    Also to mention, it is alright to accept previously rejected drafts even if no changes were made to those since an editor might be evaluating notability differently.

    A curious observation is with their involvement about Draft:Vin Gupta. They were always appreciative of me before I denied this draft and had a difference of opinion on this. Their view of notability on this highly promotional non-declared COI draft is extremely strange. RattanIndia incident happened right after our difference on this one. Pharmeasy incident happened right after I said I would excuse myself from not reviewing Vin Gupta [63]. Felt like they were sending me a message. But this is a wild hypothesis and could just be a coincident. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You have neglected to notify Hatchens, as you are required to do. You have also neglected to indicate which draft this dispute is about (unless I've missed that in your lengthy post). Please remedy both of these issues. Girth Summit (blether) 02:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out Girth Summit. Have added the draft. Hatchens were notified right after I made this post on their talk page. You may please check it there. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Nomadicghumakkad - often, when people put an ANI notification on someone's talk page, they put it under a new section header, and I confess that that is what I was looking for - I see that you put the notification at the end of an existing thread, which is also fine.
    Thanks for clarifying which draft you were having the problems at. For future reference, it's better not to simply amend a post once it has been responded to; there's guidance on how to do this correctly at WP:TALK#REPLIED. Also, please also don't use people's signatures in your own posts when you refer to them - you can use a template like (type {{u|Girth Summit}}, for example) if you want to ping them (as I did at the start of this post to ping you). Girth Summit (blether) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's ok Girth Summit, Thank you. I'm here. Let me assist; This is regarding Draft:PharmEasy. And, the page was moved into the main article namespace unilaterally (which is not a crime) by Nomadicghumakkad on December 31. But, somehow I felt that "the move" was not appropriate and so I draftified it because of the entity's past page attempts. And, I sought a "second opinion" which I always seek from time to time while reviewing the pages (under my NPP rights). This particular AfC reviewer - "Nomadicghumakkad" has a good AfC reviewing history. But, somehow, his behavior seems to be very conflicting especially when passing certain company and BLP pages. The list includes; Draft:Anusha Rai, Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair, Karan Tanna - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Tanna, Debashis Chatterjee (The way it was passed is doubtful, but since it also passed through AfD process. No complains - as of now) and of course RattanIndia - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RattanIndia - where his involvement is found to be pro-company; he intentionally removed negative narrative and try to put the company in a good light. Here the question is not how he passes it (these certain pages), but why he passes it without doing substantial neutral edits or without taking advice from other seasoned editors/reviewers - he processes AfC pages as if he is on a mission and out of 100 if he passes a couple of such pages and later if he being questioned... either he will try to clear off his hand or he will try to put up a justification which is nothing more or less than a "collective deflection" The point is; Wikipedia doesn't work on unilateral decision making; we together lookout for a general consensus. And, most of the time, we generally do indulge in conversation at the talk pages - then we take the next call or decide a way forward. But, somehow this very essence has not sipped in the psyche of the petitioner and his behavior actually makes our belief stronger about how AfC reviewing process is so compromised. Anyway, I'm open to providing any kind of assistance to Nomadicghumakkad as well as to the administrators at this ANI incident page. So, feel free to ask. -Hatchens (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks for your kind assistance. You seem to be missing the point again - perspective. I may feel that what I have added for neutrality is sufficient and you might feel differently. In such case, it is expected that you add whatever else you feel should be added rather than constant bullying. You mentioning all these pages are distraction. They are all discussed in the threads of the link provided. A funny thing about Karan Tanna: DGG gave a nuanced perspective of guidelines which appealed to me. Right after, getting inspired, I nominated another page Falguni Nayar that I accepted. All editors who voted against Karan Tanna also voted against Falguni. But, Falguni was kept - perspective. I see your list of 'wrong' pages has substantially decreased from our last discussion(!!) - since others were decided to be kept or were clearly notable.

    Question about neutral edits - on pharmeasy, your concern was not even neutrality to begin with. That was notability. So stop using the isolated incident of Rattan India for an overarching argument. Also, in Rattan, which negative part did I remove? Can you please show the diffs. Similarly, you feel Draft: Vin Gupta is notable despite all the problems it has and that no other editor has found it notable since ever. But, it is your perspective and you have the right to have it. The way I see it, you see to be appearing a complete pro towards that BLP. So how come your perspective is justified and mine is not?

    And you choose to mention Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair when it was clarified during last discussion that it was accepted as a mistake and I had asked at tea house to revert it. Not sure what to make out of it.

    While you make a remark about my psyche, here is a thing about yours: you think your perspective and understanding is most correct and everything should match up to that. It need not. Others can have a different perspective or a different liberal/conservative idea about guidelines, specially when it comes to BLPs and Companies.

    Bottomline is, your move on Pharmeasy was not policy based. You could have done what you did now (take second opinion) on the talk page while it was in mainspace. But you chose to draftify it which I find problematic and is indication that you have some bias against me. You need to stop creating similar trouble for no reason.

    Agreed on unilateral decision making, considering our history, I would prefer to work with anyone else on collective decision making except yours since it is clearly biased. Another example to support this: Draft:V. K. Ahuja was accepted by me and it was draftified by Onel5969. I didn't feel irked at all by that move because it had logic. In fact, I myself added a template for adding more sources. So in future, if you feel you are not enjoying what I am doing, I would prefer you to hold your horses because of your pre-conceived notions about my work/approach and perhaps request another editor to check with me.

    Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Nomadicghumakkad,Why should I bother you for Draft:Vin Gupta? Have you read my comments over there? Comment #1: " I'll not override your decision. All I can do is... request you to reassess draft. " and just after your reply, I gave the following Comment #2: "I would advise all of us... to wait for another reviewers' opinion. This way we can guarantee an unbiased outcome to this AfC. " Now, tell me, from which angle Draft:Vin Gupta seems to be a bone of contention between you and me?. Does it look like I'm offended by your denial? This is the same reason I gave to you when you raised the same topic at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RattanIndia. So, I'm requesting; relax, think and get me a better argument. We're at ANI incident reporting page.
    Also, please don't be overconfident about your edits on RattanIndia; I guess you're assuming that once the page is deleted - no one can access your past editing history. If you're assuming just so, then you're making a big mistake. Again, I'm requesting; relax, think and then put your words here because we're at the ANI incident reporting page.
    Also, as you have noticed that the 'wrong' pages (as your sarcasm has defined it) have substantially decreased, then that's another misconception you're harboring at your end. Because, I'm assuming you came to ANI for Draft: PharmEasy - so if you insist to digress from the topic and expand your "list of controversial AfC passes" - then I would be more than happy to do the analysis and provide one to the authorities over here. But, at this moment, I'll definitely wait for further instructions from admins (& others), so that; a necessary structure to this discussion can be decided, and accordingly I'll chip in my views. -Hatchens (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am here by happenstance, and because I was asked to give an opinion on Draft:PharmEasy after it was returned to draft.
    In essence I feel that what we have here is a content dispute between two experienced editors, editors who are bound to trip over each othr in AFC review and NPP. I think that would be better resolved on one or other's talk page, with the two reaching a genmtleman's agreement to work well with each other.
    I can see how their interacions are common because of the areas they work in. It might be better if they stood back from each other. No-one wins when bringing issues here, regardless of the actual outcome FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the overall response to this is another threat?! Well, like you said, let's wait for admins and others (not including people you group with in past) to provide feedback on what they think. We can then circle back to what you and I are saying. Timtrent, what you have said is precisely the outcome I am looking at here : stay away from each other since I don't think their bias is gonna change. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nomadicghumakkad I think it becomes incumbent upon each of you to step back, even if you feel, indeed find at times, that you are in the right. I give @Hatchens the exact same advice. I am impartial in this advice.
      Wikipedia is large enough for folk to avoid each other. Each of you needs to take your own moral high ground and be the better editor by not participating in any argument between you. Even collegial discussion might be better stepped away from for the short to medium term future.
      Either, or neither, or even both of you is right, but it doesn't matter. And when either of you say "But it does because of [reasons]" it does not. All that matters is Wikipedia. and, at present, neither of you plays well together, so should either make friends and make up, or should avoid each other. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, I didn't want to get all of this started but as you may see, there is no limit to this unfortunately. Now I must respond and also present some of their own allegedly controversial accepts. My sincere apologies to you for not following your suggestion here. I wish I could but I must respond to this Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid this will not end with honour for either @Nomadicghumakkad or @Hatchens unless each editor steps back, takes a decently long quiet period of reflection, and chooses neither to escalate the dispute nor interact with the other except in a collegial and civil manner.
    We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to knock seven bells out of each other.
    I can foresee the loss of two experienced editors if this back and forth continues. Please, both of you stop stop.
    After ceasing hostilities you can solve this quietly and simply.
    I suspect that lack of ceasing hostilities may result in each of you being sent to sit on the naughty step. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Timtrent, I am okay to stop - provided they back off - now and in future. Rather than taking accountability of their actions, they have only attacked here and continued the same behaviour of tagging others who would go and nominate the pages I accepted. That pushed me to go and check their own accepting history and there are anomalies that should be addressed. I haven't even started with NPP history - I am certain lot will come out there. With due respect to you, I will stop here. But I would surely want you to check on them their work with Nikhil Kamath, if you wish to pursue it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It is alright to have a different opinion. However it is not okay to think that "my opinion is the only opinion". I usually hate reading and writing huge walls of text. Seriously. We get a little time to contribute on this encyclopedia and this is utilized in infighting etc. I feel bad with its usage. That said, Hatchens reverting the AfC acceptance of the OP is inappropriate at the least according to rule but this doesn't make sense to take it directly to the ANI. It should've been discussed on talk page of draft/article or the involved editors and if there comes no solution, the ANI makes sense. Hatchens usually asks for second opinions from others, from me as well, and he seems to me, with this perspective an amazing Wikipedian, who tries to learn new things each coming day. Nomadic has a nice AfC history with some controversial approvals as well, but everyone makes mistakes, and the best of them are those who learn from mistakes. I personally hope that these two Wikipedians try to solve this mutually and if nothing good comes out of that, I'd propose that they don't interact with each other or edit articles created/approved by either of them. Best. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nomadicghumakkad I have no intention of looking at the edits that either of you has highlighted. Conditional cessation of hostilities is pointless. Stop, or not, at your discretion. I see already that you have not stopped. Please be wise.
    I was neither gracious nor ungracious (your later comment to another editor here) in moving PharmEasy back to mainspace after checking the references and looking at the short informal consensus that formed. It was a necessary move. I have said all I have to say regarding the edits of each of you on that talk page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Timtrent and TheAafi for the kind words. Ok! Nomadicghumakkad, let's stop playing with words, and let's analyze your controversial AfC passes. I hope, this will provide enough clear picture to all of us;

    YesWeHack - In this entity's page, you have deployed - "we submit it (in Afc), we accept it (ourselves)" tactic. Isn't it the same "tactic" you used in RattanIndia? Let me recall, TheAafi and Timtrent - both of them had witness the same situation at RattanIndia. Not a tactic. It's a perfectly fine acceptable way of accepting articles at AFC as concluded during last discussion. So stop saying that again and again. Yeswehack was discussed for long and many french sources were given. Check my talk page here [64]


    Hamara Hind - accepted on what grounds or logic. God knows. TheAafi is an expert in the Urdu language. He can be a better judge. Passes WP:NMEDIA
    Zest AI - Classic WP:ADMASQ case. The petitioner might argue that the entity got articles published at The Washington Post and Financial Times; without checking the fact that the writers are PR professionals and Freelance contributors. I would not like to identify them over this thread because this information is personal identification details which will be a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. But, somebody wants to Google them then please feel free. I think it passed WP:CORPDEPTH. Again, you can feel differently and open to nominate. Honestly, I might do it myself because what you are saying makes some sense and we could let the community decide on this one


    Santhosh_Damodharan; passed without checking any English citations. Out of 5 English citations, only 1 has a "mention" of this entity... just a mention. It does not even satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV.Passes WP:CREATIVE and doesn't need to pass WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV


    Acharya Prashant; In this entity's page, you have once again deployed - "we submit it (in Afc), we accept it (ourselves)" - similar to YesWeHack and RattanIndia. Here is the proof. The page was earlier moved back to draft by Praxidicae. Later, the page was edited by an ID called Niketanjha - and if we do a simple Google search we can understand this ID belongs to the person who works with the entity, Acharya Prashant. Now, tell me what's the difference between the drafts - the rejection by Praxidicae and your submission-cum-acceptance? And, please note, whatever edits or comments are executed (by you) between rejection and acceptance are just "cosmetics". Passes WP:CREATIVE. Had added a proper criticism section to make it neutral. Those are nuanced changes which might look cosmetic to you


    Falguni Nayar; your favorite example. What is the statement you just gave in the above para? - "Right after, getting inspired, I nominated another page Falguni Nayar that I accepted." Are you sure, you nominated it? I guess, if I'm not wrong... the page was nominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falguni Nayar) by Timtrent and you just added your vote because you were under extreme scrutiny (at that moment). Right; didn't nominate but started a conversation at DGG's talk page [65]. Tim nominated before I could


    Debashis Chatterjee; Criteria 6, of WP:NACADEMIC - we need to revisit this clause for South Asian universities - because most of the top appointments are political in nature. This guy has zero academic citations, he is the Director of a so-called premier institute of India... and his page was attempted 7-8 times in the last 1 year - I'm not at all surprised! The last person who accepted the draft before you were Krishnavilasom_Bhageerathan_Pilla; the fellow himself got blocked for sockpuppet of Sulshanamoodhi. And, the Sulshanamoodhi is the same guy who had another account called Kashmorwiki a.k.a. Kichu with whom you shared a great rapport (which you yourself has confessed at RattanIndia's talk page - alas, it is deleted)! Nothing to add. You have a problem with the policy itself here. So-called Premier. Haha! IIMs are so called premier? LOL.
    And here is the list of other academics who have been passed by you, based on the publications which have them as a first or second author or they themselves are the primary source - Ghattas Khoury, Franklin Serrano, Dora Apel, James B. Grace (ecologist), the list is huge. I surrender. All passes WP:NACADEMIC. And with that, primary sources work fine. Evaluation criteria is not on primary/secondary sources here. Please educate yourself - if they have highly cited academic work, that's all they need.


    Besides all these, we do have Draft:Anusha Rai, Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair, Karan Tanna AfD, and RattanIndia AfD Are you mentioning Renjit for the third time while fully knowing it was a mistake and I myself asked to revert it? You must be kidding
    See, I had no plan to drag you at ANI. It was you who came here first and brought me in. In fact, at PharmEasy draft, I didn't even mention your name. It was plain vanilla NPP work. I like to have a WP:GOODFAITH; but by looking at your AfC history; all I can say... either you are acting dumb or you are one of those highly compromised AfC reviewers who are trying to sneak under the radar and do unethical editing. I don't know what would be the outcome of this ANI, what I would be asked to do, or whether I'll eventually get blocked. I'm open to all kinds of judgment and I assure you... I'll not protest, I'll not play victimization card, and I'll not create a scene. But, in the end, I'm very much thankful to you for providing me with an opportunity to dig more about your editing history. -Hatchens (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What you have done here is precisely I have a problem with. Please note that they called me dumb while in reality, they don't have the right understanding of different subject notability guidelines. What I am now curious to know is:

    1. Why did you accept Nikhil Kamath? A page that was immediately redirected to Zerodha? The draft you accepted [66] was miles away from NPOV. At least I try to make things neutral. You made zero attempts. This page wss not just accepted by you but also NPPd which was unreviewed [67] by an admin. So in short, you used both AFC and NPP on this page? Wow.
    2. Still waiting for you to respond on why you think Vin Gupta is notable. Because if I wouldn't have commented, you would have accepted it already.
    3. There are two more drafts in your own history that you would refer to as 'controversial' while I would say I feel differently about them.

    Not sure if Aafi is regular at ANI or if they came because you are involved (though I appreciate their balance point of view here).

    To others: do you folks see what they are doing? Is this constructive? I came here to simply have an outcome that they stay away from me and all they have done is more mud-slinging. I prefer them to be please temporarily blocked till other uninvolved admins weigh in. But of course, up to others. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, could you please ask him to be "polite" and "to the point". These are just a series of discussion on our volunteering works at Wikipedia. There is no reason to get carried away and be insulting to others. -Hatchens (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are the one who called me dumb? Where do you think I was insulting? The IIM thing? Trust me, if you'd say IIMs are so called premiere institute, anyone will think it's a joke. And what I did was not a tactic to mellow down. It was to address your points right where they were raised. Bolded them so that they are distinct and it becomes clear that they are responses. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nomadicghumakkad Bolded or not, do not interleave your responses inside someone else's comment. It's confusing and makes it much harder to read. Just put your own reply in its own indented paragraphs. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm signing off from this thread. Thanks to all of you. To closing admins, if I have to follow any particular way forward or so - please do order or advise. I will be happy to oblige in both ways. Thank you once again. cheers! -Hatchens (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TheDreamBoat and Rondolinda are WP:NOTHERE

    The following accounts are WP:NOTHERE and should be indef blocked:

    TheDreamBoat outed themselves as a meatpuppet. The master is almost certainly a blocked/tbanned user, which indicates that TheDreamBoat is likely to continue same disruption that got the master blocked/tbanned. Few months ago, TheDreamBoat was found copying and pasting votes across >100 AfDs (ANI discussion). They also have WP:CIR issues: [68][69] (and more). They don't listen to feedback: Arjayay asked them to "respect national varieties of English", and months later I found them doing the same thing again. Whoever was controlling them was asking them to make false accusations (here TheDreamBoat makes "very serious accusations" against me, and here I show how each of them are false). I'm afraid that TheDreamBoat's tban will not prevent them from continuing WP:HARASSMENT in other areas, so an indef is needed.

    SPI into TheDreamBoat found Rondolinda was not the former's sock but 2 admins said the two accounts "likely coordinated". This was based on the fact that both accounts copied and pasted >100 votes to AfDs, both started doing this in February 2021, and in some cases, both copied and pasted the exact same line (eg "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines" used by Rondolinda and used by TheDreamBoat). Both users have an interest in People's Mujahedin of Iran (Rondolinda edited Maryam Rajavi within an hour of joining wikipedia[70]). Rondlinda sometimes writes in poor English (example) and sometimes jumps out of the blue in WP:RSN debate about Iranian politics, writing in perfect English. It is likely that Rondolinda and TheDreamBoat are influenced by the same person. Rondolinda also has WP:CIR issues. After several warnings, Rondolinda was indef blocked. They were unblocked, but problems continued. Rondolinda hasn't edited in a few months but I'm uncomfortable with a blocked/tbanned master being able to revive this account when they see fit. (Between 2017-2021 TheDreamBoat went dormant only to "wake up" and vote on RfCs then go back to sleep[71])

    I see people at ANI get indeffed for less. I will notify both but neither can comment here due to partial blocks.VR talk 10:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Fmemedov868

    INDEF
    Parblock didn't work, infef applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Added a self-made unsourced flag to the Shahsevan article.[72]-[73] No edit summary, source or explanation.
    2. Added a self-made unsourced flag to the Qashqai people article.[74] No edit summary, source or explanation. Tried to reinstate the same edit on 4 occassions.[75]-[76]-[77]-[78]
    3. Doesn't respond to the numerous warnings that were issued.[79]-[80]-[81]-[82]

    Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Move warring and tendentious editing by Desertambition

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

    Move warring diffs
    Article First move diff Second move diff
    King William's Town 22:03, 9 September 2021 21:29, 26 November 2021
    Maclear, Eastern Cape 22:05, 9 September 2021 21:35, 26 November 2021
    Mbhongo 12:43, 28 October 2021 01:05, 4 January 2022
    eMkhondo 14:54, 30 October 2021 01:50, 4 January 2022
    eNtokozweni 15:04, 30 October 2021 01:31, 4 January 2022
    Emgwenya 15:11, 30 October 2021 01:41, 4 January 2022
    Cala, Eastern Cape 21:08, 26 November 2021 04:35, 27 November 2021
    Khubusi River 10:33, 1 January 2022 15:34, 1 January 2022
    Tendentious editing via moves diffs
    Article Move diff
    Maletswai 00:34, 4 January 2022
    James Calata, Eastern Cape 00:40, 4 January 2022
    Dikeni 00:55, 4 January 2022
    Mmaduma 01:03, 4 January 2022
    Mhlambanyatsi, Mpumalanga 01:07, 4 January 2022
    Jeppes Reef 01:09, 4 January 2022
    Ncora 22:49, 3 January 2022
    Komga 22:55, 3 January 2022
    Mount Ayliff 23:05, 3 January 2022
    Harrismith 23:14, 3 January 2022
    Zonnebloem 23:25, 3 January 2022
    Austrey, North West 23:39, 3 January 2022
    Goodwood, North West 23:42, 3 January 2022
    Bholothwa 22:51, 3 January 2022
    Hartbeesfontein 23:35, 3 January 2022
    Goedgevonden B 00:16, 4 January 2022
    Buffelshoek 00:22, 4 January 2022

    Added the bottom eleven, as I initially missed them. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an ongoing issue with Desertambition engaging in disruptive editing through move warring and tendentious editing in the area of South African place names, with the initial table being where they moved articles multiple times against WP:RMUM, and the second being where they moved articles that they should reasonably understand to be controversial, both from broader discussions involving them about place names in South Africa and from a review of usage, which appears to show that the old name continues to be the WP:COMMONNAME.

    I also note that their chosen disambiguation for some of the bold moves is itself tendentious; they have disagreed with the consensus at WP:PLACEDAB, and appear to have decided to ignore it.

    Attempts have been made to discuss this with them at multiple locations where it was generally recommended that they open RM's on these topics, including in discussions initiated by them, but these have made little or no progress:

    1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force#Renaming Towns and Cities on Wikipedia
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive339#Bias Present in Articles Regarding Renamed Places in South Africa - Accusations of bias
    3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#South Africa Wikipedia's Decade Long Edit War Needs to End
    4. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 December#South African cities
    5. User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Closing Move Review Without Consensus
    6. User_talk:Desertambition#Change_South_African_city_names - Requested to go one city at a time for name changes
    7. User talk:BilledMammal#Revert only when necessary - Rejected request to self-revert repeated move
    8. User_talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 21#Reverting Kala to Cala - instructed that if their move is reverted it should be discussed rather than moved again
    9. User talk:BilledMammal#Khubusi River Unilateral Move - Ignored request to self-revert repeated move
    10. User talk:Desertambition#Move warring - Rejected request to self-revert repeated moves

    I also note that this user sometimes has issues assuming good faith on behalf of the editors who disagree with them, believing that such editors are biased, and sometimes ascribing problematic motives.

    Finally, I will note that I am uncertain whether this or WP:AN3 is the most suitable place, but reviewing the archives suggests that move warring tends to be brought here rather than there, so I have followed that practice; apologies if this is incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would like to contest these claims. It is unreasonable to suggest that every single renamed place in South Africa be debated. I provided sources in many of the edits I made. Unless evidence is overwhelmingly opposite of what I am claiming, it seems unreasonable to constantly oppose every single change that I make. It has been proven time and again that these names have been adopted by the population at large, the media, reliable English sources, etc. I am not going to dig through everything to prove this. All you have to do is look at the sources I have provided and the numerous arguments we have already had. I have brought this issue to the Administrator's Noticeboard before as well. I understand the need for move requests but in this instance, it's hard to argue they make any sense at all. Renaming is an overwhelmingly popular move, the media almost always uses the new names, and it has been reported on extensively that Afrikaner groups remain deeply opposed to the changes.
    By refusing to acknowledge this fact, we as editors are choosing to show the world that these name changes aren't legitimate or aren't the WP:COMMONNAME. We are portraying WP:FRINGE views as mainstream. We are leading the charge in saying what these names are and what they aren't. While there are occasional mistakes and news agencies frequently put the former name in quotations, there is no indication that people are rejecting these names in any capacity.[86] [87] I do WP:AGF but we need to be realistic about the motivations to keep the apartheid-era names. This is not to say that everyone who has opposed these changes, like BilledMammal, is racist or bigoted. I think some editors can just be incredibly stubborn. But it goes against common sense to not accept that the name on the street signs, on the newspapers, in the media, and spoken by the people is the WP:COMMONNAME. When news agencies constantlyreport thatthis is a fringe beliefheld almost exclusively among Afrikaners and the connection between South Africa and white supremacy today it is impossible not to question why this is the route editors have chosen. It is a waste of everyone's time to constantly debate this when the reality is these names are here to stay. This makes Wikipedia less accurate, and therefore worse.
    The reason I have stuck by this is because I know it's right. There is no reason for me to stop doing what I am doing. If you check my edits you will see that I have done a ton to flesh out these articles and sources on South African populated places. WP:IGNORE absolutely applies here. By not doing this, I am prevented from improving and maintaining wikipedia. I have read every argument against having the new names be the default names and there has not been a single legitimate reason to not acknowledge the reality of where these names stand. If this is looked at objectively, it is abundantly clear that these names should stay. It is not reasonable to contest every single change. Desertambition (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noticed that BilledMammal continued to move pages after making a post about move warring. It's rather frustrating. Desertambition (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nvm, it was just Jeppe's Reef but it was just before they posted this. So technically not after they posted this. Desertambition (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would note that I agree with Desertambition that my reversion of their move from Jeppes Reef was not ideal; on reflection I decided that such continued actions was not beneficial, and rather than reverting the other bold moves I expanded my comment on their talk page instead. While we are discussing my behaviour, I would also note that I reverted the moves from King William's Town and Maclear, Eastern Cape twice; on reflection, I should have taken the steps I took one day later following the second Cala, Eastern Cape move then, rather than waiting for the problem to expand. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking over Lists of renamed places briefly, South Africa is the only country where this is even an issue to be debated. Why is that? To editor BilledMammal: Desertambition (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Because these debates aren't limited to South Africa; they actually happen rather frequently. However, I believe this is off-topic so I will leave my response at that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Desertambition is trying to get away with a lot here, and it continues to be disruptive. First, I am amazed by the blatant assumption of bad faith that they continue to expound - in the above as well as in, e.g., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Africa#South_Africa_Wikipedia's_Decade_Long_Edit_War_Needs_to_End (which is 3/4 political diatribe and motive projection). Why would they think it is acceptable to posit that their opponents must be ideologically motivated and are composed of hardcore Afrikaners, Raj fossils, and white supremacists? Because of that little rider "of course that's not everyone"? How about stopping the projection entirely before WP:NPA enforcement manages to catch up? - Second, it should be entirely clear to them by now that these moves are not uncontroversial. Claiming again and again that everyone who argues against a given change is "fringe" rather clashes with the outcome of discussions like Talk:Port_Elizabeth#Requested_move_30_September_2021. Looking at that and deciding "meh, all of these people are clearly wrong and I am clearly right", and then just plowing on ahead, is at best unrealistic. Practically, there is obviously a difference in whether you are trying to rename a stub on a two-braai dorpie or a large article on a provincial capital - but it has been established on multiple instances that there is need for case-by-case discussion here, so they ought to stop pretending otherwise. This: The reason I have stuck by this is because I know it's right. There is no reason for me to stop doing what I am doing. (and following) is worrisome, and not compatible with how disagreements are resolved here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite that long paragraph, you still did not substantially address anything I claimed. I am not accusing every user of being biased. Just because I mention a topic that is also important doesn't mean that I am ignoring literally everything else. Please explain exactly why it's wrong to use the new place names and why it has absolutely no relation to the ongoing effort to resist these name changes among a fringe group of South African society. You're making vague threats like you want me banned, there is no need for that. There is a need for non-South African editors to look at these pages and enforce WP:NONAZIS. People who long for apartheid absolutely fit into this category. Just because these users conform to the letter of the policies does not mean we should entertain their fringe conspiracy theories and present them as fact on Wikipedia. You seriously believe we need to have discussions on all 500+ of South Africa's name changes? Do we need to debate if Kaffirskraal and Kaffirskraalkopie are still the WP:COMMONNAME? Of course we don't because common sense tells us no one in their right mind wants to use these city names. South African Wikipedia, from what I can tell, is dominated by South Africa's right wing. I have yet to meet an open African National Congress supporter despite making up the vast majority of South Africa's population. That wouldn't be a problem if many articles didn't read like Democratic Alliance propaganda. It is literally part of the Democratic Alliance's platform to reject these name changes in many instances. Wikipedia is doing this work for them rather than accepting the reality. I have absolutely no connection to South Africa, but I know that name changes should not be handled the way they have been on South African Wikipedia. What some may see as a usual consensus is largely the same group of users trying to stop this from happening. If you look at the history, there are some users who always show up to these discussions to contest the name changes. It's no surprise that every single page move is contested every time because some people disagree with the name changes in principle. We need Wikipedia editors/admins with no connection to South Africa to look over this whole thing. To editor Elmidae: Desertambition (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:RMUM, "if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again". Clearly the user has ignored standard procedure despite being notified of such procedures. The standard response to a reverted non-discussed move is to open a move request, not move the article again. --Spekkios (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of discussions above is far too longer for a patrolling admin to get through, and I'm not going to try. I have skimmed enough of them to leave the following advice. Desertambition, your conduct leaves something to be decided. I do not care how righteous your cause is; WP:CONSENSUS is policy for a reason, and if someone challenges a move you make, you are obligated to discuss it and reach a consensus. WP:COMMONNAME is also policy, and WP:RMUM is a procedural document that isn't optional either. If you do not like a particular convention, such as the one you refer to about disambiguations for South African place names, then you can work to change it or live with it; ignoring it is not an option. And while I have not seen sanctionable violations of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, you've been coming dangerously close. If nobody else comments usefully, I will close this discussion with a warning along the lines I have just described. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is worth noting that WP:COMMONNAME is not a matter of morality. For example, we use the common name for Washington D.C., this does not imply that we endorse George Washington's ownership of slaves or his participating in an armed rebellion. The same applies to places in South Africa.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This response demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Washington DC is not looked at in the same way Kaffirskraal is. Washington DC is completely different. You are ignoring the fact that these city names are on street signs, used by the media, and welcomed by the vast majority of South African society. All evidence points to using the new names. I do not think the Washington DC comparison is appropriate at all. To editor Necrothesp: Desertambition (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I accept the argument about disambiguation. I will continue to bring up my opposition on the relevant pages. For this issue, I think it really requires a thorough review. I have been debating this issue for months but this argument has gone on for years. It should be default one or the other. There is no reason to delay these name changes another decade. Wikipedia is being used to doubt the legitimacy of these name changes rather than maintain WP:COMMONNAME. Arguing over towns of 1,000 black Africans who aren't even present on Wikipedia is pointless when it's clear there is a national push for decolonization. I should not be accused of acting in bad faith when I am trying to discuss systemic WP:BIAS. Seems to be the policy that gets the most ignored and seems to be the most applicable in this instance. Choosing to do this makes Wikipedia so much worse. If an English speaking black South African opens a Wikipedia page for their town, in many instances the names on the Wikipedia page will not match the names on the signs, in the media, and spoken in regular communication. That, in my mind, goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. To editor Vanamonde93: Desertambition (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Desertambition, I'm not going to engage on the substance of the issue, because it's not relevant. Your argument here is an argument to be presented in a move discussion; not logic that can be used to ignore consensus and due process. You could even attempt a large-scale move discussion, if you'd like, but you really need to internalize the fact that you are beholden to community consensus even if you don't like it, because if you continue to ignore process, you will end up blocked, with no chance whatsoever of dealing with your content concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Vanamonde My whole argument is that the move discussions are going nowhere with no consensus. I am saying we need an admin to look at the facts of the argument. Some users will be opposed to these changes no matter what. I have been raising these concerns in move discussions for months. Is it seriously realistic to have the exact same argument 500+ (literally) times because a fringe group of people do not accept these names? It is the same group of users raising the same objections every single time. No other country has this many problems with renaming on Wikipedia. Why can you not address the substance? Where do I bring allegations of systemic WP:BIAS if not here? If you refuse to look into it and the "consensus" keeps being contrary to academic sources, official government names, and reliable media where do I bring my concerns? Surely you can see a scenario in which a core group of users create a consensus to keep an article around far longer than it should. Many of these users, but not all, consistently oppose these name changes and they have for years. Desertambition (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not getting into the content, because I have no authority to make content decisions. None whatsoever. If individual editors in the discussions you participate in are behaving inappropriately, then ANI is the right place to go; if there's no misconduct, and I see no evidence of it, you have no recourse. You have to live with it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war and personal attacks from an IP editor in Lift-to-drag ratio

    I was engaged in a lame edit war with an IP editor in Lift-to-drag ratio over illustrations. At my request, User:MelanieN kindly restricted temporary the article to autoconfirmed users. This allowed to open a discussion with other editors, allowing to progress towards a new consensus. But as soon as the block was re-opened, the IP editor went back to edit warring without acknowledging the consensus in progress. Besides, he/she is constantly attacking me personally in Talk:Lift-to-drag ratio. I did not confront the IP editor, just linked to the relevant policy, but it's getting tiresome and doing nothing about it sends he/she a message of impunity. Can something can be done about it? Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified the IP editor about this discussion? If not, please do so at their talk page, as it is a must to notify them as according to the notice at the top of the page. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if he/she has a fixed IP, i don't know if this would work. anyway, i asked to stop multiple times on the article talk page.Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Drive-by notified using the IP address on the article talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for your reply, but i'm not sure you are stating the IP was warned or if the IP needs to be warned?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    <Insert> Marc Lacoste, all editors mentioned on AN/I need to be specifically informed that a discussion is taking place. This is commonly done using the {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ as shown at the top of the article page. You didn't do that when starting this discussion, so as courtesy I did this for you here. I have no real input or interest in the article itself, hence it was a drive-by incident and (apart from this comment now!) I doubt I'll have any further contributions. The notification is just that - a notice to tell an editor that a discussion is happening. It has nothing to do with any outcome - such as whether an editor is warned or not over behaviour. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Preparing answer. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify since I was pinged: in response to Marc's request at RFPP, I did NOT "restrict the article to autoconfirmed users", i.e., semi-protect. I recognized the situation as a legitimate content dispute, and semi-protection would have skewed the discussion against the IP user. Instead I full-protected the article for two days. (It's also true that the IP had a very combative and insulting attitude, which I and another editor warned them against and which may have subsided somewhat recently.) (update January 5: apparently not. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)) While the page was locked there was fruitful discussion at the talk page, in which several additional editors joined. I don't know enough about the subject to follow the discussion, but it appears to be about whether or not to include a particular illustration, which has been in the article for a long time but the IP objected to and Marc wants to keep. It looks to me as if the two new users agree with the IP, but Marc continues to want to include the illustration. Editing has now resumed at the article page; I will keep an eye on it as best I can, to see that civility and consensus are maintained. If another admin knows enough about aerodynamics to monitor the article, I would appreciate it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your follow-up. I'm no expert in protection levels! I did not even tried to change the article during those two days, as I was seeking consensus with other editors. I don't want to continue keeping the illustration at any cost, the debate was interesting. I think a part of it could be illustrative, but not obviously as the main picture, and it could be kept if there is some consensus.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    In the communications with Marc Lacoste and related i used and am using a strong, clear language. I do this because of a stronger, MUCH more important reason: To improve Wikipedia, giving respect to its readers and as much of its editors as possible.

    Thank you very much, MelanieN: i am already preparing a very long text, because i want Marc Lacoste to be blocked, minimum a short time, but probably permanently, because i am questioning if he could be a positive part of this community of editors. I am giving some of the text i already have, with an extension to the actual responses.

    After i read the talk of Steelpillow [88]at 08:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC) and the answer [89] from Marc Lacoste, i decided to leave this article and Wikipedia for minimum some time, because the clearly wrong part which Marc edit-warred for, was gone and the rest is an angry, bad discussion which i do not want. I asked myself, if i should for example thank MelanieN [[90]] for her help and understanding, getting me attention at the aviation boards, but decided to leave quietly as nearly all other editors before me.

    Now i visited Wikipedia as a reader for a total different topic and saw a notice about a message to this. Will this terror never end???

    Surely i can change my IP or never come back or both. But this mainly wrong accusation reminds me that there is one thing to do.

    Although i am not perfect, this is mainly a case about Marc Lacoste, his lack of knowledge, his 12 reverts and his aggressive, disrespectful behavior, which damaged Wikipedia with a clearly wrong text, forcing me and other editors and admins in a many hours Giga-discussion and this, a time which could be used much better in doing good edits in Wikipedia. Even more, its frustrating me, other editors and much more people then one may think: [[91]].

    Edit war, aggressive behavior and personal attacks from Marc Lacoste in Lift-to-drag ratio, talk, rfpp and noticeboard

    This is an IP against an editor with 18 years of experience. Do you think, registered editors have the right to revert any edits of IPs, to tell them to use the sandbox, to tell them to behave which means to never edit again?


    This case is about science. Wikipedia is a community of editors coming together to build an encyclopedia. Based on science. Recognizing the one and only reality is the holy grail of science. Those who believe there is no one and only reality, for example that probably 1+1=1.5 can give me the remaining 50 cents for each 2 dollars on their bank account.

    It’s a pity it normally does not work this way. One has to work hard to achieve even a good result, sometimes very good, but perfect? There are these few moments, when a scientist recognizes reality and takes the responsibility, lifts the holy grail and shines. Giving the gift of reality, of science. Again, if you think there is never a clear reality, i am waiting for the money.


    My English is not perfect, because I am german. Its good enough reading and writing many articles and papers as a scientist at the Fraunhofer Society (FhG) when I take care. Probably I am the only scientist at the FhG writing at Wikipedia (and less and less), because all professors and fellow scientists i spoke to don’t like to be aggressively reverted. For me, them and many other editors: Senseless reverts are aggression! I do think scientific nonsense in Wikipedia-articles is even worse than typical vandalizing: replacing an article with F… : everybody knows how to deal with that. But errors are sometimes harder to see, and Wikipedia is normally trusted: It makes more damage to the reader.

    Which leads me Marc Lacoste and his aggression. Imho he is lying, manipulating, and has some reality distortion. See below:


    My answer shortened:

    IP's detailed description of the content dispute between these two editors; I'm hatting it because ANI is not for settling content disputes, and to keep this discussion readable. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Timeline

    I know Marc Lacoste from Airbus A320neo family, where I (92.116.x.x) was the main editor of a new section, and he reverted me many times. His main reason:

    An article is build of sentences, each sentence summarizes a reference, and everything ordered by time.

    He really STRICTLY done it that way!!!! See the very long discussion (and the corresponding article reverts): Talk:Airbus_A320neo_family#Future-wing_project_and_A322 Every sentence summarizes a ref in the same manner, the strict order by time leading to totally unrelated sentences, making the text ugly and nearly unreadable + hard to understand. Marc reverted and reverted and reverted, until I gave up.


    At L/D ratio:

    • It started with [92] : Nice picture, but has nothing to do with L/D ratio. Its angle of attack. I am moving the pic + searching for a better pic.

    I moved the pic to another article because i am experienced and already thought that there will be an edit-war. Its so wrong, somebody must have seen it before. I done some other edits, because the whole intro is bad.

    Marc reverted the pic with: “restore wright pic, perfectly illustrating the L/D ratio through the tether angle, not the AoA specifically” [93]
    As other editors say: this pic has to be deleted from L/D ratio totally. SO WRONG, MARC, SO WRONG.

    I reverted with: Clearly wrong, Marc: merry Christmas, but read your pilot-exams: angle-of-attack is NOT L/D ratio

    Marc reverted: The theter angle is not the AoA. A schematic seems useful.
    Imho vague nonsense. Nothing to do with his revert. THIS IS VANDALIZING!

    I reverted: ”you are no scientist, even for a pilot not educated, embarassing. The angle of the tether is NOT L/D ratio. Ever thought of different airspeeds? Use talk!”

    Marc reverted: wp:brd.
    Ignoring my tip to look at different airspeeds.

    I reverted:” rv: again: your WRONG pic shows airspeed and angle”

    Marc reverted: “go in talk per wp:brd, again”
    Probably I had used talk, but it was so simple, how could he not see it, how could he not respond to my question:

    I reverted: rv: again, talk: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in the intro

    THE PIC IS SO WRONG, SO WRONG, SO CLEARLY WRONG!!!
    Marc reverted: -
    Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason

    I reverted: rv: again, talk: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in the intro

    How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing.
    Marc reverted: -
    Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason

    I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro

    How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing.
    Marc reverted: -
    Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason

    I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro

    How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing.
    Marc reverted: -
    Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason

    I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro

    How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing.
    Marc reverted: -
    Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason

    I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro

    How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing.
    Marc reverted: -
    Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason

    Other edits

    Let us see the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1063218317#Lift-to-drag_ratio rfpp]:

    Marc: “.. lame edit war..” : I found it hot. I do not like edit wars.
    Marc: “He/she does not understand WP:BRD…”
    OK, I used partly clear, strong language: But he never understood science. Vandalizing. NOT A SCIENTIST! Clearly. That’s it.
    Marc:”… and won't go in talk.”
    True, but I used ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, DETAILED COMMENTS! WHICH HE IGNORED SO MANY TIMES! Ignorance can and here is a form of aggression.
    Marc: “… restrict editing to autoconfirmed users?”
    Of course he wanted to block me. To win.

    MelanieN (thank you for that) made it totally clear that she fully protected the page and wanted Marc to open a discussion. Which he did not.


    I opened a discussion, with the first two points giving clear, strong, scientific valuation of his edits. In two other points I claimed his behavior to refuse to give any reasons and: Therefore you do not understand WP:BRD and are lying and insulting: i gave detailed comments. Which he ignored so many times. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted.

    Ariadacapo tried to help, but instead reading the whole case, he only read the few sentences and decided to quick and dirty shoot at me and lecturing me.

    I reminded him: “…please focus on the content of the article! And i do not like the prejudicing, that an IP-editor has to prove his "believes", …” And gave details.

    Marc answered, finally, claiming the pic is perfect, but making clear (for me and others) that his scientific error was that he ignored the weight of the kite/plane. Which can have a gigantic influence at low airspeeds: it will not fly at all! And, hey, no insulting or lecturing!

    I focused politely on the pic, showing him that the same kite can bring the shown results, so no dramatic improvement. And gave an additional ref.

    FINALLY: Ariadacapo, the first editor taking a look at the pic and recognizing reality. Thank you! But not without lecturing me, urging me to… and accusing me that I drove through an edit-war.

    I responded.

    Steelpillow agreed that the first pic is wrong. Thanks.

    Differences were with the second pic, which I do not prefer in the intro, Steelpillow liked, Ariadacapo was not fully clear. Marc Lacoste was imho disgraced as a scientist in this case.


    So I made 2 pics in the intro, giving the schematic too.

    Marc reverted, imho no clear consensus.

    I reverted: The last try, because there was no input from others.

    Final reverts and edits from others. I gave the last comment: later.

    I decided to leave Wikipedia for minimum some time, this is much too ugly.


    But Marc did this here. I decided i have a last thing to do: Give Marc Lacoste minimum a short block, to give him a wakeup. Why?

    First: see this: I do not believe an editor with over 18 years experience, that he did not recognize so many things. I do think there are lies, falsehood:

    • User:MelanieN kindly restricted temporary the article to autoconfirmed users
    WRONG.
    • This allowed to open a discussion with other editors,…
    WRONG. This could be done much earlier, even in a respectful comment.
    • allowing to progress towards a new consensus
    WRONG. New consensus: He was nearly 100% rejected! The second pic was not the discussion in the first place.
    • … the IP editor went back to edit warring without acknowledging the consensus in progress.
    WRONG: I added both pics, also I did not like the second. The consensus was and is not clear.
    • I did not confront the IP editor, just linked to the relevant policy, but it's getting tiresome and doing nothing about it sends he/she a message of impunity.
    WRONG: He always did confront me. See Steelpillow:
    ” Both of you are as bad as each other; you (Marc Lacoste) behave abysmally while exhorting your opponent to behave properly. If you don't stop warring I'll take the pair of you to WP:ANEW. My advice to you both is to take five,…”
    Marc Lacoste is somehow a genius of insultation, slander and manipulation. You have to read carefully, even what he does not do, to understand, how he does it.
    • And again: for me, the edit-war was hot and angry. I did not enjoyed it at all.

    There are so many other reasons, see above.

    Which leads me to my final edit, and I am here holding up my flag for so many editors, not only IPs, for respect and science or understanding or at least, understanding the own, personal limits, which is main accusation against Marc Lacoste:


    @Marc: Stop the edit-war. Your incompetence is proven above. You fail to see that: starting a new edit-war is a continued aggression. Are you feeling no shame or even responsibility to Wikipedia and your fellow (also IP-) editors? I would be glad if i had no reason to say that, but your lack of knowledge seems to have the cause in your lack of understanding, insight and judiciousness.


    This is a hard, strong valuation, but I had and have given many reasons for it.

    Summary

    update 95.91.246.145 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    To sum it up: Marc should be blocked, because:

    1. He does not know his own limits in editing and writing, but:
    2. Reverts other editors , often with worse result, which:
    3. Disrupts Wikipedia and its editors, and:
    4. His comments or ignorance is insulting to other editors. But mainly:
    5. Because he is unable to learn.

    Although i invested so much time to improve Wikipedia, i probably wasted so much of it. So thank you and goodbye. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified @Marc Lacoste: about this discussion. Jolly1253 (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Merged discussion

    I have just merged what were two separate discussions here, started by each of Marc and the IP.

    As one of the editors who came in to try and sort things out, I think this whole thread here is premature. The warring between Marc and the IP started again briefly when the block expired but has calmed down now and we are making progress towards a majority consensus. I'd suggest closing this discussion; if things take a turn for the worse we can always fire up another one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [updated 11:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)][reply]

    Thank you, Steelpillow, for your merge and your suggestion. I agree that this discussion should be promptly closed without action, and I am tempted to hat the IP's extremely long rehashing of the entire content dispute. This page (ANI) is not for sorting out content disputes. And the IP's forceful attacks on Marc Lecoste and call for sanctions against him are uncalled for and could lead to WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against the IP. IMO the content dispute has been or is in the process of being resolved; the IP says they are leaving the discussion; and this whole thing should be put to rest. Quickly. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: My "quickly put this to rest" comment was based on the belief that the IP was leaving, and was made before the IP posted their long tirade against Marc Lacoste. IMO that continues or re-opens the discussion here, and leaves open the possibility of sanctions against the IP. I make no recommendation on that subject myself, as I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MelanieN: Not sure if that is correct? The IP posted at 08:14 today (my time), while you posted at 15:51. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I contemplated hatting but felt it was not for me, a non-admin, to decide. No objection though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking it over I hatted part of the IP's response, namely, the long blow-by-blow description of the edit war. This page is not for content disputes. I left enough of the IP's post to make their point clear. I will leave it to uninvolved people to decide what, if anything, to do about this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the discussion over the content dispute is coming to an end, but my initial complaint was over WP:personal attacks from this IP: he/she accused me of being a vandal, unscientific, uneducated, embarrassing, ignorant, agressive, incompetent and shameless. He/she said of me my lack of knowledge seems to have the cause in your lack of understanding, insight and judiciousness.; that he is lying, manipulating, and has some reality distortion, and I'm a genius of insultation, slander and manipulation. And this is from the above, not even in other talk pages or edit summaries. I'm not a crybaby, but this has no place in a collaborative work.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Marc Lacoste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in a prolonged edit war from 24 Dec to 1 Jan, when the article was protected. He did not respond on the talk page until the IP started a discussion on 2 January. When the protection was lifted on 4 Jan, he re-engaged in the editwar (see first link). Even after he brought the matter here on 4 Jan, he did not inform involved editors (excusable for a noob, but for an editor of his long experience?) and immediately went back for yet another revert. Others eventually notified the IP of this discussion, who in turn sensibly notified the relevant article discussion. It is worth noting that in the current content discussion, one point of contention has gone in favour of Marc but two have gone in favour of the IP; this was not just hopeless errors Marc was reverting. There is no excuse for the warring and personal attacks indulged in by the IP but, frankly, if it had been me then my cool would have been severely taxed too. It seems invidious to suggest that since Marc made no overt personal attacks himself, he was therefore entirely blameless. So if he is to pursue this ANI discussion against the suggestion it be amicably closed, on his own head be it.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the follow-up. The lame edit war was occurring from 24 dec to 1 jan, not during the article protection (2-3 jan). I was applying wp:brd, asking the IP to go in talk. As the IP said above Marc reverted: “go in talk per wp:brd, again” ; Probably I [should have] had used talk, but he/she did not went to talk. Like many people during the week between the 24 dec and the 1 Jan, I did not have much time to reply in talk. I replied in talk the 2 jan at 12:37, seven hours after the IP. The IP went to talk obviously because of the block.
    After coming here, I did not inform the IP because I did not know an IP could be notified, as indicated above. I may be an experienced editor in aviation, but it's the first time I come here.
    I wasn't here to "win" a discussion, but to engage it and to reach a consensus, which I'm glad we reached with two other experienced editors.
    I agree I'm not better than the IP for the edit war, but the personal attacks are still here with no apology. Do you really want to participate in a collaborative work where this kind of behaviour is not discouraged?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2022 (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 [94], which I reverted [95] 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]

    DiegoMitchell821

    This user has a history of unexplained content removal and has warned in the past about this. Of the editor's 53 edits, 27 have been removing content and in all but 1 of those content removals, no explanation was provided for the content removal. Not sure if anything can be done about this, but I know there's policies requiring edit summaries for reverts (namely WP:REVEXP).--Rockchalk717 05:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That is an essay rather than a policy. I don't think we actually require edit summaries. Content removal can, however, itself be disruptive if it is not improving the article. AlexEng(TALK) 05:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rockchalk717, if you don't at least link the user's name, and provide a number of diffs to prove the edits are problematic, you are unlikely to get much response to your ANI report. Don't force readers of your report to do your work for you. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit summaries on Wikipedia are strongly encouraged. They are mandatory nowhere. (Besides, it's rather disingenuous to rail about DiegoMitchell being "warned in the past" about this when the only editor to do so in the last eight months is, well, you.) Ravenswing 08:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Cole (actor)

    Can a administrator please page protect this? An IP keeps changing the birthdate which is referenced to Cole's autobiography, plus the IP adds[96] highly contentious material to this BLP which is sourced to a blogspot blog which of course is unacceptable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected the article for 72 hours. WP:RFPP is the best place for such requests. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Thank you for the pp. RFPP can be slow and this is a BLP and a very persistent IP adding the contentious material. IMO I think 72 hours is not long enough in light of this page's history. Thanks again and Happy New Year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WilliamJE, if the disruption resumes, reach out to me and I will semi-protect for a longer time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of Pew religion estimate

    BubbaJoe123456 Have removed pew Research center estimates of religious compositions of Eritrea of 2020 several times Religion in Eritrea for the pie charts. Source and link are properly cited. User keeps insisting to replace it without reaching a consensus for replacing or removing it. User makes own interpretation of how the source should be used. See: [97], [98], [99], [100].Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Having reviewd the talk page discussion there, the reason to remove it is rather strong - while Pew Research is usually a good source in the absence of other data, there's at least two other equally good RSes that present results that differ from Pew's. As such, it is not wise to simply take Pew's data as the sole data point but instead present the data from all 3 with attribution. No issue here. --Masem (t) 18:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absence of data, the US source is not on the same level as pew, it only cite a figure while Pew consist of a breakdown of all religious groups in the country but also has a estimate of the year 2020, besides the US source cites it as well. The issue here is that the user is trying to replace the source by referring pew source to another source at the same time removing the original source. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is that the user is trying to replace the source by referring pew source to another source at the same time removing the original source. I added the 2002 survey to the article, so to say that I'm somehow trying to remove a source I introduced is nonsensical.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the background on this, please see this discussion on the Religion in Eritrea talk page, which started with my concern that, while the text of the article shows that there are varying estimates of the religious makeup of Eritrea, the article led with a very large pie chart which only showed one of those estimates (the one which Leechjoel9 has been stridently supporting). When he eventually agreed that other estimates could be included in the chart, he then started insisting that the article have three large pie charts, rather than a single chart showing the three estimates in a much more compact format, and reverting to enforce that preference, which results in a really awkward article layout (see here for the version Leechjoel9 was pushing). Regarding his claim that I "removed" the Pew estimate, I most definitely did not. Pew's estimate for the religious makeup of Eritrea is drawn directly from a 2002 survey conducted by another organization (as the Pew report states here, on p206, or p12 in the pdf), so I initially suggested that we cite the estimate to that survey, rather than to the research organization (Pew) that took that survey and plugged it into the Eritrea section of their model for their Future of World Religions report. When Leechjoel9 objected, I changed the chart twice in response to his concerns, to specifically source the data point to Pew, rather than the underlying survey.
    I'll note that Leechjoel9 is recently off an AE/3RR block as a result of a WP:ANI report he himself made, plus this thread from March. Leechjoel9's continued aggressive POV pushing and attempts at ownership in Eritrea-related articles have been a problem for some time now; I believe that some sort of action, either a TBAN or at least 1RR restriction for Horn of Africa, is necessary. Pinging El C, Drmies, who have closed WP:ANI reports about or created by LeechJoel9 in the past.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t come here to argue with you. I only stated that you removed sourced content for no valid reasons. Now you trying to turn this as being about my behaviour. I have not deleted anything but rather engaged in discussion with you. I was the one reporting you since I believe your behaviour has not been constructive several times on these articles and I Have not been reverting anything but restored sourced content. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave it to other editors to assess whether including additional content in a chart can somehow be deemed "remov[ing] sourced content for no valid reason". BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s a good idea of deflecting from the issue which is about you removing cited content. This has only to do with your removals nothing else. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to bring a content dispute to ANI. Your actions are fair game for review along with BubbaJoe's. There is no first mover advantage to ANI where you get to set the agenda and limit what the community decides to review. So, no the topic is not limited to Bubbajoe's content removal.
    Both of you are engaged in a slow moving edit war and neither of you appears to have tried dispute resolution or an RfC to resolve the content dispute.Slywriter (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as explained the only intentions was reporting this as content removal of the pie chart, cited sources and data. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The very top of the page states that ANI is strictly for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I'm not seeing how removing sourced content while changing pie charts to bar charts falls under behavior issues or constitutes an urgent incident. Perhaps review WP:DISPUTE and take the issue to Dispute Resolution as you have admitted it is content based. :) --ARoseWolf 20:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BubbaJoe123456 if you add a chart that’s is not based on a image but on a data bar chart I don’t see an issue with this as long as its cited correctly, also since data estimates changes over time and bars should be possible to edit. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User has changed/replaced original image of the various estimates the user uploaded. That is why the image on the article now is showing estimate of 2020. Old upload pointed to survey pointing to pew estimates as being estimates from 2002.Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In an attempt to find a resolution and respond to Leechjoel9's objections, I made multiple edits to the chart, as can be seen here.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the old pie chart because it has a note, leading to a source with words and all that. "Based" should be in lower case, and I can't edit that cause it's an image. But that's content commentary, and I don't see anything here that requires the input of an administrator, not even an opinionated one like me. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I only stated that you removed sourced content for no valid reasons." Pfft. No. There was a valid reason, and Masem stated it. Leechjoel9 may not like the reason, and demonstrably doesn't agree with it, but c'mon. Ravenswing 08:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ariel Fernandez & BLPRESTORE

    Article has been fully protected and discussion is advancing at WP:BLPN#Ariel Fernandez. No need to duplicate efforts. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 02:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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



    There has been multiple complaints by the subject about the editors in his article. Good faith BLP concerns were raised in the discussion,[101], and there is an edit/wheel war over the disputed material ignoring WP:BLPRESTORE. I request admin intervention and page protection of the article while discussion takes place. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I made a single revert on this article, with the belief that since there were good faith BLP concerns, BLPRESTORE applied. It costs us nothing and does no harm to have the text removed for a short time while it's discussed, and if consensus is against inclusion then we've solved a BLP issue earlier rather than later, so there is no real reason to balk at a removal for a short time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I always believed that editing on behalf of a banned sockpuppet was a rather nasty offence called Wp:Meatpuppetry? -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I edit directly on their behalf, when I'm not running around the encyclopedia promoting fringe views, or being an Israeli, or being in a lynch mob, or taking part in the night of long knives, or anything else someone who disagrees with me says. There are a number of people who raised good faith objections on BLP grounds, and there is a clear way to handle that. Page is currently protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION, so all is well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a sockpuppet has edited an article is no excuse to disregard BLP grounds, even if the sockpuppet in question is the article subject.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter nonsense. This guy has been triggering BLP lovers for years. that we kowtow to him is shocking. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP trumps everything else, if a consensus agrees it is not a BLP violation it can go back in. Until then it may not. And I have a pretty solid track record of being anti-sockpuppetry. nableezy - 16:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. It is entirely contrary to WP:BLP policy, and to any aspirations to be a credible encyclopaedia whatsoever, to use sockpuppetry as a factor to determine article content in such circumstances. We are supposed to be writing for the readers, who should expect common standards, rather than imposing a questionable version of an article on them because of an internal battle with someone unwilling to comply with the way Wikipedia works. Spite is a poor excuse to violate policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the level of WP:WOLF animosity towards Fernandez and his socks and disregard of BLP policies (See [102][103]), this group of editors should be topic banned from his article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retractions and expressions of concern (EoC) are significant and serious events in the career of a research scientist. Retractions and EoC are derived from, and published by, the editors and publishers of scientific journals, and not from journalists, bloggers, or other scientists. They are not oopsies, they do not arise from no-harm-no-foul situations. The COPE guidelines on when an article should be retracted are listed here, and none of the bulleted conditions are trivial. COPE addresses EoC here, including their rarity. This analysis, cited by the COPE link above, explicitly presents the serious nature of EoC: “The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation”. Because they are critical to the understanding of research articles, retractions and EoC are made available in publication databases like PubMed. There is no indication or evidence whatsoever that their serious nature is diluted over time, or that they are attached to some type of statute of limitations.
    The overwhelming majority of active researchers will never have a single retraction or EoC during their career. If they do, they are unlikely to be reported in reliable secondary sources. Fernandez, in contrast, has had several EoC (all from prestigious journals) and one retraction, all of which were reported by independent, reliable, secondary sources. That is not original research, that is not a minority opinion, it is a neutral fact. Unfortunately, a large degree of Fernandez’s notability seems connected to those reports. Including their existence in the Fernandez article thus does not run afoul of WP:DUE or WP:BLP.
    Determining how the fact of those reliably sourced EoC and retraction are reported in the article is of course up to Wikipedia editors in good standing. Editors acting in good faith can and probably will disagree on the details. Going forward with this issue I suggest that aspersions against editors’ motivations be stopped, that assumptions of bad faith editing be stopped, that the disruptive opinions of an indefinitely-banned user’s socks be ignored, and that we create content that, while perhaps preferred by no one, will nevertheless accurately report the facts and be acceptable to most editors. I request that a neutral administrator(s) participate in the discussion here to help make those things happen. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If "a large degree of Fernandez’s notability seems connected to these reports", where are the sources indicating this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the widely-read Forbes and The Chronicle of Higher Education, both with readerships that extend well outside the physical sciences. There's also the high-profile and widely-read journals that issued the EoC and retraction notices (BMC Genomics, Nature, and PLoS Genetics). There's also this from the the high-profile Annual Review of Genetics. There's also the popular Popehat site (here), which has a broad readership outside the physical sciences. What I am unable to find - although perhaps you or some other editors would have better luck - is a similar number of reliable, secondary, independent sources that report other aspects of Fernandez's scientific output. That isn't unusual of course, as unfortunately few scientists ever receive such coverage of their work. But that doesn't nullify the broad coverage of Fernandez's EoC and retraction. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like something to talk about on BLPN or the article talk page. If there is a consensus for this material then it should be returned. If there is not then it should not be. nableezy - 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Returned after discussion (preferably involving people familiar with relevant policy). Not edit-warred over. Which is how this should have been handled in the first place. Without comments about "kowtowing", "triggering BLP lovers", and "meatpuppetry" (see above),which very well may be considered an appropriate subject for ANI. And per this comment [104] I'd advise Roxy the Dog to read what WP:BLP actually says regarding exceptions to WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A hoax that has gotten out of hand

    This discussion has gotten out of hand. The article is at AfD. There's no need for the OP to continue displaying their aggressive behavior, which, if unchecked, may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    When we see a hoax in Wikipedia, we revert it. A hoax is no better than misinformation or vandalism. The problem starts when an editor, in good faith, restores the hoax not knowing better.

    In 2021 June 29‎, Mark viking redirected AdvanceCOMP to Deflate#Encoder implementations, having fallen for a hoax in the latter. Recently, I reverted the hoax: [105] Having addressed the problem, I reverted Mark viking's redirection. Perhaps the AdvanceCOMP could be deleted through correct procedure, e.g., for lack notability, etc.

    Since then, however, a problem has started: Onel5969 reinstates the redirect and insists on calling me a vandal. (Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals) I tried communicating with him in his talk page but he refuses to uses anything other than threats and casting aspersions.

    This isn't a case of edit warring or vandalism, rather, a case of one editor not understanding what he is doing and not wanting to engage in civil conversation. Waysidesc (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Re-adding unsourced content, as per WP:BURDEN, is disruptive editing. Onel5969 TT me 23:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then what's with the vandalism warnings in my talk page? As administrator clpo13 has noted, there is indeed one source in the article. Waysidesc (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This does not appear to be a good summary of the situation, since you've left out the parts where you edit-warred, the parts where where you baselessly attacked other editors, and the fact that you have refused so far to provide anything that could be described as evidence in favor of your assertions. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, instead of saying "Hello," he said "you're a vandal." Please don't pretend anyone in Wikipedia takes kindly to this kind of behavior. Waysidesc (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No actually onel said "At least one of your edits on the page AdvanceCOMP, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions." Which is ... completely accurate. --JBL (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Splitting words, are we? That would still be a gross lie, since this edit is totally distinguishable from vandalism. And besides, I know he didn't actually write those messages. They are boilerplate messages sent to vandals.
      Furthermore, that's not what he is saying now. He is invoking the verifiability clause.
      He began with an uncooperative mentality. Whatever I did wasn't good enough for him. He would consider sending me a different template, perhaps. But how about a humane message? No. (That's the least he could do for colleague.) Or at least he could stop with templates and the threatening language when he saw I am open to communicating. Waysidesc (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I'm not convinced that accusing an editor with 180,000 edits o being a meatpuppet of one with 500,000 edits was the brightest idea, though. Anyway, I can't find much third-party sourcing on this, so I've sent it to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They are boilerplate messages sent to people who make unexplained, bad edits -- a category that includes you! Had you at any point made any effort at substantive communication rather than obnoxious posturing, the situation would have resolved immediately. Do better next time. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The article, as restored, is unreferenced and therefore redirecting is appropriate. Waysidesc refuses to accept WP:BURDEN applies to them, and editwars over this, breaking WP:3R. --John B123 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Source or no source, a hoax is not valid. Waysidesc (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restoring the article as a contested PROD seemed like the best option to avoid a continued edit war, especially since the redirect was done unilaterally and the target was questionable. I doubt the article would survive an AFD, but it's worth noting that WP:BURDEN allows for maintenance tags in lieu of outright removal for non-BLP content to allow time for editors to find better sourcing. clpo13(talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This all seems a waste of everybody's time as Waysidesc has now !voted to delete the article at AfD.[106] --John B123 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it is the culmination of a compromise involving people who are open to communicating and making compromises. You see, you and Onel5969 has so far been acting hostile towards a person who doesn't even disagree with you on the notability point.
      Now, be a good citizen and go vote. Waysidesc (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you'll find our first interaction was you accusing me of being a meat puppet. Your attitude is totally uncalled for. --John B123 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and your blind prejudice was called for? You didn't check my edit's merit first. The only reason you treated me like that was because my username is red and I have like five(?) edits. "Meat puppet" is only slightly off the mark here.
      You people hit the revert button first, then try to justify yourself short of saying "I'm reverting you because I hate you." Waysidesc (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Waysidesc, I don't care what color your username is but you are casting aspersions and making personal attacks which can lead to a block. You can't act on Wikipedia like you are on a message board or forum page. Please assume good faith, no one "hates" you, this is Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two clarifications. First, I never left a vandalism template on the editor's talk page. I left disruptive editing templates, which re-adding uncited material is. However, when I clicked the rollback, I must have missed and clicked on the vandalism rollback in error, which resulted in a vandalism template on the editor's talk page. My apologies for that misclick. The remaining templates, which are the ones I personally added, were disruptive editing templates. Second, despite a claim above regarding WP:BURDEN being able to be tagged in lieu of removal on other than BLP articles, here's the quote from there, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Says nothing about tagging instead. It does discuss time frame, but leaves that as a matter of interpretation. Onel5969 TT me 01:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nationalist POV-pushing at Chaldea

    An editor who keeps editing from different IP addresses is adding nationalist POV-pushing to the article on the ancient region and people of Chaldea. I've notified the editor in question at the latest IP address that made the edit (here User talk:2601:40D:8100:14E0:189A:2ABF:8ECC:176F). The editor seems to be trying to make the Chaldeans out to be among the most ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and also replaced the use of "Assyrians" with "Chaldeans".

    The Chaldea article is a historical article without connection to the name dispute in the modern ethnic group — the Assyrians referenced are the people of ancient Assyria (who obviously did not identify as "Chaldeans") and the Chaldeans referenced are the ancient people, who did arrive in the region long after the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians were already established. Since the editor keeps editing from different IP:s, perhaps the article could be protected in some way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RPP will probably be of more use to you. MiasmaEternal☎ 07:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I've made the case there as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin abuser

    OP blocked for personal attacks and legal threats. Nothing to see here. Girth Summit (blether) 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User: CambridgeBayWeather: Editorial corruption, would be easier to list the edits that he reverted that were actual vandalism (he crossed the line with the one on Fila) --62.165.235.165 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Erm. The most recent edit CBW's done on the Fila article was this one: [107]. It's from a month and a half ago, and the sum total of the edit was to remove "South Korean" from the first sentence (which is defensible, for an Italian company headquartered in Italy for nearly a century. And by the bye, that edit has since been reversed. You are going to have to do a great deal better than that. Do you actually have diffs to present? Ravenswing 07:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that company has moved its headquarters to South Korea. Then the one on Harry Oakes: the subject may be American by birth but was a British citizen. --62.165.235.165 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you mean this edit [108], then you are flat out wrong. According to the article itself, Oakes was born in Maine -- thus automatically being an American citizen -- of American parents, and lived at least the first 24 years of his life in the United States. He became a British citizen, but would not have had to formally renounce his American citizenship before his baronetcy in 1939. At the level worst, there is a difference of opinion, not remotely suitable for ANI. I strongly suggest you slow your roll, stop making legal threats [109] and take any disputes you have with edits to the respective article talk pages, something you've done in neither of these cases. Ravenswing 08:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What may be suitable for ANI however are the personal attacks from the OP (accusing other editors of "Corruption") or legal threats. Such behaviour is not compatible with editing here.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at User: CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, it seems that they are not notified about this discussion yet. I have notified them [110] here. A reminder to 62.165.235.165: As per the instructions above, you must notify the editor on their talk page that they are involved in the discussion. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Question on Userpage

    This has been resolved. In the future, you could CSD the associated talk page with a note that the csd nomination is for the base page. — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi there, I tried to tag this userpage for deletion User:Artist The Muzafar 777 but when I tried I got this error saying "unregistered users can't edit other users userpage" so how I can tag it for deletion. The page is used for promotional purposes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.153.248 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD Tagged.Slywriter (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Dinos2008

    blocked by Mjroots for one week. for the bot. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Dinos2008 has been adding uncited release dates or changing reliably cited release dates on song articles, including Points of Authority and Proper Education. They have been warned multiple times to stop this disruptive behavior, and they have edited past their fourth warning. I have even told them to check articles for Release history sections, but they don't seem to get the point. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 1 week, which should be enough time to read about referencing, verifiabilty and reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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 [111] [112] [113].)

    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]” ([114][115][116][117][118][119]). 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[120][121] 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")[122] which several COI accounts sought to remove from the article. When a non-COI editor removed the text in question from the lead[123] 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."[124] 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 [125]. 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]

    Reporting Sysevnig and Chronicdial92

    Six accounts blocked and tagged + one other account, which had been blocked for vandalism, tagged. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sysevnig (talk · contribs) Chronicdial92 (talk · contribs)

    I think somebody is using both of these accounts for vandalism only. In the article All Eyez on Me, Sysevnig has added incorrect information right here. After they have been reverted by another editor Dhoffryn, Chronicdial92 has made the same edits as Sysevnig the next day [126]. These accounts has made similar edits in other articles as well [127] [128] [129] [130]. It's very clear that these accounts are made for vandalism and nothing else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 [131].

    --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; [132]

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

    An IP geolocating to Tbilisi, Georgia[133] 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."[134]
    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."[135]
    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."[136]
    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." [137]
    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[138] 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]

    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: [139]. 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 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: [140]

    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]

    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, [141]. 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/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/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: [142] and [143]. 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 [144]. 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/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 and MojaveSummit, the two of you have made 22 of the most recent 24 edits to this board. That makes it difficult for people new to the discussion to figure out what's going on, which will delay any solution to this. I request that both of you avoid editing this section or discussing the issue elsewhere for the next 24 hours. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:19, 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 [145] [146] (and those page histories for more context) [147] (this change is unsourced BLP violation). I gave WP:GS/SASG notice couple of days ago [148] — 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:Ruiz4Congress is NOTHERE

    User:Ruiz4Congress seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build a Wikipedia. The username is promotional; the userpage is promotional; and their only other edits have been to add and re-add their candidate to the election page, without a source; it doesn't look like sources even exist. They're evidently here just to promote their candidate. (Apologies if this is the wrong place or I'm doing this wrong; I've never posted here before.) Aerin17 (t • c) 05:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would add that we don't know that this is the candidate. It could just as easily be an opponent trying to make them look foolish. The picture on their userpage is captioned "Facial profile", which seems unserious, to say the least. BD2412 T 05:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes no difference whether the person behind the account is Ruiz, a Ruiz supporter or somebody trying to troll Ruiz. The username is inappropriate and so is the user page. I have indefinitely blocked this account. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1064412903"