Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour

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

---

• Æthereal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Members of the Council on Foreign Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  ... 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• This pattern of edits is not reflective of someone here to build an encyclopedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• They've been unusually clever about how they went about it, but WP:NOTHERE. There were a series edits (key points 1 2 3) made to The Washington Post article that linked news coverage of the 9/11 attacks to a 1980 journalist scandal. There's plenty of other bad edits like this and this as well. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

• Support Coatracking muck (similar to WP:ADAM) is the wrong approach to developing BLP articles. I looked to see when Æthereal last edited their talk. It was in 25 February 2019 in response to a complaint regarding this edit which used a reference that failed to verify the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support though I'm not an Administrator and am unsure whether I ought to vote here. (Please delete me out if that is the case.) Lindenfall (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support That seems fair Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP topic ban based on evidence of sustained WP:RGW/WP:SPA-type WP:POVPUSHing. Levivich 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not sure how effective it will be given the lack of communication. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This is clear WP:NOTHERE behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

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 [56] [57] [58].)

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]” ([59][60][61][62][63][64]). 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)

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[65][66] 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")[67] which several COI accounts sought to remove from the article. When a non-COI editor removed the text in question from the lead[68] 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."[69] 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)

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)

• 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).
• 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)

Perhaps I did not do a good enough job explaining that Snoogans has previously been topic banned, in part, for very similar behavior [70]. 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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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).
• 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)
  • Plenty of experienced editors agreed with the climate change issue being omitted from the lead at the October RfC. If you have a problem with your edits being partially reverted by Whizz40 and me, you can discuss the disputed content at the article's talk page instead of insinuating here that other editors don't understand the NPOV policy. Best, 15 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As discussed on the talk page of the article, the article is currently fairly brief. I think what's needed is to expand the article in the normal way until it provides good coverage of the topic, then the climate change issue could be mentioned with due weight in an expanded lead. Whizz40 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Valjean I was the editor who added the Climate change denial link to the See also section of the CRAI article. I thought it was relevant to include, per MOS:SEEALSO. However, I note that I have not noticed any of the sources use the words climate change denial to describe CRAI, although I have not search for this term specifically. In addition, the RfC on the talk page has taken place since then. If there are reliable sources that say this then we should cite them and include the context in the text of the article. Without this, we just don't know. It's possible the company, or the authors of the papers, had no opinion on the science, or believed the science on climate change, even while they wrote the research into the economic impact of climate change policy that has generated the controversy. Therefore, I think it may be Synthesis or OR to include a see also link so boldly in the article without a citation. Whizz40 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is going to end up in a boomerang - withdraw, mate. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

@Springee:. Thanks for the advice. Regarding following all COI policies, that has been my clearly stated intention from the outset. My very first edit on Wikipedia was the creation of my user page with this statement: “I have a conflict of interest as someone who works for CRA International and will follow all the WP:COI requirements for any articles related to this company.”(User:Basslonick1220). On my first edit to the CRA Talk page I said: ”I work at CRA, so I do have a conflict of interest - and I will not directly edit the article.” On the RfC on Talk, I wrote, “I am again disclosing my COI as an employee of CRA, as I have above. Talk:CRA_International#RfC on lead of Charles River Associates. During the course of the RfC, I noticed that an IP address without a disclosed COI removed the sentence which was the subject of the RfC. I reversed this removal, even though it was what I requested in the RfC, because the RfC was still pending and because I checked the IP address, and it led to a CRA ISP. [71]. In the Edit Summary, I said I was removing an undisclosed COI edit and that I myself had a COI as an employee of CRA. As every editor who participated in the RfC found Snoogans placement of the statement in the lead to be problematic, I think it can be said that the RfC I brought improved Wikipedia. Likewise, I brought my complaint about Snoogans to ANI instead of engaging in improper activities. Basslonick1220 (talk)`

As editors participating here seem to oppose a topic ban for Snoogans since it was brought by a COI editor, I am withdrawing this request and asking it be closed. Unfortunately, this will not end the issues on CRA International. Snoogans has made four additions to the page, each of which is either a distortion, highly biased, unduly weighted or a WP policy violation in some other way. So far, after each of these statements is removed by a non-COI editor, Snoogans responds by adding a new, equally problematic statement [72] or two [73], also pushing a POV. Two have been removed so far, and two more have yet to be addressed. I hope the situation will not continue to cycle in this way. Basslonick1220 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Snoogans hasn't edited or commented there since October 2021, so the above is just weird ownership behavior by a COI-conflicted editor. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

CeRcVa13

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

---

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

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

Colchis:

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

Safavid Georgia:

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

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

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

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

Achaemenid Empire:

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

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

An IP geolocating to Tbilisi, Georgia[75] tried to make the same sort of edits back in September 2021.

1. User: CeRcVa13 (7 January 2022): "Since the map does not fall apart due to a small error and no source writes that Colchis was in the 18th satrapy or any of the satrapies at all. That's why I'm adding information because people were not misled by the wrong map."[76]
2. User: CeRcVa13 (7 January 2022): "Sorry, but you did not show me the research where it says that Colchis was the 18th satrapy. Nowhere in any study is it written that it was a satrap."[77]
3. IP 5.152.72.140 (24 September 2021): "Colchis was neither in the 18th satrapy nor in the satrapy in general. This map is a falsification."[78]
4. IP 5.152.72.140 (24 September 2021): "Until you show me the source where it says that Colchis was in Satrapy and part of the Achaemenid Empire, until then I will always deleted these fake maps." [79]

Random "coincidence" I guess. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I will re-post the same source that I posted at the time[80] vis. to the IP's disruption (I see user HistoryofIran has found it as well). It is from the most up-to-date, high-quality WP:RS on the Achaemenid Empire, and published by Wiley-Blackwell:

"The situation is reminiscent of Colchis and Caucasian Iberia. Once, it was inconceivable that they had been under Achaemenid rule; now, ever more evidence is emerging to show that they were, forming a lesser part of the Armenian satrapy" -- Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, The Northern Black Sea (2021). in A companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, Bruno Jacobs, Robert Rollinger (eds). Wiley Blackwell. p. 665

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personal attack in edit comment

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

---

An IP editor used an edit comment to make an unprovoked personal attack about me on the following edit: [81]

Can the edit comment be revised to remove the comment?

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

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)

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)

The editor has called someone else stupid in an edit summary today, so I've blocked the above range for 31 hours. Communicating with them is difficult, since they switch addresses very rapidly, but I've left them a note in an edit summary on the page where they last insulted someone. I've also gone ahead and revdelled the above edit summary as RD3. I do see it as purely disruptive, it did not describe the edit that was made in any way and merely insulted another contributor. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jedzz (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment

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

---

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, [82]. 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)

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)

What I am asking from you: provide evidence in order to substantiate your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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. 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.

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: [83] and [84]. 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 [85]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  And ABSOLUTELY no more mentions of Derrida or Foucault. Final warning. EEng 06:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very tempted to make a Foucault joke but after reading most of this my humor is drained. Both tgeorgescu and MojaveSummit need to cease this truculence. tgeorgescu, you've repeatedly insulted MojaveSummit and an WP:NPA block seems warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  ... Calling a spade a spade is not "incivility", and should never be the reason for blocking, banning or even admonishment. ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  So you feel qualified to "conclude" there's a reading disability? That's quite a spade... diagnosis. El_C 08:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, here is the deal: if they have proven their WP:CONSENSUS claim that my edits are POV, block me. If they failed to do that, block them. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is not the deal and that is not an answer. El_C 08:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  They have misread two WP:RS about Mark Skousen. They have misread the quote they have given as supporting their own position, while that quote says nothing of that sort. Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu blocked

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

• And here's some Existential Comics to read while we await someone's Foucault/Derrida limerick. (Hints: Jacques Derrida - Roto Roota; Foucault - eat crow, or chapeaux, or blow me, bro.) EEng 09:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  @EEng: not really the time or place. El_C 14:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  How about now? EEng 09:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing. El_C 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

See edits [86] [87] (and those page histories for more context) [88] (this change is unsourced BLP violation). I gave WP:GS/SASG notice couple of days ago [89] — DaxServer (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) (Updated 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC))

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)

• I see he tried to start a section here, improperly, and after looking at his contribs, I was just about to block him, bordering on CIR but at a minimum, for disruptive editing. I will let other chime in, but yes, this is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• I wonder if there is a sock/meat puppetry here. See Special:Contributions/223.238.107.139/24. There's an overlap of edits to Chowdhury, Chaudhri and some sort of interest in governmental agencies. Also, accuses me of "vandalising Wikipedia pages" and "meddling in matters of Government of India" ([90], [91], [92]). Also, see User talk:DaxServer/Archive 1#Lobstobar blocks and my request for a block Special:Permalink/1064891115#Lobstobar blocks (courtesy ping Ohnoitsjamie) — DaxServer (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've blocked them for NOTHERE/CIR. They again created a new section, attacking DaxServer, and it's clear form their edits that we are better off without them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

IP range imposing religious POV

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

• Puffing up and adding editorial comments about Ali: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]
• Introducing inaccurate information only held by Shi'i Muslims [98] [99] [100]
• Removing info on Sunni Muslim figures [101] [102]
• Outright removal of whole paragraph on Sunni view [103]

All of their other edits are in a similar vein. When reverted, they try to edit-war it back in: [104] [105] (the latter page has been semi-protected because of their disruption)

Some of their talk pages have received warnings [106] [107] and welcomes [108] [109], but they never respond there, and they don't use talk pages. Perhaps their edit summaries speak for themselves though:

• now don't tell me any "source" except for the extremist would have Ali calling Umar as the Commander of the Faithful [110]
• sources which are partial? and only highlight the other end of the spectrum? [111]

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

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

Continuing their edit war, [112] still randomly adding to articles the specifically Shi'i view that Ali was the most trusted companion of Muhammad. [113] This IP range is not used by anyone else, btw. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I range-blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia

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

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

@Dennis Brown: User has just readded the same personal attack on my page. Once again, I find this more proof that they are WP:NOTHERE. — Czello 09:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Can't really indef this first time, but I did block him a week. We will see if this gets his attention or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User:XhainXpert

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

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

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

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

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

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

While there are problems with the sourcing in those diffs I don't think they can be called completely unrelated to the text. The first one is about Cielo Ranch, and it does mention John Wayne, it just doesn't say that it was used in his movies. The second ref is much better - it does talk about McLendon (note spelling, they got it wrong in part of their edit) making movies at at Cielo, saying The “set” was actually McLendon’s 200-acre ranch, Cielo, located on the west side of Lake Dallas’ north end, near Lewisville. It was perfect for most of the scenes shot in both movies, and it eliminated some of the usual expenses, such as obtaining time-consuming permits and insurance against a property owner’s damage. It doesn't mention Shady Shores, so possibly WP:SYNTH / WP:DUE concerns could be raised, but for such an uncontroversial point it's at least not so out of line as to be a conduct issue. The possible COI referenced below is a bigger problem (it could definitely be seen as promotional, which makes the WP:DUE problems more severe.) But it's not the instant alarm that I expected from your description (ie. citing something with a totally unrelated source, to the point where nobody could possibly make that error in good faith outside of a copy-paste error, would be much more serious.) I would chalk the first one up to editor error due to an overzealous editor searching for keywords and not noticing that it didn't talk about John Wayne in the same context the text cited to it does (which is bad, but not as bad as the overt bad faith that would be needed to use a completely unrelated citation.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

@XhainXpert: as I think you’ve been told, WP:Overzealous deletion is just an essay, not a set of rules, and you seem to have called User:Magnolia677 a bully and asked him to try to be “a more constructive member of the community.” You are also editing about organisations with which you are involved, one as a board member, the other as co-founder. See WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve no idea why you vandalised User:Gronk Oz’s user page.[114] Can you please explain this? I also note your comments “I apologise to both Gronk Oz and Magnolia677. As a new user, I did not realise it was common practice to selectively enforce Wikipedia rules and, at times, delete accurate content in its entirety rather than help to enhance it. I am learning a good deal about the spirit of the community, its users, rules and enforcement.” I don’t see that as anything like an apology. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I got the coi bit completely wrong, which is extremely embarrassing. And as I said to XhainXpert, I should have added a link in any case (which would have shown me that I had confused them with another editor). Not at all the sort of behavior I expect from myself. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what these organizations are. I am not a board member of any organisation and am not a co-founder of anything listed on wikipedia. Can you let me know what organizations you are referring to? XhainXpert (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: I have to apologise for this. I've confused you with someone else also editing about an area where they live. In any case it was wrong of me not to provide a link to the post I saw, and if I'd done that I would have noticed it was a different editor. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No worries at all. Thanks for acknowledging and happy wiki-ing!

And today, with this edit, they removed a source I found which would support one of their unsourced edits, and replaced it with a bogus source that does not support their edit. A completely vexatious edit. Such a disruptive and frustrating editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: I'm a little puzzled. Above, you said that you are a new user, and that this is your first week, yet in this edit you said that you had first edited seven years ago. Can you clarify that? JBW (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: In 2007, I made a couple of edits at some point creating the page for Steve Szabo and some other small odds and ends one day (maybe 10 edits in all -- I can't remember the name). In 2015 after leaving my job, I joined under the name PointSchuman and made around 15-20 edits including creating the page for Derek Chollet and adding some small stuff to my home town page. I couldn't log in to PointSchuman anymore (I haven't used it for 7 years) so I created a new account on Jan 1 2022. I have never used "Pages" in my life. I don't know all these fancy scripts but am trying to learn. I have made more edits in the past 10 days (and apparently upset many many more people) than I ever did in the past. As mentioned, it was a more positive experience back then but I didn't really do anything. My editing history was very minor. As you and others have pointed out, my skills are rudimentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs)

In that case I'm even more impressed by your use of {{Outdent|::::}} which even after 230,000 edits I haven't learned - I can do {{od}} but that's my limit. Now I have to go find out more about using it. One of the great things about editing Wikipedia is you learn something new almost every day. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: Thanks for that clarification. There were a few small inaccuracies in what you said, but that isn't surprising, considering that you were referring to things from several years ago, presumably from memory. It took me a minute to find your old account, because it was actually called Pointschuman, not PointSchuman. In fact you used the account on and off from April 2015 to September 2017, and you made 50 edits altogether.

A more important point, I think, is that your attempt to ping me didn't work, because you didn't do it correctly. It didn't matter this time, because I came back to check whether anyone had posted anything more to this discussion, but another time someone might never see a message you intended for them, so it's worth knowing how to do it. When you ping another editor, in the same post as the {{ping|...}} you have to sign your post by adding ~~~~ otherwise the ping doesn't work. You should in fact add ~~~~ to every post you make on a talk page or discussion page, for other reasons, but with a ping it's essential.

Unfortunately XhainXpert had a discouraging start to their comeback as a Wikipedia editor. Very soon they found their work being reverted or deleted for reasons they didn't understand, and not surprisingly they found that frustrating. They didn't handle the situation as well as they might have done, and unfortunately their negative responses led to further negative responses from the other people involved, producing an unhelpful negative feedback loop. However, XhainXpert clearly has a good-faith wish to contribute positively, and recently I believe they have understood some of the issues involved better, and made more positive comments to other editors. I see no reason not to regard this as a very unfortunate 😕 period in XhainXpert's experience in learning how Wikipedia works, but one from which they should be able to move on and settle into working with others collaboratively. I don't think anything more needs to be done at this time, apart from more experienced editors being helpful to XhainXpert by giving friendly 😊 advice and explanations when necessary. I suggest we all try that approach, and I have every hope that it will work. JBW (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Thanks for this! I am learning and appreciate the tips! That was definitely me way back when. I hope I can be more sustainable this time. That's my goal. But I can assure you and others that my interest is 100% factual, verifiable information. I am just trying to figure out how to verify, especially the nitty gritty stuff. XhainXpert (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point about a negative feedback loop. Hopefully your approach will work. I've just given him some advice about the problem of relying on unsourced material in other articles. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

JBW, Doug Weller - where multiple usernames have been advised, IMO these should be soft-blocked forthwith, to memorialise Admin scrutiny; this would obviate spi/cu. I have been involved in reporting similar. I made this point at the Teahouse recently (archived, also see this live COIN report) and there seems to be no concerted protocol, and the accounts are ignored. One (not obvious) reason for blocking is that in 2015 around the time when journalists were adopting the epithet Je suis Charlie, Jimbo appeared on live UK television (BBC, the government's own terrestrial channel) claiming to have 19 million registered editors; the last time I looked it was 41 million. In just a few days from my recent experiences, several accounts have been admitted to by just two individuals. I tried to moot a js that would find inactive accounts (perhaps based on a one-year inactivity threshhold, similar to that applied to sysops) but that's another story.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: all my experience has taught me that finding references that meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE is probably the hardest part of editing. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A DUCK of the above-mentioned user

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

---

Hi, I don't have Twinkle and I've never filed an SPI, but can we get a DUCK block for Mdnys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on their contributions in light of the above thread? Thanks in advance and apologies for not pursuing the recommended channel 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

All good, but you should avoid trying to reopen a closed discussion. I've sent them to SPI now. Mako001 (C)  (T)  07:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And they're indefinitely blocked. Closing.Mako001 (C)  (T)  08:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Comrade Sourav

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

---

Comrade Sourav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating non-notable articles. They have also been removing AfD templates from articles they created, and have already received two level four warnings on their talk page for AfD removal in January. They then removed another AfD template here. Also, it might be a shared account because they are saying they are a team and signing as several people. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Also they threatened legal action on their edit summary on this edit. Also the edit summary shows clear case of WP:OWN. --Stylez995 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see also this, this, and this. They're clearly not here to build encyclopaedia. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked the user for legal threats; I have not looked at any other edits. They might retract the legal threat and get unblocked, in which case an analysis is needed to determine whether they are welcome to edit Wikipedia despite other issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This editor has a habit of using expressions such as "we" and "our team", so it definitely looks like a shared account. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Having checked this out earlier in the day while working on the AfDs, it's pretty clear that this is a shared CoI account. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

166.205.141.33 edit warring and talk page blanking

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

---

166.205.141.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring at Richard Freed (also using other IP addresses, by the look of things), and has now resorted to repeatedly blanking sections of the talk page where discussion about the revisions they've tried to make is taking place. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Socking and blanking and warring are all not particularly tolerable, especially the blanking as people can only really resolve things through discussion here Zippy (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 24 hours by Girth Summit. --ARoseWolf 18:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:619MysterioRey Redirect Blanking and Talk Page Blanking

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

---

User continues to blank the page Trolls 2 (which is no more than a redirect). When asked why, user blanked their talk page for an unknown reason within the minute. A normal peep (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User blanked their talk page again after informing them of this report (revision here) A normal peep (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Just some random dude with a pc: First, maybe report it to WP:AIV and block him, then report here for the talk page blanking. However, many IPs blank their page, and so this may be a similar case with the IP talk page blanking. Severestorm28 01:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Users can blank their own page if they want. I protected the redirect they keep blanking, so that takes care of that issue, at least temporarily. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66:It's not so much that they were blanking their talk page, it's that they blanked it as soon as i asked for a reason for removing the redirect, and then for informing them of this report that makes me suspicious. A normal peep (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that.— Maile (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

They also recently blanked the redirect Alien 4, and they never give a reason for anything. Needs a block IMO. I've given them 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 03:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

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

Suggestion for enforcement of non-aggressive tone in section title

While not as bad, the titles of ANI threads kinda reminds me of YouTube thumbnails: clickbait and sensational. By doing so, the threads can easily erupt to be an uncivil debate, as people want to appeal to their emotions (both editors and admins). Since many editors are in a bad mood when they file a complaint here, I suggest to make sure the title of the sections to be more neutral and less loaded, just like what we have on articles. However, I don't think that enforcing this to the body of sections would be practical, as a person involved in a dispute would hardly be neutral. A few examples randomly picked to illustrate my point:

• NOTHERE ViP? – better written as "Aaron da Lover is NOTHERE"
• MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment – can be better if written as "MojaveSummit stated asking for evidence is harassment"
• User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia – not loaded in my opinion.

Here's my two cents. What are your thought on this proposal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would disagree in principle; it’s more a question of Quis custodiet and Who shall bell the cat; with some experience that suggests that a lot of disputants will act like domestic assaulters and assaultees, who often put their differences aside to attack the first cop or neighbor to show up, thrown in for good measure. Qwirkle (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed a section title or two. I think just the username suffices for most cases. Firefangledfeathers 03:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Anyone (experienced enough) can change it if they understand the policy and use good sense. Or ask an admin to change it in the discussion itself. This is an admin board, so if an admin disagrees, or reverts you, best to not edit war. With anyone else, for that matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Mmm, I dunno. Don't you find that the more sensationalized the title, the more the OP is digging his own grave? I'd hate to remove the ability of OPs to plaster themselves with "BOOMERANG TARGET HERE" bullseyes. Ravenswing 15:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  LOL! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, a variant of the The Offensive T-Shirt Principle, AKA Sociopath Self-Marking. Qwirkle (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• @CactiStaccingCrane: FYI, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15#Standardize ANI thread headers? (and many other similar threads in the archives of WT:AN). Levivich 17:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity in Brazil

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

---

After the page protection dropped, the peeps there started to edit-war again. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan blocked the socks, and I have now protected the page for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

k, cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Anonimus Croatus warring and hoax

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

---

Anonimus Croatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles on the Croatian armed forces without citing any sources for some time. Their response to reverts and requests for discussion such as this one is to repost their uncited edits; even offering cheeky thanks to the reverting editor. More examples are best accessed via their contributions page, there are too many to be worth listing here. (I should mention that I have been reverting back and not worrying about 3RR, per this post on the user's talk page). I tried to post at WP:ANEW but that is only for single articles, so I have come here.

A hoax article has now been deleted. The same user also created the Enikon T-21 Tutor aircraft article, which bears all the hallmarks of a hoax. It is unsourced. I can find no reference to this plane or its manufacturer on the Internet, despite the claim that it has been flying since 2012 and has been delivered to two air forces. The infobox "primary users" link to the Hellenic Air force is clearly fake, as that air force has no such aircraft on its books; the same appears true of the Croatian Air Force link. There is a company with the related name of Enikon Aerospace, but it does interiors and not whole aircraft. Again, despite much templating, and posting on talk pages, they have not responded. This article should be deleted ASAP and I have added db-hoax to its template collection.

It would help reduce disruption if this could all be resolved speedily. Dare I suggest an account block? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC) [Updated 12:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)]

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

User:Mandi0039

Mandi0039 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've tried contacting/warning the user, but all attempts were in vain. User edits via mobile, this got me wondering if the user is able to read the messages on their talk page at all? It seems the user will not stop modifying the article at IDBI Bank ([115], [116], [117] and [118]) and will cause disruption, despite my hidden comments as to why I've edited the way I did ([119]-post this I've further updated with sources [120] and further). The user simply removes the comments ([121]) without any edit summaries, so no way to know what could be the user's reasons and intentions. Can I ask for a block, perhaps limited to that article? — DaxServer (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Communication is required. I've blocked them from editing that article indefinitely. Happy for anyone to unblock without consulting me if they show a willingness to engage with other editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The C of E and DYK

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

---

In September 2020, User:The C of E received an indefinite topic ban: "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics." (with some additional restrictions) here. In November 2021, they appealed, but their appeal was rejected[122]. To quote from that appeal: "I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this."

At the moment, there is a discussion about 3 current DYK nominations by the C of E, which do not violate his restrictions, but simply show that they have continued their "provocative" approach with other subjects, in this case getting "fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#For fuck's sake. This is about Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager, Template:Did you know nominations/One fuck rule (with the article up for deletion already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-fuck rule), and Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves, where the article as well had to be rewritten to get rid of the utterly gratuitous use of "cock" throughout a paragraph[123]. After his two first attempts at getting a hook with "dick" and "cock" on the main page were rejected, they suggested a third alternative, again using "dick" in a deliberate manner.

Perhaps, as this extends to the mainspace, even harsher restrictions are needed, but for now I would suggest that the only way to finally get rid of the years-long disruption The C of E has brought to DYK and the Main Page is to change his topic ban to a complete ban from DYK broadly construed. Fram (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support DYK topic ban, as C of E shows no interest in reforming, stopping disruption. As I'm unaware of other disruption, neutral on broader sanctions at the moment. Star Mississippi 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef DYK ban. Again, stirring the pot. After User:Joe Roe noted how he spent so much time trying to get "Nigger Love Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" on the front page (appeal discussion), I knew we would back here. Even User:Jayron32, who was sympathetic in the appeal, previously noted that CofE "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page". Same shit, different day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support This again? Can we be rid of this for once and all? This is growing wearisome. --Jayron32 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support DYK topic ban at minimum. But note also that 'The Ce of E' has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere: note the title of this article draft [124]. The draft has now been moved to article space under a more appropriate title, but it surely has to stretch 'good faith' beyond reasonable limits to suggest that creating a draft under the name 'ohfvuk' was unintentional, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on DYK and the entire main page. Someone who admits to being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement must be prevented from trolling on the main page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A ban seems heavy handed. He's creating good content, even if it is provocative content. --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I strongly opposed a ban last time, but even I have limited patience for this juvenile nonsense. In the end, if you're going to carry on being deliberately disruptive, you should expect people to become tired of you becoming a time sink. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Ah, this sheds a different light on United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster (2 cocks in one DYK!). Well, it's a hobby.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was pretty happy to get my DYK for Shit flow diagram on the main page, but it wasn't cunning wordplay to include shit, it was just in the name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from DYK. If this behavior moves to other main page sections, we should start thinking about a long block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support full DYK tban. As I brought up at WT:DYK, this is wearily, horrendously persistent. Neither the "watermelon song" debacle nor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona are long ago. We will be here forever if we don't put a stop to it. Vaticidalprophet 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support. I really am not happy about it, CofE is a good contributor to the encyclopedia, but I finally got here because it's been a long-term waste of time at DYK. I don't care if a hook includes cock, fuck, dick, whatever. If that's the best hook, so be it. The problem is that it's seldom the best hook, it's almost always just juvenile giggling, it often produces drama, and that's a time-waster. Switching to oppose per CofE's stated willingness to comply with any required restrictions. The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content. Period. I don't care if the article is BEGGING for it, someone else can be the one to suggest it. valereee (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, with mainspace topic ban on slurs/swear words - not only has this user been skirting with WP:NOTHERE in attempting to stir up divisions and arguments by trying to get inflammatory material posted on the main page, they also seem to be trying to use slurs and swear words as much as they can get away with, in a way that I can only describe as trolling. I would support the current proposal, along with a mainspace topic ban on using/posting anything to do with slurs/swear words (with the sole exception of reverting obvious vandalism). Theknightwho (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel this is a little heavy handed, when I was complying with the restrictions placed upon me last time. I am willing to change, if the swear words were the problem (as I was not under restrictions for that), I will be willing to submit to that additional restriction. I recognise my previous political issues and I do want to prove I have changed. I am prepared to add the "no swear words" restriction to it and formally propose it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The thing is, it’s one thing to say you won’t do it again, but why did you think that doing this was a good idea in the first place? You can see from the above reactions how out of step you were with the community. People are even talking about WP:NOTHERE. Can you explain what was motivating you, that you understand that whatever that motivation was it was misplaced and give assurance it’s not going to emerge in some other format beside DYK? DeCausa (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @DeCausa: I appreciate the open question. The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia but I am perfectly able to go without them (as can be seen from my many other contributions) but also as a way to attract editors towards a topic which can be improved as a result. I do understand how people can view that and I can assure you that it will not arise in DYK as the consensus dictates. Nor will it anywhere else where it is not part of a sourced quote. All I ask is that a few minor missteps in humour not overshadow my vast contributions towards DYK and that I be able to continue to contribute to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Ok, weak oppose then. I know you do a lot at DYK and elsewhere. But this is a really bad misjudgment. It’s not “little a bt of fun” because it just causes work/hassle for other editors to sort out and wastes their time. And it’s just not funny. You probably are going to be Tban’d but if for some reason you’re not and it comes up again either because of DYK or elsewhere I would support sanctions. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I hope not, I love DYK because I think it is the best ways to encourage article creation and improvement. That's why I have proposed to voluntarily put myself under restrictions. I came in late to this so I was not able to put my proposal forward before people cast their !vote. I would hope this can be closed and given the chance for all to hear me out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
          • All of that is, for me, just completely belied by that n-word hook. Controversial, sure, but there's just nothing funny about that, and using that word to attract readers, knowing full well that it will completely disgust many readers, is in very poor taste. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
            • @Drmies: That was an error in judgment on my part and I apologise for it. 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
              • @Drmies Don't forget the Adolf Hitler hook that took the piss on a low-level Namibian politician's name -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
                • User:Guerillero, yeah that wasn't funny either. User:The C of E, I appreciate the recognition. I don't know if that is enough to completely satisfy me, though. I mean, these articles, and the DYKs attached to them, they're well-thought out and planned--I know, cause I did a few myself. They're not just a slip of the tongue. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose - Based on how egregious some past threads, etc. have been, I read the top of this thread and was inclined to support. But while these are obnoxious, they aren't the kind of offensive we were talking about last time around. So I decided to take a step back and spot check of entries at User:The_C_of_E/DYK to see how representative those linked at the top are. Scrolling around randomly, I don't think I've found one that's offensive yet. Of course, if I search the page (there are 516 DYKs), I do see four fucks, two shits, one dick, two cocks, and one shag. Maybe some other words or double entendres I didn't think to look for. So yeah, he does seem inclined to the naughty in a way that's not appropriate (without good reason) on the main page. But I also see I see he does try to keep it lively -- sometimes to a fault. While I don't approve of going out of one's way to push dirty words onto the main page, I do think making the hooks as interesting as possible is the whole point. We have an awful lot of hooks that just aren't going to compel the average reader to click (I've submitted some myself), so I think when someone is committed to the idea of making fun hooks, we should try to retain that person when we can. All of this is to say if there's a more expansive restriction we can try, I think we should try it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's the tricky part. C of E is under a very heavy DYK restriction. It's had even broader additions proposed before (e.g. an expansion to cover BLPs after the Uunona debacle) that only failed on technicalities. There is a point where widening a restriction to encompass an ever-broader swathe of a topic area is worse than just restricting the topic area entirely. C of E is a lot more than a guy with a dirty sense of humour -- I don't particularly mind the dirty sense of humour, it gets a chuckle from me. He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of. To add insult to injury, it's hard to even say he's committed to making fun hooks; when he works in sports, his most inoffensive area of interest, his proposed hooks are often workshopped on for long periods due to failures of interestingness in the original proposals. At some point, when somone is twisting the spirit of a tban to keep disrupting, implementing ever more twistable versions of it doesn't work. Vaticidalprophet 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with changing focus when restrictions prohibit me from working in a certain area. What is wrong with any of my Rhodesia hooks? I chose that because there are a lot of topics in there that don't have their own pages like the Police Support Unit or John Morkel (plus bringing Des van Jaarsveldt to GA) because traditionally they are areas that people shied away from. I always tried to keep everything balanced with criticism where appropriate for racial issues. Also, I was not under any restrictions for swears/slurs at the time but this is exactly what I am preparing to voluntarily submit to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Moving from one highly charged topic involving British imperialism (broadly construed) to another, following a topic ban from the first, might be seen as naive if you had only done that once, but the examples that @Vaticidalprophet has given shows that it seemed to be a way to evade the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. I don't think that trying to deny that is likely to turn out well for you. There is a repeated pattern of you simply broadening the scope to keep getting away with what seems to be (at best) trolling, or (at worst) WP:NPOV violations. Theknightwho (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I don't understand? I was complying with the restrictions that were put upon me. I was banned from a specific area (Which I have obeyed), I genuinely had no idea I was banned from every controversial area. I even checked from time to time with the editor whom put those on to see if it would or not because I was being very careful to follow the rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
          • You weren't banned from every controversial area - we both agree on that. However, the point is that changing topics is a way to evade a ban while continuing to engage in the same kinds of disruptive behaviours. This is something that Vaticidalprophet gives two examples of (jokes at the expense of names instead of demographic, and trying to get swear words on the main page instead of slurs). Even regarding Rhodesia, had you changed topics to something controversial but not engaged in any problem behaviours anywhere else, then I don't think anyone would have seen a problem with that. However, taken in the context of everything else, it felt like it was a topic that you picked precisely because it was controversial, and it felt like it was a matter of time before the same issues started arising again. The repeated patterns and the totality of your behaviour is what matters here; not the specific wording of a particular sanction taken in isolation.

          FWIW @The C of E, I do think your work is of high quality, from what I've read. The articles are interesting, cogent, and well put together. Just let the material speak for itself; there's no need to lower the quality with tabloid sensationalism.

          Theknightwho (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It was the construction of the Dick Graves article that I found the most shocking: that it was written with such a disregard for encyclopedic principles in order to get seven mentions of the word "cock" in a single paragraph—to justify why "cock" should be used in the DYK hook?—when the sources used "rooster": this was a solid-gold rooster created as a publicity stunt to advertise the casino's "Golden Rooster Room" restaurant, but that reason was completely absent from the paragraph. It's time for The C of E to be given an indefinite ban from DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - My experience is that The C of E has never been interested in behaving collegially. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This is the best solution to The C of E's front page trolling, rather than just adding curse words to his already lengthy list of restrictions. This leaves him free to write articles for the encyclopedia rather than for a provocative hook. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Leaving him free to write articles is well and good in theory but he is pulling these shenanigans in article content as well, not just DYKs. Consider United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster. This is an article about a fascinating topic that is relevant to the monetary and legal history of gold in the United States, gold as an artistic medium, the promotion of gambling in Nevada, and so on. The article is very good in many ways and I am glad that we have it in this encyclopedia, and I mostly commend The C of E for writing it. Cutting to the chase, this is an article about a golden statue. The reliable sources pretty much universally describe the subject as a "rooster". Over and over again, The C of E describes the statue as a "cock", or a few times as a "cockerell", surely not a common word in American English. So, this otherwise excellent article is jammed up with "cock", "cock", "cock", "cock", "cockerell" in every mention of the statue. The guy who commissioned the statue had the name of "Richard" and the nickname of "Dick". So, take a look at the talk page of that article, where you will find The C of E joking about "Dick's cock". Reprehensible conduct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Dislosure I have edited the article to eliminate the "cockiness". Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• That article did run as an April Fools DYK though. If C of E was topic banned from DYK he wouldn't have the incentive to write it that way. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Cullen328: You don't need to look at the talk page, "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" was in the Dick Graves article until BlueMoonset removed it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support and the juvenile Dick Graves stuff is indef worthy. Levivich 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I will leave it to wiser heads than myself to determine the proper course of action here, but I feel I need to say that I would be somewhat sympathetic to the "it's all just puerile nonsense" interpretation if not for the attempt to get a truly vile racial slur on the front page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. C of E's behavior seems to me to be intentionally disruptive. Paul August ☎ 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment While this is an extreme example, perhaps the extreme example, it’s only a blown-up version of what is inherently wrong with the whole “Do You Kare?” section. The idea of deceptively showcasing articles (which are often in need of vast improvement) is more in line with a clickbait spammer’s values than an encyclopedian’s. Qwirkle (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There is rightly a lot of discussion and !votes hinging on the "n-word" hook above. I am not part of the demographic that is targeted by this slur. However, I think it's worth reiterating that trying to get the slur onto the main page just for laughs is not reasonable. WP:NOTCENSORED is one thing, but intentionally trying to publicize a word that is known to hurt and marginalize people is just unacceptable. I keep waffling between outright support for a topic ban and just a comment highlighting the severity of the issue here. Ultimately, I don't know this user's work enough to judge them. I do know that learning about this has now colored my previous interactions with them at a race-related AfD and caused me to become concerned. Hopefully, we can depend on the editor to contribute in good faith going forward. No other comment on the topic ban at this time. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I don't know if C of E doesn't understand what is and is not within the community's boundaries for DYK or simply doesn't care about the community; either way, he shouldn't be allowed to continue this over and over. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello
  • Then please, do tell me so I know @LindsayH:. I am willing to submit to any restrictions that allow me to continue to work on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  The C of E, i find it hard to understand just what you mean, so i'll slightly elaborate on what i meant, and hope that answers your question. The first part of my comment was an attempt to be nice while suggesting that WP:CIR might be usefully read: Your behaviour could be that of someone who simply doesn't understand what he is doing wrong, which means that you aren't competent to be allowed near DYK. The second part is expanded below by ScottishFinnishRadish ~ the alternative to a lack of competence is that you don't care about the community, so you don't make the effort to read the room, to understand what the community wants and expects ~ from everyone, not just you. Either way, it doesn't matter to me which is the truth, your behaviour makes it necessary to restrict you so you stop being disruptive. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps take the topic ban, and before requesting it be lifted, learn to read the room. That you've continually pushed the limit in this way, even after sanctions, doesn't make me confident in new restrictions short of a tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Has C of E considered starting his own Profanipaedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "yes, he really puts the fanny into fanipeadia...", etc.
• Support. Limited restrictions have not borne fruit and have simply redirected the silliness to other topics; CoE is not contributing to DYK so much as gaming it for an audience of one. Removing the possibility of showcasing his antics on the mainpage seems like a clear use of WP:DENY that should be followed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Back in the original topic ban discussion, I wrote "If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism ... That is exactly the wrong way round." Now look at the "Dick's cock" paragraph before BlueMoonset rewrote it. That's a particularly egregious example of writing content to fit a gratuitiously provocative hook. "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock"? Who in their right mind could think that acceptable in a Wikipedia article, never mind promoted on the front page? Then there's the One-fuck rule AFD, which at the moment is showing an overwhelming consensus that the subject is not appropriate for a standalone article. The C of E has previously admitted to creating inappropriate provocative DYK hooks for his own amusement, and received a partial topic ban as a result - but he's still doing it, just in different topic areas. "I am willing to change", he now says, but where have we heard that before? In the original discussion, I thought a ban from The C of E's pet political and religious topics would suffice. But these new examples, plus the recent "...Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" one, make it abundantly clear that The C of E does not possess the judgment needed to create material for promotion on the Wikipedia front page. A full DYK topic ban is unfortunately needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and one addition I just have to make. In his appeal in November, The C of E spoke of the "maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed". And "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" is an example of that maturity, is it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, Once someone just moves their disruption to a different topic, they need to be banned from the process altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is intentionally disruptive, trolling bullshit. It's obviously not going to stop without a topic ban. DoubleCross (‡) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. This just it too much of a time sink. MB 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: indef DYK ban. I firmly believe that there's a point at which it's just simpler all around to conclude that an editor cannot be trusted, and shutting it all down is preferable to yet another go-round. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not the domain of sniggering eight-year-olds who believe it's the bee's knees to use naughty language in public. Enough. Ravenswing 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - best to escort the fellow off the DYK premises. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinite topic ban from DYK and anything that has a relationship with slurs or questionable content: If anyone else had done this, they would have been banned from DYK a long time ago. We cannot allow users to try to get racial slurs or other blatantly provocative content posted on the main page. Honestly, it is shameful that this has been allowed to go on for this long. Considering the user's behaviour both on DYK and elsewhere, there is no indication that they have any intention to reform. Furthermore, if we allow this to continue, these events will eventually become front-page news. That potential scandal is entirely avoidable. There are no downsides to banning this user from DYK. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support The C of E is just deliberately trying to see how much they can get away with and is extremely aware of what they are doing. There's no subconscious acts here, it's all deliberate provocation and pushing. They may be creating content but the driving force appears to be how far can I push this, and can I slip something in under the that I know is juvenile and inappropriate. This isn't new, it's gone on long enough, this behaviour is not acceptable and is against the spirit of the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as long overdue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: If an editor of C of E's tenure needs this kind of restriction, then they should be under one that is relatively easy to police. The more complex a restriction, not only the easier it is to (attempt to) game, but the more of a timesink it is for other editors to police. SN54129 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support DYK topic ban. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There have been very many opportunities for course correction, and The C of E has taken none of them. I have yet to see anything that feels like genuine self-reflection about this behavior. And I'm honestly not convinced this will solve the problem entirely, as he's still working on fraught topics, and has shown a history of poor judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support racism, homophobia and dodgy Rhodesian articles on the front page? No thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Using juvenile humor such as this in DYK's isn't clever or funny. Using it in articles is just sad and there is absolutely no good reason. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with an added note that the first hint of anything like this behavior cropping up elsewhere should result in a site ban. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from DYK, broadly construed (no nominating articles, commenting on nominations etc.) GiantSnowman 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per everyone above. I'm no puritanical uptight person by any stretch of the imagination, but slurs, fucks, shits, cocks and double ententres don't belong on the front page. The C of E should know that kids use Wikipedia for research, and imagine a kid trying to explain to a teacher why those things are on the front page. I'm honestly surprised someone of The C of E's tenure needs to be told that. JCW555 talk ♠ 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support long overdue indef DYK topic ban. I was pretty sure that C of E was trolling ever since I saw his Sheep shagger DYK back in 2016. I think the idea behind the serial disruption falls under WP:POINT as well.--Catlemur (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support – not that additional pile-on is needed, but there is yet another aspect: the article created for shits and giggles in order to work as a DYK hook was not only misrepresenting sources, but also violated WP:ENGVAR in a way that I don't believe was accidental. If The C of E is trying to show a change of editing behaviour, that's not the way to go. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately they are a net negative at DYK and have completely exhausted the community's patience for this behavior. (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on like this. I've only ever had positive interactions with C of E (at DYK or elsewhere), so I don't understand any of this utter nonsense. If they've shown a bit of an inclination for (occasional) bad jokes, then the solution would have been to address those bad jokes instead of banning them from an area where they have otherwise broadly disruptive. People have to remember that if this kind of stuff got on the main page, then at least one other person found it non-objectionable, so unless there's some old vendetta which I'm not aware of, this isn't particularly helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• If you'd read the first link, you'd know that his previous topic ban was not about "bad jokes". In the case, especially, of the Northern Ireland nationalist material, most people reading the DYKs would not have had the knowledge about the NI political scene to appreciate why the material was deeply offensive, which is why much of it flew under the radar for some time. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• In what world is "at least one other person found it non-objectionable" a valid defence against anything? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: The C of E is banned from creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content

Alternative proposal closed per WP:SNOW

I understand where people are coming from on this, I understand the n-word hook was a terrible lapse in judgement and I formally apologise for that and ask for forgiveness. I also recognise that where my attempts at humour have caused disruption (intentionally or otherwise) and that I have proven over my many years of work at DYK, that I am able to create content without causing any drama. With that in mind, as{ @Valereee: above mentioned, I am prepared and willing to submit myself to the following restriction: "The C of E is banned from creating or proposing any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content and any hook may be vetoed by any editor". I hope this can be a fair compromise to allow me to continue working at DYK whilst ensuring an end to the disruption. I agree to be subject to this on the grounds that if I intentionally breach it, the original discussion above may take effect. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, the time for that was when it was obvious you were trying the community's patience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Also, you can start with reading the room practice by looking at the overwhelming consensus forming above, accepting your tban, and adjusting your behavior. It would make it a lot easier to get the tban eased up down the line if you showed self-reflection at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) I am willing to adjust my behaviour and I have shown the self-reflection above and apologised for past behaviour. The concern I had was that the original proposal was formed when I was not around and by the time I got online, a lot of people had already made up their minds without me getting the chance to put my opinion forward. As such, I agreed to submit to additional restrictions to show I have changed and I can be a productive member of DYK. This is why I am putting forth an official proposal to submit myself to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC) It's clearly too late, look at the section above. It's about 75% support right now. If your topic ban were at RFA, it would pass. Rather than be subject to more restrictions, you need to see that you've exhausted the communities patience. Now, to show some respect for the community, you should just accept a topic ban and show you can edit in-line with community expectations and norms, and over time convince the community that easing your restrictions won't just cause more problems. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. The problem is not with specifics, it is with the general approach to Wikipedia and to DYK. That is to constantly test the boundaries of what is acceptable in provocative main page content. And there's a chronic inability to judge what is and what is not appropriate. The existing restrictions did not solve the problem, they just shifted it to other topic areas. And apparently nothing was learned from the recent failure to have those restrictions eased. If someone does not possess the judgment needed for front page work, which is clearly the case here, they simply should not do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC) But if such boundries, as those I have proposed, are in place. I will know what they are and will abide by them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC) After seeing your DYK hooks over a lengthy period (deliberately or inadvertently) promoting sectarian, religious and LGBT bigotry, angling to get the n-word on the front page, mocking some poor bloke because he was called "Adolf Hitler", and the latest "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" attempt, I do not trust your judgment around DYK boundaries - and I do not trust you to be able to understand where the next boundary might lie. You simply should not need to be given multiple specific proscriptions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC) How am I able to regain such trust without being given the chance to prove it? If you want me to keep to mundane sports hooks or listed buildings, I will do so. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC) It's not for me to spoonfeed you in solving your own trust issues, it's something you need to own and work out for yourself. If you want to work something out and come back in maybe 6 or 12 months saying "Here's why I can now be trusted to resume DYK work", I expect people will be prepared to listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose per my support above. This would only make it so he keeps causing problems, and everyone is arguing over what is and isn't "sexual double-entendre" or provocative. Is Intergluteal cleft (butt crack) provocative? It's just a part of the body, right? Unquestionably, these issues would crop up, and his pledge to "do better" holds no value at this point, as it has been promised before. No thanks, this would be kicking the can just a bit further down the road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Support giving this user one final chance. valereee (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, see above comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. History has shown any loophole left open will soon have two fingers thrust through it. Why not just save ourselves the trouble of going through this again later. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose per what I said to Rhododendrites. C of E either intentionally or unintentionally exploits every loophole in sight. This is not compatible with the health of the DYK project or the patience of everyone else in it. Vaticidalprophet 13:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - this is not kindergarten. Edit without being disruptive or needing bespoke sanctions, or find a new hobby. Levivich 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose We are past the point of trying yet another restriction. There will always be another boundary to push at unless it's a complete topic ban. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: Good grief. Because we can trust that this time you're not trying to put one over on us, really, honestly, for real you mean it? No. I would certainly not want to be the editor gauging whether your contributions are "too provocative" or not. Beyond which, The C of E is missing (or hoping we miss, as much to the point) the simple fact that this is not a negotiation, and we do not need to compromise. There are thousands upon thousands of editors who have never been blocked, never been put under any ban or restriction, never need more than one warning to take it to heart. Ravenswing 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose No, sorry, not this time. I agreed last time, but we've had politics, we've had religion, we've had nationalism, we've had racism, we've had evangelism, and now we have double-entrendre and spurious swearing, and not only that, but in articles which have been made inaccurate to fit that stuff in. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC) But adding questionable stuff for DYK grist appears to be the whole point of the program, no? Perhaps a simpler fix would be not allowing anyone to put his own questionable stuff on the Main Page… To put it another way, yes, this particular wikiteur shouldn’t have gone so far, but it is merely a funhouse-mirror exageration of a wider problem. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oh yes, there is definitely the wider problem! How to solve that is a harder question. But a "one offender at a time" approach might help us get there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose per support above. DoubleCross (‡) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - It's time for you to seek your jollies somewhere else. Preferably off the project. In other words, you're not funny anymore. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC) oppose - sorry to say but either there needs to be a complete topic ban from DYK, or a block of some kind. GiantSnowman 15:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: No more final chances. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: restrictions haven't worked with this editor, and the Dick Graves article (as noted in my earlier comment) is well over the line; I hadn't realized at the time that The C of E had also done the same "cock" for "rooster" writing in the article about the court case. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose Nope. This user has gone too far to be trusted at this point, as i indicated in the section above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose Inadequate. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - on the basis that this is too weak. Obviously were not other sanctions to be imposed, this would be better than nothing. Theknightwho (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. Since C of E seems fundamentally incapable of when content is inappropriate, I have no faith that they would be able to properly identify content that is "sexual double-entendre, racist, or other[wise] provocative". C of E (and any editor) should have been avoiding this from the getgo, without such an explicit restriction. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: If an editor of C of E's tenure needs this kind of restriction, then they should be under one that is relatively easy to police. The more complex a restriction, not only the easier it is to (attempt to) game, but the more of a timesink it is for other editors to police. SN54129 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) I have always assumed it was one of eeng’s jokes ~ cygnis insignis 17:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose too weak. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose just because it's not clear cut and will provoke situations with no resolution – The Grid (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose as the Rhodesian stuff crosses the line, and I don't think arguing about what defines racism is productive. Secretlondon (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, more strident measures are needed for now. This may be viable option in six months time to reduce the full ban, but not right now. The problem is more than just DYK - see the original versions of Dick Graves and United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster that used the same double-entendres and juvenile humor. Not funny. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Support per my comment above, as a more proportional solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Floral suffrage and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Floral suffrage, after finding that the user may not edit-war in the ARBPIA topic area in October 2020, seemingly left Wikipedia until today to revert at Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. Given the substantial socking in the original RFC that deprecated the source, discussed here and deprecation since reversed here, I find a user showing up to revert multiple times on an article they had never edited as their first edits in over a year to be evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Can wait to figure out whose sockpuppet this is, but it seems fairly obvious that it is a sleeper sock activated now and as such I request a block. nableezy - 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Now reverting three times, including the additional source provided. Seems to be asking for WP:RBI. nableezy - 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy is using CounterPunch, a webzine that holds 9/11 conspiracies like this https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/02/lies-about-how-the-attack-on-afghanistan-started/ that claims the CIA was behind 9/11, for sourcing information on Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal that prosecuted war criminals from the Saddam government. This is an awful source for 9/11 related material.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That source is not used, and that is not 9/11 related material, and how did you come across this page within minutes of me editing it having made no edits since October 2020? How is your 16th, 17th, and 18th edits reverts to a page you have never been on before? nableezy - 16:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sock.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal is the result of 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is 9/11 related. Anyone can see Wikipedia edits, I saw this awful edit and removed it.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of 9/11 conspiracies ... nableezy - 16:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see you were created after a batch of Icewhiz socks were blocked. Huh. nableezy - 16:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This one's Yaniv. Maxim_(talk) 17:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Gracias, nableezy - 17:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x

I've been observing this for a while - User_talk:216.8.164.86#January_2022. They never respond to any user talk queries AFAICT. All of the IPs belong to the same ISP based on WHOIS, and it's clearly the same person. The topic of singular interest seems to be Serbian history, and they've added a huge amount of new articles, some of which are relevant, but a lot of it is of dubious notability and veracity, as I've seen them fabricate various nationalist-related details. The IP ranges seem random within the ISP's address space, so I'm at a loss as to what to do, other than block anonymous editing from an entire ISP... right now the obvious candidates are 216.174.64.0/18 + 216.8.128.0/18 + 216.252.208.0/22 + 216.8.164.0/24 and that's already over 33k IP addresses, so I'm wary of that. Thoughts anyone? (Please ping me back.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Persistent uncontrollable IP vandalism

Persistent uncontrollable IP vandalism:

• MBC 2
• MBC 3
• MBC Action
• MBC Bollywood.

Recently another vandal appeared in MBC 3. Admin please consider these page and it is better to add patrolling admin which oversees those pages. Thanks. The Supermind (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• All of the first four edits are stale (December 15), and a logo removal usually suggests there may have been a logo change and they're just waiting for a new version. I'm assuming good faith on the latter edit (and not since restored), while the other edits seemed to be done to simplify the article (we don't usually have specific satellite coordinates in infoboxes). I've also switched the links to this report to the desktop version for a better ability to compare rather than the mobile version. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IP at Premiership of Boris Johnson

Can someone please take care of 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:9825:A389:3AEB:41E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has added a very inaccurate summary of recent events to Premiership of Boris Johnson four times now? Based off their talk page history, a reasonably long block is probably in order since they've been causing problems since November. SmartSE (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range for 3 months for disruptive editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion 203.210.138.186

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

Returning disruptive editor with multiple existing blocks. Same geolocation (Hanoi, Vietnam) and ISP (VNPT), and the same sort of edits to the same topics (warships, missiles, etc.) Some older IP ranges are under 3 month blocks. 203.210.138.186 received a 31 hour block on January 6, and has come right back.

See most recent reports:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Block_evasion_14.226.25.254
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Block_evasion_203.210.138.186

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Static IP, blocked 6 months, expect them to pop up elsewhere, but we have to deal with each address depending on it's type and collateral damage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Vũ Hà Anh - any Vietnamese speakers out there?

Vũ Hà Anh was recently subject to egregious BLP vios by IPs. I have semi'd it and, when the violations moved to Talk, also semi'd the talkpage. There remains a problem of a lot of promotional-sounding stuff, not to say guff, in the article. All the sources are in Vietnamese. Could a Vietnamese speaker take a look and, if the sourcing is as poor as I suspect, remove the promotion and cut down on the gushing detail? If not, I hope I'll have the time myself later to stubbify it by removing a lot of breathless blather as undue (whether properly sourced or not). Any assistance appreciated. Bishonen | tålk 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

• Looking briefly at the talk page, I think they are trying to do a good thing, in a very bad way. The article is more than a little fluffy, for sure, and yes, it probably needs to be trimmed with a chainsaw. I don't speak Vietnamese, so not a lot of help, but yes, the current article looks like a really bad, early draft and there is reason to doubt much of that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• It strikes me belatedly that I can't stubbify it myself, since I just "adminned" it (=applied semiprotection). Would you like to, Dennis, hint, hint, unless that Vietnamese speaker turns up? Bishonen | tålk 01:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

That's an hour job and I just don't have the time right now. I feel I would need to at least translate a few diffs, make a determination if the sources are RS (which is tricky with foreign press when you're just a dumb southerner like me). I don't want to cause more drama than I solve. If no one has by tomorrow, I may take a look, but I'm hoping someone else does because it really isn't my strong suit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is some hugely pressing urgency to do it in the next 24 hours. I'd suggest we wait for a few days to see if someone familiar with Vietnamese is willing to do it, at least. Theknightwho (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the original version (February 2018‎) is also 99% fluff. I'll watch it for a while and might be able to help cut it back. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just FYI: User:PackMecEng is a currently active editor who speaks Korean. User:-revi, a steward who sometimes posts here, is a native speaker of Korean. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • MelanieN you know that I hold you in very high regard, but Vietnamese is part of the Austroasiatic languages group, and has pretty much zero connection with the Korean language, except that both are spoken by human beings in Asia. Korean is a language isolate with very few similarities to other languages. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Cullen and all here. Some kind of brain fart on my part. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen Me. I can help, what should I do? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, the sources are actually pretty reliable, but I need to spot check to see if they do match up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of them are dead, archiving and rescuing them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr: Sourcing is not stellar, but alright. Dan Tri, VnExpress are more reliable than the bunch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Vietnamese people love to write really fancily, which can explain partially IP's behavior. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for cleaning it up, CactiStaccingCrane and Yngvadottir. Great improvement! Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

Ryan Kavanaugh continues to publicly attack Wikipedia editors

Ryan Kavanaugh has tweeted calling out specific editors, Popoki35 and me, again accusing us of having some sort of connection to and being paid by a third party. After the tweet was published, there have been multiple attempts by people to log into my account and one attempt to change my password. Is there anything we can do about this sort of harassment, like perhaps imposing a sitewide ban on RK777713 and his sockpuppets, who I think we now agree to be Ryan Kavanaugh himself (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086, topic "Ryan Kavanaugh appears to have filed a lawsuit implying Wikipedia editors [unarchived]"), to at least stop him from repeating these defamatory accusations on Wikipedia as he's done again recently here? Throast (talk | contribs) 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: RK77713 is of course indefinitely blocked as have several sockpuppets, and he is effectively banned. @Mz7, TheresNoTime, and Tamzin: have you anything to add? I see legal has been contacted and replied. I'm not sure what more we can do, sorry. I know from my own experience that this sort of harassment can be stressful and again from personal experience that Legal can be very helpful if someone actually is made the subject of a lawsuit. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

He can still edit his talk pages. Is there a way to prevent him from making new accounts, if appropriate? Throast (talk | contribs) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Shadow edit conflict there. I'd had the edit window open a while. So to add...) On a technical level, yes we can block without talkpage access, but has a need been shown for that? It's always preferred not to, because there's always the nonzero chance you've got the wrong guy, and so leaving open an avenue for block appeals is ideal unless a sockmaster is known to abuse their talkpages. As to a block from making new accounts, there are already several such blocks that should apply to RK, but there are ways to get around those, especially for someone with means. CUs could look into hardblocking IPs but that has a risk of collateral damage and I usually trust the CU team to have made any hardblocks they can safely make. So another "Sometimes only so much we can do", but this time with the responsibility being a mix of the limited anti-vandalism tools the WMF gives us and... well the basic way the Internet is set up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Doug. In the last ANI thread I posted a summary of Legal's reply to my inquiry, and I can forward that email to anyone who'd like to read it in full. Throast, Popoki, et al., I'm sorry to hear you're having to deal with this, and I admire your courage continuing to work on the article—although please do remember to put yourselves first. If you don't think it would be safe to continue editing an article, Wikipedia will survive, and there's always other articles to edit. As to what can be done... As Doug alludes to, even if RK is technically still one strike short of a 3X, Special:Unblock/RK777713 might as well be a redirect to WP:A/R/C; that is to say, we could ban him, and if that would make editors active in this topic area more comfortable I'd probably !vote for it, but he's already de facto banned. (We used to have an actual policy section called "de facto bans", which evolved into modern-day 3X but I would argue was never truly superseded by it... Anyways...) Other options: You can report the tweet. Might do something. Arguably y'all are being defamed, and could try to do something about that, but personally I'd just as soon not go on the offensive against someone with Kavanaugh's net worth. Sadly there are some "Wikipedia problems" that aren't so much Wikipedia problems as societal problems. The ability of the very wealthy to use (or threaten to use) the court system to suppress critical speech... Well, I have plenty to say about that, but not on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If anything, Kavanaugh (via his behaviour) has managed to get more eyes on his own bio article, much to his likely frustration. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And I don't see this stopping anytime soon. There's two more recently filed lawsuits regarding Ethan Klein which should at some point be included on the Ryan Kavanaugh page, and should Ryan lose both of them, I'm sure he'll fight against including that information, or at least to twist facts about the lawsuits to make him look better. --Swift502 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Swift502: I've already warned you for BLP violations regarding Kavanaugh and for antagonizing Garen67541. The above speculation about whether someone will twist facts seems to border on the former... on its own not that bad, maybe, but not great to see after a previous warning. But while looking at the wording of that warning, I noticed that you are again in conflict with Garen. While their conduct at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Ryan Kavanaugh wikipedia page is not great, two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm disappointed to see that you're back to antagonizing them. At 12:59 yesterday you wrote at COIN, I regrettably did make inappropriate comments in the past for which I apologize, it won't happen again.. 10 minutes later, with your next edit, you addressed Garen, Good try Rya- I mean Garen. Another edit confirms that you've read the SPI archive, so you are aware that Garen has been checked at least twice and returned as unrelated to both RK and Thetruthisthere13. As such, please stop accusing Garen of being Kavanaugh unless you have some new evidence. Unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry are personal attacks. More broadly, you have made 30 edits to Wikipedia outside your userspace, and I only count one that wasn't about Ryan Kavanaugh. May I politely suggest that you find something else to do here? There are more experienced editors doing a perfectly good job finding RK sox without causing drama, violating BLP, or making unfounded (or already mostly-disproven) accusations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin explained pretty fully what the options are in terms of preventing someone from editing--they are simply not great, but we'll survive. As for Swift502, I think that maybe a topic ban from editing anything related to Kavanaugh is in order; what was in here was actually already blockable, per NOTHERE and per BLP. Swift502, please consider this a final warning. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm done. Sorry for all the trouble. 👍 --Swift502 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User Dwanyewest

User:Dwanyewest has been editing since 2005, and made nearly 90,000 edits since. In 2007 they were twice blocked for copyright violations. Over the years, they had occasional bot messages about copyvios and unattributed copying within enwiki (and a truly massive amount of deletion notices), and human messages from e.g. User:Moonriddengirl in 2015[125] and User:Diannaa in 2017 ([126] and [127])

In 2018 I noticed them making poor, unattributed translations, which I raised on their talk page[128]. A month later I warned them about copy-paste moves within Wikipedia (same issue the other editors already warned them about, but which still continued). In 2019 User:JJMC89 also warned them about cut-and-paste moves[129].

Now, I noticed a new article by them during new page patrol. Bureau Nationale Veiligheid (Netherlands) is an unattributed translation of nl:Bureau Nationale Veiligheid (Nederland). Checking further, it seems that all there recent creations are unattributed (machine) translations again, e.g. Tu mourras moins bête... (comics) from fr:Tu mourras moins bête... or Franky Snow from fr:Franky Snow (with clear signs of unattributed, unchecked machine translations like "In 2020,the coronavirus pandemic, brings together all the cartoons, including those of Zep (Titeuf) and Buche (Franky Snow),intended to raise morale at the height of the health crisis, hosts several posters to recall the elementary gestures to live together without putting one's health at risk." or "Auntie: Franky's great-aunt whom she finds too stubborn and irresponsible. Despite this, she has a lot of attention to him even despite his old age. " which gets very confused about who is referenced by what part of the sentences), Pif le chien (comics), Les Frustrés (another good example of the poor quality of these machine translations, e.g. "Sixty-eight people on the decline" refers to wikt:soixante-huitard...)... IP 81.105.134.195 seems to be the same editor with the same issues (am I still allowed to post IP addresses? Or has the WMF already outlawed this?). They have received quite a few warnings for unconstructive editing last year, see User talk:81.105.134.195.

I don't believe warning this editor once again will help, and the cleanup of these will be massive (above, I only listed some creations, but they did the same while expanding articles, e.g. here; and looking at e.g. creations from 2019, I still notice unattributed translations galore). If, after 15 years, 90,000 edits, blocks and warnings, they still either don't know or don't care about these basic requirements, then there seems little hope that this will ever change. Any proposals to deal with this are welcome. Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:TLDR version: user has been informed about copyright and attribution issues for years, but all their article creations and expansions are still unattributed, often poor machine translations like Franky Snow or Les Frustrés. Please block or topic ban as appropriate. Fram (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you Fram. That is a truly remarkable career. I was looking over the user talk page and it's very concerning. But I also saw a DYK so I'm like HEY THIS IS GOOD, The Trials of Shazam! looks fine--and then I see in the history that this is what User:Dwanyewest managed to produce, and the article in its current state, and the version that made it to the front page, is all User:Argento Surfer's good work.

  I'm kind of at a loss. It's hard to block longtime editors and I have not looked closely enough at their career to see whether they are indeed a net positive, as their 90,000 edits suggest, but I can tell that they require a lot of work, and if the Shazam article is representative, it doesn't give me confidence. Can we ban a user from using machine translations? (Can we always recognize them as such?) Can we ban a user from translation in the first place? (I think we can, but how draconian is that in relation to their total article creation?) Can we simply block them as a net negative? (I can't say right now that I could support that, and it would take a deep dive--but I am not opposed to it in principle.) Can we simply block for a week next time there's a copyvio problem? (We can do that, of course, and that's probably a kind of minimum sanction.) What else can we do? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the absolute minimum seems to be the removal of their autopatrolled status, and preferably a ban on machine translations: while these aren't always easy to prove, it is clear enough when you look at e.g. Nederlandsche Unie, which even though it discussed a "Unie" (Union), it still succeeds in translating it as "University" multiple times, just like Google does[130]. And some clear warning that any recurrence of these problems will lead to swiftly escalating blocks? The knowledge that their edits will be scrutinized, and transgressions dealt with, may be enough to get their enthusiasm finally directed to policy-compliant edits. Fram (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just checked one, Agrippine (comics), and it's almost a word-for-word Google translation (unattributed) of fr:Agrippine (bande dessinée). Levivich 17:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have attributed the translation. No complaints intended, but it would be great if all of us would would develop a habit of automatically attributing translation / copy-paste editing from other Wikimedia articles/projects as soon as we detect them. This makes life of the next generations much easier and, in the long-term perspective, will save the planet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you; this is an excellent point. Levivich 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I removed the autopatrol, the issues seem to be too serious so that we may want to have a look at the edits. I kept the pending changes patrolled flag, I do not see any abuse of the flag, and the removal must be discussed separately (if at all needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Death threats and disruptive edits from 182.211.189.80

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

---

182.211.189.80 is sending death threats. They only made two edits so far, but I think they require attention. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, even one would be enough in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Paid creation of Guddi (TV series)

User:Torterra Ketchum 5999 today created a page, that he moved to main space, even before it was fully developed. I saw it when a notice came to me, that a link was made from Draft:Guddi (2022 Tv Series) to Aalta Phoring (the page that I have created). I draftified the page, as it was not fully developed then. Then he again moved it to mainspace after developing it by adding many information. Now, the problem is not so much is know about the Tv series, and its promo has not been out yet. So then how does he know so much? And here comes the idea of paid editing. The editor must have been paid to create the page. Or else, such detailed information (like screenplay by, executive producers, directors, and a huge list of cast) is still not known to any of us, except the author of the page. It seems like he is being paid by Magic Moments Motion Pictures to create articles for their TV shows, as can be seen from his page creation list. He only creates pages of TV shows that are being produced by Magic Moments Motion Pictures. So, there could be COI or paid editing involved. So, seeking advice of senior editors. Please look into the page, and is it possible that the editor has WP:COI of the subject or if this page made by undisclosed payment. Thanking in advance. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether this is paid editing or some other COI, unsourceable commercial advertising doesn’t belong here. This is supposed to be a trailing tertiary publication, not a repository of press releases. Qwirkle (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guddi (TV series) Nominated for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn Well, I said that there might be paid editing involved. But, I did not seek deletion. Why did you start a delete discussion? Please, I with no COI of Magic Moments Motion Pictures request you earnestly to drop this out of nomination. I had created this this thread to bring attention on the editor, not on the article. Deleting articles like this means deleting all the articles created by the user. But that is not what I want. The articles are of good quality and well developed. There is no need to delete them. Thats all. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:, I didn't start the deletion discussion for your benefit nor does deleting one article mean that all the articles by an editor are required to be deleted. Please read WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:GTD, both of which are linked at the top of the deletion discussion, for more explanation about how deletion works and why articles are nominated. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:: beyond Eggishorn's comments, you may be mistaken in thinking that what happens at ANI is that we discuss and deal only with your complaint and only upon the terms you set for it. This is not the case. I expect that Eggishorn filed that AfD for just the reasons cited in the nomination. Ravenswing 06:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn@Ravenswing OK no problem. But, I will also try and prevent the article from getting deleted. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly your privilege to make your opinion known, on the AfD. Ravenswing 13:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Lamnotpres repeatedly adding unsourced speculation to election articles and refusing to communicate

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

Lamnotpres first added speculation that Ralph Northam would be a potential candidate in the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election, without providing a reference (despite a note in the article source noting that references are necessary). I reverted as unsourced. They reverted me, calling me a "Conservative hack" in the edit summary. I reverted them again, explaining that a source was necessary. They've now reverted three times, still without any source, and despite me leaving multiple warnings on their talkpage. They've also added unsourced speculation to 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election. Since this user refuses to WP:COMMUNICATE in a constructive manner, I think a block here is unfortunately necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

EC protected the pages. See if they now decide to communicate. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note that Lamnotpres just attempted to delete this report[131]. — Czello 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Lamnotpres just tried to blank this section. On his talk page, he has implied he will not follow direction from ANI. And has vandalized CambridgeBayWeather's page. Not exactly the communication the community was looking for. Suggesting an indef block at this point. Singularity42 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, given that this was his response to a final warning and that he vandalised Cambridge's user page I'm gonna say he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Another attempted blanking. — Czello 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Any admin is welcome to unblock if they feel differently. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Expect some more disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A user who used an alternative account

애국심 존중 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

They said they(singular they, It refers to '애국심 존중') would use a '흑마' account later if they lost their password. However, a user name '흑마' cannot be identified except that it is written in Hangeul. and although they said it is a bot account, there is no evidence that it is a bot account. --유미사카 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Also, they was blocked in Korean Wikipedia for same reason. '흑마' account was created relatively recently. --유미사카 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, their main account '애국심 존중' is not bot account. but they marked themself as a bot in their signature. --유미사카 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pixelninja2000; most edits are to hoaxes/fantasy pages in userspace

Houddui9uggu

Ran across User:Pixelninja2000 while doing a cleanup of television pages. I tagged some of their userspace pages (which are mostly fictional sports and television items) for speedy with G3/U5, but there are just so many that I wanted to bring the matter here. They also are the vast majority of their edits on the project (93.8% in userspace), so they might be NOTHERE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Second Chance

The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.

In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and have stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.

More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.

I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.

Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting the TBAN. This is the Platonic ideal of a TBAN appeal - acceptance of wrongdoing, understanding of why things went wrong, commitment to focusing elsewhere on the project, and a plan for the future. It's especially significant to me that the reason for wanting the TBAN lifted is that Slugger wanted to support, not oppose, deletion of a minor KoC official - clearly things have changed. I see only one warning for TBAN violation, and that was made right as it was imposed. It was clarified at the time as being an error, apologized for, and not repeated as far as I can tell by searching Slugger's talk page archives. Based on all this, I don't really see any need to make it probationary and have a review in X number of months, but if the community feels that needs to be a condition for lifting the TBAN, consider this a support for that as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

IP adding wrong date formats

• 2600:1004:B16D:8867:E527:CDA3:49B0:621 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has around 50 edits recently. They seem well-intentioned but, whenever they find the construct "Month Year", they change it to "Month, Year", which is clearly wrong per MOS:DATES. I've put a message on their TP, but they haven't seen that (or have ignored it), nor have any of the reversions of their edits altered this. We need to get their attention somehow. They are improving grammar, but probably also adding personal knowledge - the edits are mostly to railroad related articles in New York. I've fixed some of the dates, but it would be better if someone has a script they could run to do it more thoroughly. It's hard to find a single comma. MB 05:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that their edits are tagged as made by the iOS app, so their lack of communication may be a Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU case. Neiltonks (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of archival bot for talk page vandalism

Vandals have been experimenting with altering archival bot settings for talk pages in order to force them to archive the pages away to nothing. See this diff for an example, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.205.97.0/24 for successful attempts at this from multiple addresses within a /24. What to do about this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A hard minimum for maxarchivesize would be sensible. Other than that it seems easy enough to deal with. CMD (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Σ: I'm going to ping Σ, who was operating the bot in question, to see if they can help. I could also potentially add an edit filter to stop non-autoconfirmed users from making talk page edits that modify these templates. -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This attempt also looks like an ingenious attempt to cause chaos. I don't know whether it would work, but the intent is clear. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Anome: Based on the focus on vandalising articles related to chaos magic and the targeted articles this IP range is almost certainly being operated by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat, look at the overlap in the history of Playback (technique) and Jim Bob Duggar for example. I would be tempted to stick a much longer block on the range since a lot of the contributions since early October seem to be the same block evading troll. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

What's about hard prohibition of non-autoconfirmed users to change config settings?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

How would you enforce it? The settings are just stored as a template on the talk page and mediawiki doesn't have any way of protecting only specific sections of a page. Monitoring millions of talk pages isn't really a practical solution. As an IP editor I've set up archiving on long talk pages in the past, and have fixed a few cases where archiving has been broken by page moves so not all modifications by non ac editors are disruptive. If a specific IP range is being used by a block evading troll the solution is to block it, rather than adding more restrictions cross the entire project IMO. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

With an edit filter.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I forgot about edit filters, sorry. I'm still think that a sitewide ban on non-ac accounts editing archive settings is a bit of an overreaction to a known troll messing around on some talk pages. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)