---

• 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)[reply]

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

Category 1 - specifically highlighting Epstein associations

• Mario Cuomo [3] (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
• David Rubenstein [4] (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
• Vicky Ward [5] (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
• Chelsea Clinton [6] (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)

• 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)

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)

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.

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

• Well, let's start with something more basic; that the whole article needs some work. I just stripped out some redlinks from the long, long list of "notable" names, but the biggest flaw is this: we just don't need the CVs of everyone listed, especially when one can just click on the link if you want to know more about a person. Why do we need to know, in the text of this article, that Priscilla Presley is the former chairwoman of the board of Elvis Presley Enterprises? Why is it important to know here that Brent Scowcroft was the Aspen Strategy Group founding co-chair? Do we need to know, here, that Robert Kagan is husband of Victoria Nuland, brother of Frederick Kagan, son of Donald Kagan? And never mind that of all the things Herbert Hoover did in his life, the important thing this article cites beyond him being POTUS is that he appointed Eugene Meyer as Fed chair 1930–1933? I'll start tackling that now, but for pity's sake, what's the value in all this debris? Ravenswing 13:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's great, Ravenswing, but this is WP:ANI, not the article talk page... I think we're probably here to discuss the editors' behavior and whether or not sanctions are required rather than to improve the article in this specific venue. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  One might consider it context to know that the entire article is a mess, and that one editor putting in Epstein comments -- which, after it was mentioned on the talk page, have been both stripped out and not readded -- does not appear to have been a full-on edit war worthy of ANI's attention. But, of course, you do you. Ravenswing 04:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ravenswing: - does it need to be an edit war to warrant ANI attention? These additions are already beyond the pale. This editor used an list entry for Mario Cuomo to attack his son Andrew Cuomo for associating with Jeffrey Epstein. Are we going to excuse this without even a warning? starship.paint (exalt) 05:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An admonishment is appropriate, the more so in that he's pushed this anti-Epstein fluff into other articles [48]. But we're also not talking a drastic situation. Æthereal is not edit warring to add this edits back in. He is not being uncivil in the exchanges. He's not posting unsourced lies. Obviously he needs to stop treating list articles as biographies -- something he does do a lot -- but I'd recommend slowing your roll. Why does this bother you so intensely? Ravenswing 13:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  He's done far more than treating list articles as biographies. He's weaponized our list article into attacks on living people, even if these people are not members of the list themselves. Eileen Donahoe's entry, which failed to describe her actual profession, was turned into an attack on her husband John Donahoe [49] / [50]. How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... that's what you call an "attack?" The worst example you could throw up was a public statement quoted in a BBC article? It's certainly unnecessary, and it's certainly superfluous, but Æthereal Delenda Est!! and rhetoric like "weaponizing" a list is over the top. This is the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 14:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The superflous information came about from either incompetence (WP:CIR) or malice/some misguided sense of justice (WP:NOTHERE) or both. That disturbs me, but it clearly doesn’t disturb you, or it hasn’t occurred to you. The encyclopaedia needs to be protected from both. starship.paint (exalt) 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I will rephrase this as simply as I can, and please feel free to ask if any of this is unclear: yes, these are problematic edits. Yes, they should not have been made. Yes, Æthereal should make no more of them. Yes, Æthereal should be warned against doing so. (Hey, that's already happened, and they even promised not to do so.) Yes, these problematic edits should be reverted. (Whaddyaknow, I've been in the process of doing so.) And yes, I've already said all of that above, and I'm rather at a loss as to how you could have ignored my prior comments.

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barnard_College_people&diff=1057955321&oldid=1057954419 Lindenfall (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This pattern of edits is not reflective of someone here to build an encyclopedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal)

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support That seems fair Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef BLP topic ban based on evidence of sustained WP:RGW/WP:SPA-type WP:POVPUSHing. Levivich 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I'm not sure how effective it will be given the lack of communication. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is clear WP:NOTHERE behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps I did not do a good enough job explaining that Snoogans has previously been topic banned, in part, for very similar behavior [72]. I would think ANI editors would want to look at this carefully. I am not a paid editor. I am a long-time, full-time employee of CRA, with a disclosed COI here. Since I am not WP:PAID, WP:PAYTALK does not apply. 2) This is my only account on Wikipedia. I am not User:AltWjh. The insertion of a biased and unduly weighted attack as the second sentence of the lead (positioned so the biased statement appears on page 1 of Google Search results) is going to attract the attention of more than one person at a large public company. I have gone to great lengths to learn and follow Wikipedia policy as a result of this attack. Rather than trying to cheat with undisclosed direct editing on the page, I have only used Talk and now, ANI. 3) By contrast, Snoogans has not declared they are an being an advocate WP: Advocacy, despite open hostility expressed against CRA on Talk: “[If] CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work.” RfC This wholly invented statement - that CRA currently hinders climate change activity (without any sourcing whatsoever) and should issue an apology - combined with inserting biased attack on the company into the lead, could not be any clearer an expression of advocacy. Advocacy editing is just as severe a violation of Wikipedia policy as undisclosed COI editing. And in this case, it is part of a pattern that already led to another topic ban. Basslonick1220 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you are a long-time, full-time employee of CRA. Are we to believe that you do this on a voluntary, unpaid, basis? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a paid employee of CRA editing from an IP geolocating to the CRA offices, it's reasonable to assume you are being paid to edit. It's true unless you only edit Wikipedia while off the clock. Firefangledfeathers 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a longtime employee of a company, attempting to get an editor topic-banned from editing the article about that company because I don't like their edits about the company." Textbook example of why COI editing is problematic, and a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Basslonick1220, you say I am not a paid editor. I am a long-time, full-time employee of CRA. Good heavens, don't they pay their employees? You are of course a paid editor, and WP:PAYTALK very much applies to you. Also, you seem oblivious to the inappropriateness of your opposition research, which I already referred to above ("It is, as Snoogans says, problematic that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors"); you cheerfully repeat its meager results again. No, the conduct Snoogans was topic banned for in 2017 is nothing like his pushback against your promotional efforts today, let alone "part of a pattern". You have done one thing right at Wikipedia, and that is staying on Talk:CRA International, and not editing the article. That's good. But, while you're entitled to use ANI just like anybody else, the way you have used it shows both poor judgment and a failure to listen to what you're told by experienced editors. You should stop digging, or you will in fact be lucky if a WP:boomerang doesn't head your way. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• I'm concerned that there may be other editors who behave in the same way as Basslonick1220. My attempts to change the article from anything but a hagiographic puff piece have all been reverted. They seem clueless about our NPOV policy to prevent such things. Criticisms and their climate change denial stance must be mentioned in the body and lead. Experienced editors need to edit there. -- Valjean (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of experienced editors agreed with the climate change issue being omitted from the lead at the October RfC. If you have a problem with your edits being partially reverted by Whizz40 and me, you can discuss the disputed content at the article's talk page instead of insinuating here that other editors don't understand the NPOV policy. Best, 15 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed on the talk page of the article, the article is currently fairly brief. I think what's needed is to expand the article in the normal way until it provides good coverage of the topic, then the climate change issue could be mentioned with due weight in an expanded lead. Whizz40 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valjean I was the editor who added the Climate change denial link to the See also section of the CRAI article. I thought it was relevant to include, per MOS:SEEALSO. However, I note that I have not noticed any of the sources use the words climate change denial to describe CRAI, although I have not search for this term specifically. In addition, the RfC on the talk page has taken place since then. If there are reliable sources that say this then we should cite them and include the context in the text of the article. Without this, we just don't know. It's possible the company, or the authors of the papers, had no opinion on the science, or believed the science on climate change, even while they wrote the research into the economic impact of climate change policy that has generated the controversy. Therefore, I think it may be Synthesis or OR to include a see also link so boldly in the article without a citation. Whizz40 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is going to end up in a boomerang - withdraw, mate. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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. [73]. 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 [74] or two [75], 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)[reply]

---

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

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

---

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; [76]

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

An IP geolocating to Tbilisi, Georgia[77] 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."[78]
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."[79]
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."[80]
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." [81]

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

I will re-post the same source that I posted at the time[82] vis. to the IP's disruption (I see user HistoryofIran has found it as well). It is from the most up-to-date, high-quality WP:RS on the Achaemenid Empire, and published by Wiley-Blackwell:

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

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

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

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

---

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, [84]. I have responded with undoing their deletion and two warnings at their own talk page. One warning was for deleting text (levels 1 and 2 don't apply, since they ask them to give a reason for deletion, which they did). The other warning was for calling my edits vandalistic revision by this user. About six months ago I was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#BLP violations about Mark Skousen of WP:BITE behavior in respect to MojaveSummit, for which I have apologized. However, I will never apologize for demanding evidence for unsubstantiated claims, especially those running afoul of WP:BLP.

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

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

You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.

If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, MojaveSummit, name another editor who agrees that my edit is POV. This time you're expected to provide evidence (diffs) for your claim.

If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.

I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.

My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.

Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.

Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:El C with

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

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

El C has responded with

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

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

tgeorgescu has recently engaged in behavior towards me that he was already told multiple times by different admins in the previous ANI case that he linked above to cease. After that previous ANI case, the talk section for the Prosperity Theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules) that this incident stemmed from was closed by another user, and it was recommended to make a new section on the talk page about it free of insults and personal attacks. I did so, and included a multiple-point approach as to the issues I found in the sentences that tgeorgescu insisted be included ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Issue_with_sentences_appended_onto_criticism_section). These points included things that other users had already concurred with, such as Lindsay saying in the original talk section " I have to say, i understand the editor's desire to remove the sentences in question, as they seem to me to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which we ought not do," and Power stating " The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" on the NPOV thread about these sentences (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1035339051#Prosperity_theology). After a month had passed with nobody commenting on the new talk section, I made the proposed changes, since they were part of a consensus, even if tgeorgescu personally disagreed with those other users as well.

I checked on it for a while after making that change, but nothing happened for a couple months, and then I was away from Wikipedia until a couple days ago. I discovered that tgeorgescu had on November 2 undone the change, while falsely stating in the log "(no WP:CONSENSUS for removal, I guess nobody agreed that this is POV)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=1053116526&oldid=1053112078). On that same day, he also made the following statemnt on the second talk page section, which was his first contribution of any type to that section: "You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.

If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC) He further added another comment on December 3, stating "In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC) These are exactly things that tgeorgescu was already warned about in the previous ANI case by admins. He clearly violates WP:IDHT here, as he had already been told by an admin in the previous ANI that he was in violation of it by ignoring what other multiple users had said about the issues with the sentences and his repeated insistence on trying to derail the argument by hyperfocusing on Mark Skousen specifically instead of focusing on the actual points being made. So when I read that as well as his false claim that nobody agreed with those sentences having POV issues, I recognized tgeorgescu's Novemeber 2 revision to the article as vandalism. As such, I undid it and noted the reason why.

I awoke this morning to multiple warning templates on my talk page from tgeorgescu, which he had already been warned by admins in the previous ANI case for attempting to use as a weapon to browbeat me on this specific article. He had also reverted my change on the article again, stating " Don't accuse me of vandalism, you have no consensus." Which, he had already been warned about previously for using this line of argument. There was consensus from multiple other users, and he was told to stop committing an WP:IDHT violation in this regard and falsely insisting that nobody had agreed with me and that the entire issue was all about Mark Skousen. He also added today onto the talk section multiple lines which violate WP:BITE, with those reading "If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.

I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.

My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.

Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.

Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)." He was already warned for doing this towards me on this specific article. In addition, these are further WP:IDHT violations, as he knew full well from previous discussion that Lindsay, Power, and even some of the admins had already agreed with some of the points that I had made as a reason to remove those two sentences, and instead was trying to poison the well on the talk page if any other users got involved. I haven't responded to any of his personal demands that he cites as his reason for making this ANI case, because I know full well that he made them in bad faith and was doing something he was repeatedly told to stop doing towards me and that article by multiple admins.

I was trying to solve this more civilly through El_C, one of the admins most strongly involved in the previous ANI case. But tgeorgescu decided instead to open a case against me for not responding to his demands, something he was specifically warned for doing in the previous ANI thread (attempting to weaponize the ANI process against someone acting in good faith because they didn't comply with his unreasonable demands). So I guess this issue will have to be resolved here in ANI afterall, although it's tgeorgescu's, not my, behavior which warrants it. I have no interest in personally interacting with tgeorgescu any further after his recent behavior toward me which continues what he was already warned for. His action on the Prosperity Theology article at this point is also clearly in bad faith when viewed in this fuller context. I will be gone for a few hours right after this, so if any admins have something they want me to respond to, I'll get to that once I get back. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, the disputed edit is:

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

tradition of entrepreneurship—why is that bad? Why is that a false allegation?

The second part uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

There were two edits from Valereee: [85] and [86]. 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 [87]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in trying to figure out the wall of text from MojaveSummit (MS, seriously: take out all the sarcasm, etc., that doesn't actually prove your case. No one wants to read a 1200-word post, and none of us are obligated to. Say it in 100 words), but after six months all I can say is I was probably attempting to tone down statements that overstated what could be supported by sources. valereee (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, now, the edits are properly supported by a WP:RS and unopposed by any WP:RS. MojaveSummit simply does not like the edits, and that is not a reason for deletion. GenoV84 is semi-retired, but still a user in good standing (i.e. not blocked).

About focusing on the actual points being made: please do make actual points which are supported by evidence. No evidence, no points made. Simple to understand.

And, please, since you have already found the shortcut WP:IDHT, you may no longer claim you're a newbie. So WP:BITE does not apply to you this year (2022 CE). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu, I don't care how many shortcuts someone has found, if they have 33 edits they are still a newbie and shouldn't be bitten. In general don't bite anyone. valereee (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply asking them to provide evidence for their claims. I suppose this isn't asking too much. If they want to retract their claim that Mark Skousen is a believer in the White Horse Prophecy they may do it here. A statement from them that they admit they were mistaken will do.

@Valereee: I continually asked them to provide evidence and to prove me wrong, for all to see. If this is harassment, then I'm in the wrong place.

Like how many times I'm supposed to tell them that their claims need evidence, otherwise their claims are bunk?

They have reproduced this view in their own defense:

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

But even this view does not support the removal of the edits from the article. Now you're beginning to see that even the quotes they provide don't support their own position.

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

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

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

Let me check your evidence: at the moment 力 wrote their comment, the article looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&type=revision&diff=1035276348&oldid=1035274894&diffmode=source tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it say in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article at that moment? "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology,[78] such as a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God.[79]" What Power said should be in a different section of the article was already there at that exact moment. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non sequitur (fallacy). The gist: 力 did not want those edits removed, you wanted those removed, not them.

Till now you have produced no evidence that 力 wanted those edits removed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely false. Power said those edits didn't belong in the Criticism section of the article, but then described what type of information would possibly belong elsewhere in the article. As we can see, that latter info was already included in the "Comparisons with other Movements" section of the article at the time Power made that comment, and at no point have I ever objected to that information being there. Power did support the removal of those sentences from the Criticism section, and the information they said should be included in a different section was already at the time included there, which does not in anyway support edits keeping the two disputed sentences there. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do provide a quote from July 2021 wherein 力 said they want those edits removed. Or any quote to that extent by 力 from the year 2021.

Let me tell you something, pal: your interpretation of what 力 wrote does not prove anything. Only what 力 actually wrote proves something.

You continue to peddle your own interpretation when only a verbatim quote would do the job. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what did Power actually write at that time? " The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)." That explicitly supports the removal of those lines from the Criticism section, which is what tgeorgescu's edits insist on ignoring. Additionally, it does not at any point call for the lines as they are written to simply be moved elsewhere in the article, it gives a view into what sort of information comparing LDS beliefs to prosperity theology would be appropriate in a different section of the article. We can see that this information was already contained at that exact time in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, fulfilling that portion of Power's input here. Also, admins, please note that tgeorgescu kept insisting that I was refusing to provide the quote, when it was already provided verbatim in my original post on this ANI, and tgeorgescu even already responded specifically to it. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you provided does not support your own position. As simply as that. We were discussing your WP:CIR to read with comprehension, don't dodge the issue, it is quite important. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

valereee Here's more short, concise evidence. I provided the exact quote, tgeorgescu then ignored it, made a personal attack, and then intentionally attempted to misuse a rule to attempt to browbeat me, which he was already warned against in the previous ANI. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

— Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we have a rule that the moment someone references Derrida the thread must be instantly closed. EEng 01:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sad truth is that MojaveSummit cannot make heads or tails of what 力 wrote. Or of what WP:RS wrote about Mark Skousen.

I'll grant them that 力 wanted the edits removed from that section. However, 力 never stated they want those edits removed from the article. MojaveSummit could not produce any verbatim quote to that extent.

Conflating between section and article is once again a testimony of their poor reading ability. My argument to Valereee wasn't about section, it was about article. So, MojaveSummit was addressing a point I never made. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• tgeorgescu and MojaveSummit, the two of you have made 22 of the most recent 24 edits to this board. That makes it difficult for people new to the discussion to figure out what's going on, which will delay any solution to this. I request that both of you avoid editing this section or discussing the issue elsewhere for the next 24 hours. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  ... 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

tgeorgescu blocked

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Nope. The user you mention has made 2 edits to this page in the last 12 months. You have failed to notify the user of this talk page section as per the notice at the top of the page. I'm not sure what your intention was with regards to making a complaint but I'm seeing nothing here thats actionable. I've notified Graywalls for you but thats the only thing im seeing that needs doing on this request. Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your position as an administrator that the kind of dehumanizing language used in those edits are acceptable in daily use, let alone what is supposed to be an NPOV platform? The user in question is responsible for 75 of the last 500 edits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:4A1:78F3:C007:5E16:F75F:9903 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that we deal with (as per the notice at the top of the page) Urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems at this noticeboard. You've provided no evidence of this nor that you have entered into any discussion around the issue of the edits directly with the user in question. 2 edits over a 12 month period does not (in my opinion) reach the levels of chronic, nor intractable neither does it count (again in my opinion) as high. If you can come back showing that you've discussed the issues with the editor in question and that there is an ongoing issue (historical doesn't make it urgent) then we might have something to look at. At the minute we dont. 75 out of the last 500 puts us at 15% of the recent article edits (at what doesnt look like a high traffic page for editors). Amortias (T)(C) 23:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would this position also apply to similar derogatory language when directed against groups you might find more sympathetic, by chance? For instance, something dehumanizing like "this is not about a clinic, it's about a (Redacted) mutilation shop" as a typical edit summary would be considered similarly nonactionable, in your opinion? 2001:56A:70D9:4D00:11BE:622B:AE39:33C6 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to respond to hypothetical questions. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

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

Hi. The bot archives old discussions off, so you could pin that discussion so it doesn't get archived. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

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

I blocked for 31h. Since they apparently prefer to communicate with other users in a language they do not understand, I took a liberty leaving the block explanation in a language they will likely take all their 31h to decipher. (Sorry, yes, I know this is not a best practice for an administrator).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Look at the talk page. How many warnings and blocks before we give up on making someone a useful Wikipedia contributor? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said the next block is likely to be of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Knowledge1253 (talk · contribs) Ove the past few weeks this wp:spa has been wasting a few users time over at McGarry, Ontario inserting OR both in the article and talk despite numerous requests]] to stop [[118]], [[119]], [[120]] and promises by them to learn. Despite this they continue to add OR [[121]] and justifying this on the talk page [[122]]. They seem to wp:nothere (As they seem to have an agenda about some tribal claims they have edit wared to include) account with a huge dose oif WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

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

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

Agreed, I almost started shooting blood out of my eyes when I tried to work through the talkpage. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Rudke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Strange vandalism pattern … Thanks in advance for stopping it! --Marsupium (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It seems that their only purpose is to recruit editors to improving the article Akane Yamaguchi (e.g. at [123]). Tell them to do it themselves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail in WP:AGF in this case, link here is on their talk page.--Marsupium (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're a sockpuppet of User:Ciclye, who was a sockpuppet of User:Haiyenslna. They did the same thing before. They only ever do this same thing though, ask people to improve that article. Which is weird, because the article is already great and on a notable athlete. Silverseren^C 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd they summoned me to fix the dead URL links in the article, but literally every single instance of a dead URL in the article has already been repaired with an archive.org link, so I'm not sure what even to fix. Was I supposed to somehow revive the original URL to not make it dead? — Moe Epsilon 06:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a minor troll and major pest. The pattern of behaviour is childlike, and I suspect a child at work. Achar Sva (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. Indeed a LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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