Remove the libelous and false information or delete my article immediately.

[Elinruby]

Talk:Ivan Katchanovski (T-H-L)



Not involved; this just caught my eye while browsing. Seems worthy of investigation

[Vigilant]

Formatting is off.

Should be Ivan_Katchanovski (T-H-L)

[Elinruby]

Formatting is off.

Should be Ivan_Katchanovski (T-H-L)

Well, the quote is from the talk page, but if you say so. I'm argued out ATM

[Elinruby]

It's a pretty good example of why Eastern Europe needs sourcing standards btw

[Vigilant]

Formatting is off.

Should be Ivan_Katchanovski (T-H-L)

Well, the quote is from the talk page, but if you say so. I'm argued out ATM

wparticle builds three links from the base article: Talk, History and Logs.

They show up to the right of the main article link as the (T-H-L) triple.

But wparticle needs the base article name to macro that out.

If you click the T on your link, it goes to 'Bad Title' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Talk ... tchanovski) since the talk is already in the string when the macro runs.

[Elinruby]

I see. Will do it that way next time and type out "talk page of"

Meanwhile the user and talk page of the author of the current AfD are both interesting: Nangaf (T-C-L). For the record,I do not know who that is, but apparently the subject does. See "Ivan Katchanovski mentioned you in his paper." And the reply thereto.

(Actually no, he refers to that editor by a user name, although he outs four other editors including Volunteer Marek (T-C-L), which he spells wrong.

[Dan of La Mancha]

The paper in question is https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2269685

Nangaf has been editing the article since before the publication of the paper, so it's not a straightforward case of retaliation as claimed by Katchanovski. Still, Nangaf's treatment of a BLP subject is far from ideal (e.g. "So sue us. Lol.")

[Elinruby]

actually... Drmies (T-C-L), who is not exactly a bomb-thrower, has weighed in saying he doesn't meet NPROF. Mhorg (T-C-L) the serial misunderstander of RS has posted his usual list of Google hits but they are at best news articles. And past experience with this user says that they will most likely all be irrelevant or people with the same name or other academics calling him an idiot. Still reading.

Convenience link for the AfD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Katchanovski (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

[AndyTheGrump]

Regeardless of the rights and wrongs of the article content, the "So sue us. Lol" comment from Nangaf was worthy of an immediate block, in my opinion. Not just rude, dismissive and inflammatory, but inciting Katchanovski to respond in a manner which would have led to a WP:NOLEGALTHREATS violation.

[Ryuichi]

Regeardless of the rights and wrongs of the article content, the "So sue us. Lol" comment from Nangaf was worthy of an immediate block, in my opinion. Not just rude, dismissive and inflammatory, but inciting Katchanovski to respond in a manner which would have led to a WP:NOLEGALTHREATS violation.

Similar comments by Nangaf on the article Talk page. I attempted to link to the diffs, but my browser was unhappy. Would support not just the block, but an indef tban from BLPs.

[Elinruby]

Regeardless of the rights and wrongs of the article content, the "So sue us. Lol" comment from Nangaf was worthy of an immediate block, in my opinion. Not just rude, dismissive and inflammatory, but inciting Katchanovski to respond in a manner which would have led to a WP:NOLEGALTHREATS violation.

fair enough. However my focus here isn't on who needs admin attention but on the the AfD. I don't know that person and am not here to defend him or her. I support the AfD however.

[The Garbage Scow]

I hate when people weigh in on AfDs with comments indicating the article should be deleted but instead of saying DELETE they say COMMENT or something else. Serial fence sitters are a pain in the ass.

[The Garbage Scow]

Nangaf's userpage includes a userbox, placed by Nangaf himself, which says

"This user may sometimes share an IP address with Ivan Katchanovski and his many sockpuppets"

Wouldn't this imply Nangaf is non-neutral and possibly even has a conflict of interest?

[Ron Lybonly]

Regeardless of the rights and wrongs of the article content, the "So sue us. Lol" comment from Nangaf was worthy of an immediate block, in my opinion. Not just rude, dismissive and inflammatory, but inciting Katchanovski to respond in a manner which would have led to a WP:NOLEGALTHREATS violation.

Many on Wikipedia think the NOLEGALTHREATS policy has a punitive intent.

It's a protection for both the Wikimedia Foundation and the antagonist. The Foundation doesn't need a bunch of amateurs muddying the legal waters once someone's mentioned the possibility of litigation. As a secondary issue, the antagonist does not help themselves by undertaking their own amateur efforts in a legally inappropriate venue.

As actually applied, the admin doing the blocking may have punitive or vindictive intent. Even so, they're unwittingly doing a good thing.

[Konveyor Belt]

I hate when people weigh in on AfDs with comments indicating the article should be deleted but instead of saying DELETE they say COMMENT or something else. Serial fence sitters are a pain in the ass.

There's a tool that tracks your AFD !votes and gives you the percentage that your vote lines up with the eventual outcome. I assume it does this by scraping for "Keep", "Delete", etc. Those stats have come up enough times at RFA that I guess people are becoming worried about their stats and cherry picking which AFDs they officially !vote in.

[Vigilant]

Once again, the cruelty is the point.

[rnu]

There is a related discussion at AN.

[Elinruby]

Nangaf's userpage includes a userbox, placed by Nangaf himself, which says

"This user may sometimes share an IP address with Ivan Katchanovski and his many sockpuppets"

Wouldn't this imply Nangaf is non-neutral and possibly even has a conflict of interest?

That is why I said the user page was interesting. I wondered about that but I read it to mean that they are also affiliated with the University of Ottawa. The other interesting thing is that of the five Wikipedia editors he calls right-wing Ukrainian nationalists or whatever, that is the only one he didn't out.

Side note I know for a fact that three out of the four are not Ukrainian.

[Ron Lybonly]

I hate when people weigh in on AfDs with comments indicating the article should be deleted but instead of saying DELETE they say COMMENT or something else. Serial fence sitters are a pain in the ass.

There's a tool that tracks your AFD !votes and gives you the percentage that your vote lines up with the eventual outcome. I assume it does this by scraping for "Keep", "Delete", etc. Those stats have come up enough times at RFA that I guess people are becoming worried about their stats and cherry picking which AFDs they officially !vote in.

Or an editor just hasn't fully researched notability yet themselves but they have something relevant to throw out there. A better measure is the value of the comment to the overall discussion.

As for the AfD tracker, it's easy to rack up a high score -- just go to AfDs that look clear-cut one way or the other then agree with everybody else.

Some editors actually prefer the borderline AfDs -- the ones that keep getting relisted. They're contributing very helpfully but probably have percentages more like 60-80%

[rnu]

I hate when people weigh in on AfDs with comments indicating the article should be deleted but instead of saying DELETE they say COMMENT or something else. Serial fence sitters are a pain in the ass.

There's a tool that tracks your AFD !votes and gives you the percentage that your vote lines up with the eventual outcome. I assume it does this by scraping for "Keep", "Delete", etc. Those stats have come up enough times at RFA that I guess people are becoming worried about their stats and cherry picking which AFDs they officially !vote in.

Or an editor just hasn't fully researched notability yet themselves but they have something relevant to throw out there. A better measure is the value of the comment to the overall discussion.

As for the AfD tracker, it's easy to rack up a high score -- just go to AfDs that look clear-cut one way or the other then agree with everybody else.

Some editors actually prefer the borderline AfDs -- the ones that keep getting relisted. They're contributing very helpfully but probably have percentages more like 60-80%

Agreed. You know what they say: a doctor whose patients have a high mortality rate is either very bad or very good.

[AndyTheGrump]

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to post comments on AfDs. They aren't supposed to be votes, so limiting participation to those who have already made their mind up would seem contrary to their stated purpose.

On several occasions, I've commented on AfDs, while not expressing an opinion on whether the article meets Wikipedia criteria either then or subsequently. I've done so to suggest that policy is being misinterpreted (e.g. the perineal dismissal of arguments for inclusion/deletion as 'WP:OR'), to comment on a particular source, or to suggest an alternative way a topic could be covered. Sometimes these comments have an effect on how the discussion subsequently goes, sometimes they don't, but that's the way of things.

[Elinruby]

I generally only comment because AfDs are a foreign country to me and there is usually some gotcha like special critera for left-handed Tahitian guitar players. And I don't care enough to learn them. Also I edit about truly awful stuff.and can't take it seriously when people get all toxic over some guy who once made a video.

As a recovering inclusionist, however, I find this one pretty simple: he wants his page deleted. He apparently doesn't meet NPROF. So be it.

[Ryuichi]

(e.g. the perineal dismissal of arguments for inclusion/deletion as 'WP:OR')

That's some quality autocorrect.

[Vigilant]

I hate when people weigh in on AfDs with comments indicating the article should be deleted but instead of saying DELETE they say COMMENT or something else. Serial fence sitters are a pain in the ass.

There's a tool that tracks your AFD !votes and gives you the percentage that your vote lines up with the eventual outcome. I assume it does this by scraping for "Keep", "Delete", etc. Those stats have come up enough times at RFA that I guess people are becoming worried about their stats and cherry picking which AFDs they officially !vote in.

Or an editor just hasn't fully researched notability yet themselves but they have something relevant to throw out there. A better measure is the value of the comment to the overall discussion.

As for the AfD tracker, it's easy to rack up a high score -- just go to AfDs that look clear-cut one way or the other then agree with everybody else.

Some editors actually prefer the borderline AfDs -- the ones that keep getting relisted. They're contributing very helpfully but probably have percentages more like 60-80%

Agreed. You know what they say: a doctor whose patients have a high mortality rate is either very bad or very good.

Or practicing in a field with an inherent high mortality rate.

e.g. pancreatic cancer...

[AndyTheGrump]

(e.g. the perineal dismissal of arguments for inclusion/deletion as 'WP:OR')

That's some quality autocorrect.

Oops. Not just autocorrect either. It offered alternatives, and I clicked the wrong one.

[Ryuichi]

(e.g. the perineal dismissal of arguments for inclusion/deletion as 'WP:OR')

That's some quality autocorrect.

Oops. Not just autocorrect either. It offered alternatives, and I clicked the wrong one.

Serendipitously so. In context, it works quite well.

[Mojito]

I hate when people weigh in on AfDs with comments indicating the article should be deleted but instead of saying DELETE they say COMMENT or something else. Serial fence sitters are a pain in the ass.

There's a tool that tracks your AFD !votes and gives you the percentage that your vote lines up with the eventual outcome. I assume it does this by scraping for "Keep", "Delete", etc. Those stats have come up enough times at RFA that I guess people are becoming worried about their stats and cherry picking which AFDs they officially !vote in.

Yeah, if your AfD % Delete stat is too high, people will cry "biased deletionist" and try to use that against you.

[Elinruby]

El C (T-C-L) deleted the BLP. Good for him, I say

[Vigilant]

(e.g. the perineal dismissal of arguments for inclusion/deletion as 'WP:OR')

That's some quality autocorrect.

Oops. Not just autocorrect either. It offered alternatives, and I clicked the wrong one.

Wrong one?!

I think you mean subconsciously the perfect one!!

[Vigilant]

El C (T-C-L) deleted the BLP. Good for him, I say

[Elinruby]

Just for the record though I don't think the article was libelous, and when you doxx a Russian dissident, you deserve a pretty high place on the Fuck That Guy list as far as I am concerned.

But this was a good good good admin action. A purveyor of misinformation is no anger being given prominence on Wikipedia, and he can no longer complain that he is being libeled by being called a purveyor of misinformation. And we can all move on

[tarantino]

Nangaf's userpage includes a userbox, placed by Nangaf himself, which says

"This user may sometimes share an IP address with Ivan Katchanovski and his many sockpuppets"

Wouldn't this imply Nangaf is non-neutral and possibly even has a conflict of interest?

Hmm, Nangaf uploaded a headshot of Tobias Adrian (T-H-L).

{{Information |Description = Head shot of Tobias Adrian |Source = Chianoo Adrian |Date = 2021-07-21 |Author = Chianoo Adrian |Permission = Declaration of consent for all enquiries: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image(s) attached to this email. I agree to publish that work under the free licenses GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0.

Tobias Adrian is the Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Chianoo Adrian is a director at TIAA. Why she would care about Katchanovski is anybody's guess.

Edit to add: I see that Katchanovski identifies Nangaf as Svyatoslav Gut who also edits as Wise2 (T-C-L)(previously Slav70).

[Elinruby]

Nangaf's userpage includes a userbox, placed by Nangaf himself, which says

"This user may sometimes share an IP address with Ivan Katchanovski and his many sockpuppets"

Wouldn't this imply Nangaf is non-neutral and possibly even has a conflict of interest?

Hmm, Nangaf uploaded a headshot of Tobias Adrian (T-H-L).

{{Information |Description = Head shot of Tobias Adrian |Source = Chianoo Adrian |Date = 2021-07-21 |Author = Chianoo Adrian |Permission = Declaration of consent for all enquiries: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image(s) attached to this email. I agree to publish that work under the free licenses GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0.

Tobias Adrian is the Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Chianoo Adrian is a director at TIAA. Why she would care about Katchanovski is anybody's guess.

The Euromaidan massacre is the foundation story of the current Ukrainian state. Calling it a false flag reinforces the Russian narrative that this was a coup and the legitimate prime minister fled for his life. Why you would care about this boils down to why you would care about freedom vs law and order. People do on both sides.

I don't really understand the IMF connection but of the four Wikipedia editors doxxed three have completely different day jobs than Ukrainian history. If you care about the war in Ukraine you probably care. Katchanovski was pretty vocal about calling Hunka a Nazi, for example, and Soviet propaganda had a lot of fun with that.link i have no idea about Nangaf or the fourth doxxed editor