Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140

'reducing Autism' as edit symmary

Is an edit summary like this one ("reducing Autism") acceptible? This comes about an hour after they acknowledged a warning about personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This is User:Old Guard - have you told them you posted this here? Secretlondon (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Not going to lie, that's kind of funny. I say that as an autistic person. But no, that's super rude and inappropriate. It's not ok to use autism as an insult. Pecopteris (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The only time that sort of edit summary would be even remotely acceptable would be coming from an autistic person using self-deprecating humour while cleaning up their own edits. Even then, it would be a bad idea as it would be very prone to being misunderstood. That's not what we have here. The edit also removed all but one of the sources and then tagged the section for only having one source, like that is anybody else's fault. Removing the bit about the robbery is arguable but the rest of it looks bad all round. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I wrote it and I don't find it acceptable, that is the point. And I am somewhat Autistic like most editors Old Guard (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No, does this need discussion? Even in the case of self-deprecating humour it would be a very bad idea, as other editors may not be aware of that circumstance and take offence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't need discussion, he's just whining because he isn't getting his way! Old Guard (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with your edit-summary, and I'm unimpressed with the edit-warring after protection. So, like Anachronist did on September 14, I've restored the article to the state before the edit-warring and protected it again, for 2 weeks this time. If when that runs out the nonsense starts again, there will almost certainly be blocks. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the obvious, and to what Black Kite said, equally unimpressed by "he's just whining because he isn't getting his way!" ... as a response to a legitimate ANI query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone in the spectrum I'm totally fine with this self deprecating humor as long as the parties involved find it funny. However, I don't think this edit summary makes a collaborative environment in this context. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not appropriate per Lenticel. In isolation possibly a small oversight, but the timing isn't great given the PA warning mentioned by Mr. Ollie was followed by an expressed desire to fight microaggression with microagression. In addition to the warning about edit warring by Black Kite, some more care regarding wording choice is likely warranted. CMD (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Basher Six

Basher Six (talk · contribs) – new account whose only contributions have been to attack Jesswade88 on talk pages. Seems likely to be a WP:HAND but I have no idea of whom. Any reason to let them continue poking? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Indef'd.CU wouldn't hurt but if it's anyone with anh experience they either don't care or they know how to evade it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

A quick CU check didn't turn up anything. Solid block however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

AttackTheMoonNow (talk · contribs) is WMF-banned for doing this, it's probably a new incarnation. Acroterion (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth reporting this person to AIV instead of ANI? I know AIV is supposed to be for stuff that can be evaluated in about ten seconds, but the socks are just that obvious. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that talk-page needling constitutes the sort of vandalism that AIV focuses on. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

AIV is perfectly fine to report obvious socks of banned users. Acroterion (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ATMN was stirred up again by this profile in the Observer [1] Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

KJD-45 (talk · contribs) blocked for the same thing on this noticeboard. Please block on sight, this user has expressed violent ideation in the past, and they tend to create sockfarms. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Blablubbs, you caught a few of these already. I don't know if a harder/longer block is acceptable (I'd be fine with it). Their account names are very haha funny so cute. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If they stick to the pattern a filter might be helpful? We could set it to take no action but report to AIV so there's no adverse effects on false positives but true positives get admin eyes quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:GeekWriter

Sons of Confederate Veterans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Having failed to remove sourced content from the Sons of Confederate Veterans article, or to discuss the disputed content, User:GeekWriter has blanked the entire thing as 'propaganda'. [2] WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussions of disputed content has actually taken place, but you keep re-adding unsourced content. As much as I agree with what is written, I maintain that we, as editors, look immature and stupid if we are taking editor privilege without properly sourcing, and thus distrupting the entire core of Wikipedia. MRJ 13:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekWriter (talk • contribs)

Where had these supposed discussions taken place? I see absolutely nothing in your brief editing history to indicate this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The content you removed [3] all looks to be properly sourced, and you replaced secondary sources with primary ones. In general Wikipedia is more interested in what secondary sources say about a subject, than what a subject says about themselves. Either way discussing the matter on the articles talk page is more appropriate than blanking the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Imho fully replacing an article with the text "this article is propoganda" warrants a ban from that article, if not a t-ban from the area, if not a short block. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RobertsullivanIII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RobertsullivanIII

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, every edit this user has ever made is related to making Tripp Eisen appear in a better light and lots of edits focus on removing his criminal past. doesnt resond to talk page entries --FMSky (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked RobertsullivanIII from editing Tripp Eisen. The editor is free to make edit requests at Talk: Tripp Eisen. Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Should I RPP? Seems like a good idea. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

History of wikihounding

@Fdom5997 has a history of wikihounding me. It happened in 2021 (incident reported here) and again a year later in 2022 (incident reported here). I just got a notification that Fdom5997 has once again undone an edit of mine (see here). This particular edit is unimportant, and I wouldn't call it any sort of issue on it's own. But it shows that Fdom5997 is apparently still stalking my edit log or something. Given the track record, I'm no longer inclined to give any sort of benefit of the doubt. Eievie (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Fdom5997 has been editing that article for the last few months, and today was your first edit. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The last half-dozen edits on that article before yours were Fdom5997's. It seems likely it was on their watchlist, rather than deliberately following you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, you failed to notify them of this discussion. A ping doesn't count. See the rules at the top. I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear it. After what happened before, I just assumed it was more of the same. I'm glad this time was different. The prospect of round 3 was making me exhausted just thinking about it. Eievie (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing edit warring/personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_Benn. They keep reverting my edits where I state that conor benn was suspended from boxing for failing drug tests, he is currently unable to box in the UK (and the whole world until last saturday, for 525 days) and this was a massive story in boxing and in the UK due to the chris eubank fight being cancelled. They got angry and personally attacked me "YDKSAB" means "you don't know shit about boxing" (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YDKSAB) They also told me "it really is not gonna happen, get over it" I believe they think they own the article, as they do a lot of editting of boxing articles. I pointed out to this user that professional athletes failing drug tests and being suspended is very important is shown in the lead of other articles such as Lance Armstrong, and Jarrel Miller (another boxer in the same situation)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarrell_Miller Thanks, I would also like to point out going through his talk page history it seems he frequently gets into edit wars and has also told users to "jog the fuck on". 165.120.252.95 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I can not help to notice that the talk page of that article is still empty. IMHO, there was little effort in discussing the matter. The Banner talk 09:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have protected Conor Benn for 24 hours. Sort out your differences on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Where the IP should have gone after the first editor reverted them. That'll be all, enjoy ze echo chamber. – ².O.^Boxing 09:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, IP, when you say "they got angry and personally attacked me", do you think accusing them of being on Conor Benn's payroll might have something to do with it? DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I consider fault on both sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of any other reason why he's so desperately trying to protect a drug cheat's name ? 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to resolve this on the users talk page. 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I just tried respectfully to resolve this with squared circle on his talk page. I was told to "jog the fuck on" and that he guarantees it will be reverted. This is a bit more than asking him if he was on conor benns payroll ? 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect SCB removed it from the lead because he thought it gave the most appropriate balance to the article. Please assume good faith that other editors are trying to do the right thing. Accusing them of having a conflict of interest without evidence is not acceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP has the excuse of being new. 2CB has been here about as long as I have. Dronebogus (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You protected the WP:WRONGVERSION. How dare you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just point out that the IP user went to the talk page as instructed and started a discussion. They posted on SCB's talk page ... and this was the reply they got (note the edit summary) [4]. Given that we're only a few weeks away from this, and SCB previously received two blocks in 2022 (for 1 and 2 weeks) for the same thing (indeed, the one week block was for personal attacks in edit-summaries), I wonder how long we're going to let this go for? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  There was a fair bit of support for an outright site ban a few weeks ago, too. I admit that if I'd just received a broadly construed TBAN from a major area, and there was sentiment to CBAN me completely, and I already had six blocks for edit warring and incivility, I couldn't imagine having any motive for tossing "That'll do, pig, that'll do" into an edit summary less than three weeks later other than calling the community's bluff. To paraphrase from a famous sports incident, whether Squared.Circle.Boxing's antics are the result of temperamental instability or willful defiance of civility policies does not matter; the repeated conduct is unacceptable. It's time for a community ban on Squared.Circle.Boxing. Ravenswing 14:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  As you say, Floquenbeam blocked SCB in April 2022 for personal attacks in the edit summaries of your edits, and commented that I am assuming that this will not recur upon the expiration of the block. This assumption may not, in fact, have been two-way. Jogging on seems a particular favourite: Dec 2022, May 2023, July 2023 and that's not counting the three examples already provided. Fuck off, and variants are liberally represented: Aug 2023, May 2022 and December 2021, etc. Advising others they DKSA things: August 2023, July 2023 and March 2022 is also not uncommon. HTH. SN54129 14:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have told SCB in no uncertain terms that if I see any other intemperate language like that today, there will be a block. As for wider sanctions - discuss away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Today — lol. El_C 14:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Although it's a quote from Babe, it's easily open to misinterpretation and probably not the best reply to use when you're the subject of a ANI discussion Nthep (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Given their long history of doing so, it's a safe to interpret that when Squared.Circle says something insulting, they're doing so with the intent to insult. Trying to pass it off as a random movie quote is in the same camp as "Canchu take a joke?" Ravenswing 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow's fine. Next week too. But no more "fuck offs" today, you've hit your daily community-mandated "fuck off" quota. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support community ban per Ravenswing. It looks like there's a pattern of personal attacks here and belittling other editors that doesn't seem to be going away despite several prior blocks for the same. I don't think this is just a bit of intemperate language which they should not repeat today, it's more long term than that. Even their user talk page has a banner at the top informing those who might find issue with anything that they're already wrong. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Despite Ritchie's desire for compromise, I align with Amakuru; I support community ban, or an indef block for incivility at minimum. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As SCB isn't interested in discussing how to improve their behaviour, I have blocked them for 48 hours. This doesn't preclude any further community ban being discussed here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I like how his response to your warning was "It's a very well-known quote from a film, but sure." As if there aren't thousands of well-known film quotes that are offensive to use towards other editors, all the same. Ravenswing 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if a community ban is necessary. Per Serial# this is an editor who has been blocked, sanctioned, and warned on and off for a while. I think a simple disruptive editing/no personal attacks indef block under recidivisim might be for the best. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support C-ban per my links above and the sheer number before that that previous blocks were intended to address but did not. Also per SCB's own WP:IDHT as shown in his smirking, bird-flipping edit summaries. But also not averse to Money's suggestion re the plain old indef. Would that be appealable only to the community though? SN54129 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Minor distraction, apologies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd also support Ritchie333, taking this and SCB's page off their watchlist, as so far everything you've done here has gone Bristols up. First, you blame an IP for their being sworn at. Then you warn a user who has previously been warned before. (Which you call 'advice'!) Then you block that user for the same behaviour that you just warned them for without them having even edited in the meantime! Stone me. SN54129 16:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC) To be fair, they did edit in the meantime, giving a flippant reply to R333's warning as they removed it. No sign of anything even remotely like "OK yeah, I'll tone it down a bit"... Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) True, but they hadn't continued the behaviour for which they had been warned. And if flippant edit summaries were blockable, I'd be c-banned too by now... I've just realised I'm defending SCB *facepalm* SN54129 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Kinda agree with SN54129 on this one, I'm afraid. The block made no sense in context and just gives him more ammunition to be outraged, as he has indeed done by lashing out on his Talk Page. Questionable judgment. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC) To be honest, if I hadn't had previous history with SCB - I have final-warned them before for something they are now topic-banned from - I would have probably indeffed them given their long history of merrily insulting all and sundry. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Apologies @Black Kite and WaltCip:, I've kinda derailed this a bit; mind if I hat it? And I'm regretting the size of font now; my eyes have gone funny. SN54129 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Yep, no worries. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Well I suppose I could have followed the advice of the Wise Woman who said "block everyone in the whole woooorld", but an admin shouldn't trust anyone who gives their professional address at 53 Dunghill Mansions, Putney..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Ritchie: Here is a purse of monies. SN54129 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. Reasons [5], SN54129 diffs, and Ravenswing's reasoning. I can understand a momentary lapse of self control, (I've personally come one publish click from a fast CBAN on numerous threads, so I know its difficult), but this is a pattern that has to stop. Don't have a quote from Babe, maybe a sad quote from Old Yeller because SCB has a lot of add, I hope someone finds a way out of this remedy. 19:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
• Support community ban Unless SCB can commit to knocking it off with the petty personal remarks, they're a timesink and we've c-banned for much less, and the other issues are well beyond the pale. Some time off, an attitude adjustment and a WP:SO are the bare minimum here, and I do feel the block was appropriate (if you can't stop snarking once the feet are on the fire, that does not seem like an issue with the block issuer). Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. It's a shame, but this editor has a long history of personal attacks. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN we were literally just here earlier this month for very similar reasons i.e. this user being obnoxious for the sake of it. That isn’t even pretending to care about coming within inches of a CBAN, so the only way they’re going to get the message is to just do it. Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. haven't been involved in any of this discussion or the 1 month prior one, but looking through the things, it's starting to seem like SCB needs a lot of time to think about their actions. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 23:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN the user has made it perfectly clear they don't care about collaboration; I don't see why any should care about not collaborating with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN They do not have the temperament to be able to edit here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Enough is enough. Sometimes people can lose their temper but when it happens again and again it becomes our fault for allowing it. Time to fix that problem. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN or an indef block, whatever will let people move on from this time sink. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN They have made it clear they really don't want to collaberate with others. It probably won't happen in the near future either.Seawolf35 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - this user is clearly not capable of interacting in a collaborative environment. Looking at their most recent contributions, it seems like they're just intentionally violating WP:JERK for no good reason. It really isn't hard to not be rude. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just for the purposes of logging it for thread reference, SCB went offensively salted/scorched earth in their response, which has been rightfully hatted. I've struck my call for a standard offer in six months; I don't want them back at all. Good riddance to their rubbish. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Diff instead of oldid, for easier viewing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It was very much a "well, there goes your chances" edit. Good block. We support trans friends here. SWinxy (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed it was deleted too. Which I think is warranted for in this case. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think this is true. For one, it is a user's comment on their own talk page, and for two, it is a comment that was a direct component of an administrative process, and for three, it was the specific comment for which they were community-banned and had their talk page access revoked. The reason we keep this type of user talk page around is so that, after the fact, it's possible for other editors to examine the rationale for a ban, determine what the consensus was, and understand how it was formed. This is made extremely difficult if it's censored from the record — in a few months there will probably be a bunch of AfD notices and newsletters and random junk clogging up the edit history of the talk page, making it require multiple minutes of bisecting the history to understand what happened. If his edit had someone's dox in it or a link to child pornography then sure, revdel it or oversight it, but in this case I think we gain very little (who is reading this talk page? it's not indexed anywhere) in return for destroying the auditability and accountability of Wikipedia. jp×g 17:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

TPO is still subject to BANREVERT. SCB had been indefinitely GENSEX topic banned on 6 September, and the comment that lead to the revocation of SCB's ability to edit his talk page was unquestionably a violation of that TBAN. Removal of the comment is perfectly within the spirit and letter of policy, whereas restoration of it is questionable at best. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who reverted the removal. I have just self-reverted; my apologies for my misunderstanding. Sideswipe's argument is much more persuasive than an appeal to WP:DENY. I don't see what's to be gained by removing a hatted discussion, but the policy argument seems clear enough. Perhaps a post with a diff would alleviate @JPxG's concern of leaving a record? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You could leave a note saying that talk page access was removed after making those comments. However looking at the history of that talk page, I'm not sure jpxg's concern about newsletters and random junk clogging up the edit history is particularly strong. While AfD notices might appear as SCB has created 263 mainspace articles, I'm not seeing any evidence in the talk page history that SCB had actively subscribed to any newsletters. The only automated edits I can see are from SineBot signing a bunch of unsigned comments.

Honestly, with the comment removed it'd probably just be best to move on and edit elsewhere. Outside of a UTRS appeal, there's very little else that's going to happen here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What was posted was inexcusable and serves no purpose being on a live page. AN/I threads are archived and searchable, and with any luck this will be the latest thread mentioning the user forever. If the information really needs to be found in 10 years, this thread has timestamps aplenty, and page histories can be filtered by date. Unless the revision is REVDEL'd it will always be there for someone with just a bit of patience. Lets move on folks, please. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A ban issued based on somebody's statements regarding a hot-button political issue seems like one of the most likely things to be referenced in the future. I realize it's important to a lot of people that they express their opposition to these statements. However, the practice of banning somebody for saying something, and then attempting to remove our record of what the thing was, seems to go rather far beyond the pale. It's already in an autocollapse template. What is the benefit of further expunging it, and not even bothering to leave a note in the section that SCB's comment was removed? jp×g 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For the same reason we allow any other removal per BANREVERT, the contributions are disruptive and were made in violation of a ban.

However we aren't discussing removing the record of what the removed contribution was. No one has suggested we revdel or oversight it, and the content itself still remains accessible through the page history. It is still recorded, it's just not currently visible in the live version of the page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not removed from the record, it's in the history should a ban review ever take place,a nd has now been discussed here at length. The diffs will be easy enough to find; there is no need to leave blatant anti-tans attacks in plain view because it may (possibly) make it slightly harder to find the diffs in the future if (possibly) an appeal is made. It hasn't been expunged and the harm in leaving the comments there far outweigh a hypothetical and unlikely future event (i.e. being unable to find the information should an appeal be made).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, to clarify things for JPxG, SCB was not "banned for this post". The ban was enacted based on other comments SCB made, as well as just overall behavior. The comment in question, in fact, was made about four hours after the ban was closed and enacted. (It is, however, the reason for TPA removal; that being said, it should still remain removed and accessible only from the talk page history). SkyWarrior 21:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, damn it. I had originally typed that out in the note, but when I went to double-check I saw it wasn't the case and removed it. I guess it was still in the edit summary. Well, whatever. I will make a null follow-up edit. Thank you for pointing this out. jp×g 21:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Justinw303 - disruptive editing and egregious personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my view, something needs to be done about the editing and serious incivility of Justinw303. I first remember interacting with them when they made this edit, which changed info that accorded with the given source to info that didn't. I restored the info and posted on their talk page to advise as to why I did so. They responded aggressively defending WP:OR as a reason for the change, here. Eventually it made its way to ANI and a compromise was made by an admin, here.

Justinw303's response was to change their user page to a personal attack against me, which the admin reverted here. They then continued making unsourced changes to sourced info, which they usually mark an minor, such as here and here. More worryingly, they also reverted the admin's compromise edit (again marking as minor) and restored their preferred version of the edit that we disputed here. I then posted on their TP asking them ti stop, here. Their response was to issue another (quite serious) personal attack, here. They then edited the attack to be marginally less offensive, here.

This user's talk page contains multiple examples of very nasty personal attacks not directed at me, like this one. It seems to me that this editor is here to provoke and insult, but plainly NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. They also quite clearly enjoy making personal attacks, as their editing pattern quite clearly shows.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Although some of those diffs are very old, the recent ones are bad enough and show no interest in following our policies. Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Əhməd Qurbanov and User:EloquentEditor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Əhməd Qurbanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

These two non-ec users are continuing to edit material related to political issues on Nagorno-Karabakh articles [6] [7] despite me letting them know of WP:GS/AA and its restrictions twice. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in AntonSamuel's profile, and in my profile, my edits are with explanation. In the light of recent events, Azerbaijan is controlling whole of Nagorno Karabakh. Now it is de-facto and de-jure part of Azerbaijan. That's why I am editing the places that are currently under control in Azerbaijan. But AntonSamuel always revert my changes, and as a result, all of these articles remain out of date. However, I informed AntonSamuel that, these articles should be edited, and I told that if I can't edit, so edit instead of me. But he is insisting of reverting them wrongfully. I think my edits are pretty reasonable. But, if you think i am wrong, please explain reasons to me. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think I have made any serious mistake regarding these articles. I have just added facts to the respective articles, which is Azerbaijan has captured the entire conflict zone. In addition, I do not believe I have done anything against Wikipedia rules. If you think I made serious mistakes, please let me know since I am new to this platform. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

EloquentEditor, are you aware you are not permitted to directly edit articles about "politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide"? --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, while I cite reliable sources and facts, AntonSamuel reverts my edits without a valid reason and only says we are violating Wikipedia rules. However, I think we, the new editors, are here to add points missing and enhance the quality of the articles. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Regardless, you must immediately cease directly editing these articles. It was inappropriate of you to continue doing so after you were warned. --Yamla (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that I was not permitted to edit the articles regarding Armenia and Azerbaijan, but can you tell me how I can be eligible to do that? Starting from today, I will discuss in the talk pages of the respective articles before editing them. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA is very clear in this matter. Əhməd Qurbanov and EloquentEditor would do well to read it, and to understand what extended-confirmed means. Looks like we have some rollbacking and page protecting to do. WaggersTALK 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia regarding learning this type of policies. I just think that most of my edits are reasonable and with explanation. That's why I can edit them. I didn't think that it is violation. I thought outdated articles were much worse than the current situation. Since today, firstly I will discuss edits in talk pages of respective articles. I'll not edit articles immediately. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've rollbacked the offending edits and XC-protected the affected articles. Given the statements above it looks like the lesson has been learned so I don't think any additional sanctions are necessary. WaggersTALK 13:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Yaroslav Hunka

Not sure of this is the right place for this but Talk:Yaroslav Hunka is full of material that violates policy, mainly from IPs but also from some registered editors. Specifically, there are very strong allegations against other editors (e.g. of Holocaust revisionism) and description of a living person as a war criminal. I'm not sure what to do, if it requires admin action. Bobfrombrockley (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98

Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [8]. User:Bgsu98 has been reported to this noticeboard on numerous occasions but nothing is ever done, no warnings are ever given. The way this account continues to get away with ransacking articles and edit summaries that border on harassment.2A00:23EE:19E0:8088:F103:6825:D453:5EC9 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that you're supposed to notify users in their talk page whenever you start a discussion about them here. I've already gone ahead done so. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

More harassment from my stalker in the U.K. @Ponyo, this is the same sockpuppet whose edits you reverted earlier today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OP Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64): clearly bad faith report. El_C 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s an understatement. This IP has a long history of disruptive editing, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and harassment. They have a set of brass ones to label anything I’ve done as “harassment” considering the heinous death threat they left on my talk page, which Wikipedia’s trust and safety office felt was severe enough to contact my local police department in order to verify my safety, and their attempts to call me on the phone. Like I’m about to answer a call from an unknown U.K. phone number in the middle of the workday. And the kicker? It’s over a flipping TV dance program. Seriously, I kid you not. Recommend casting a wider net as they have continued editing this morning on Dancing on Ice (series 16). Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is an LTA. Just block the newest range when they pop up and semi-protect anything they touch.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo, please add protection to Dancing on Ice (series 16) and Dancing with the Stars (American season 32) when you have a chance. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've protected Dancing on Ice (series 16), but why Dancing with the Stars (American season 32)? It seems to be mostly US IPs editing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If it’s not the same IP, then I apologize for the confusion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User has engaged in a personal attack by calling my actions "bullcrap" and called me Cotton, which is not my name. Xoruz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, the phrase raised in your latter diff isn't speaking to you directly, it's a paraphrase of a line from the movie Dodgeball. That line or a similar paraphrasing is generally mentioned as a sort of aside to indicate the speaker views a course of action as risky or questionable. Yes I know thats not exactly an aside but I don't know a better term for a statement directed to nobody. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted Talking to yourself? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Camal2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Camal2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I let this non-ec user know of WP:GS/AA and its restrictions, and the user responded with "I do not listen to a man, who have got a medal from Armenian side and behaving like a pro-Armenian. Be neutral. Your reverted edits had also been deleted". The user is now continuing with editing material related to political issues on Nagorno-Karabakh articles [9] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Camal2015 for one week for violating Remedy A of WP:GS/AA at Malibeyli and other pages. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of RS at Mosin–Nagant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP address 202.28.62.75 is continuously blanking a section at Mosin–Nagant, referring to "non-reliable" sourcing. The sourcing in question in Reuters. Unsure if this one can go to WP:AIV or not since it's not technically vandalism. Tessaract2^Hi! 01:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YaleianKing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

I'm also including OxfordianKing, since it's clearly the same person, as demonstrated by their edits and name similarity. YaleianKing also didn't dismiss this when I mentioned it in their talk page [10]

Khalaj people: Removed sourced information and added unsourced info multiple times, starting from August 2022 till now [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

SUMKA: Altered sourced info [20] [21] [22] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

OxfordianKing is the older of the 2 accounts, however that's blatant socking to be involved in an edit war. Both accounts indeffed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brandmeister

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Logged warning. Seeing as more than 80 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh's population is reported to have fled, I think a nominal degree of sensitivity is called for, at the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians page, at the least. And while robust debate is allowed, which includes whether to define that exodus as ethnic cleansing, tone and tenor matter.

A second component to this logged warning is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, considering that Brandmeister has filed a complaint against the OP (KhndzorUtogh) at WP:AE (live report, permalink), having done so without their AE report pointing out the existence of this ANI complaint (i.e. to my surprise). El_C 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Brandmeister has compared Armenian victims of ethnic cleansing to economic migrants. Furthermore, Brandmeister claimed that only Armenians are referring to this as ethnic cleansing and that no third parties are, when there were several third parties named in the article describing this as ethnic cleansing or genocide, with Luis Moreno Ocampo probably being the most noteworthy example. When another user pointed out how disrespectful the analogy was, Brandmeister still tried justifying the comparison. Is this kind of behavior acceptable for a Wikipedia editor? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In have had some concerns recently about the behavior of Brandmeister in this topic area, both in terms of the comments they make and how they use use and represent sources, particularly primary sources. Most notably, they have been misrepresenting what a primary source says, repeatedly claiming that a line they added is "verbatim wording of the resolutions", despite it being easily provable that it is not. In addition, they have been pushing for their interpretation of those sources, despite reliable secondary sources having a different interpretation; see this RSN discussion that I opened after being unable to help Brandmeister understand why we can't preference our own interpretation.

As for the comment it shouldn't have been made, and Brandmeister should have struck it when Super Dromaeosaurus pointed out that it was inappropriate, rather than trying to justify it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This would probably be better sorted at WP:AE, but since it's already here...
I'd argue that it is pretty disqualifying. Doubling down was not the right response either. I don't know where we go from here, though. Maybe a final warning? I'm a bit reluctant to suggest a T-Ban out of the gate, but we're definitely heading towards that territory if nothing is done to correct this kind of conduct. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought was for a final warning, however they have already received topic bans twice in the past ([23] and [24]). Because of this, I am in favour of a TBAN for Brandmeister on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, broadly construed. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What I mean was that they were emigrating due to conditions caused by armed conflict which is also the case in some African countries. I made that clear in the diff above: migration due to war or armed hostilities has been a well-known issue and some areas, like Karabakh, Libya, Sudan or Syria are more prone to it than others. For the record, the United Nations Refugee Agency representative in Armenia said there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move, and said they viewed it as a refugee situation. As such, I don't think I've breached Wikipedia etiquette in a sanctionable way. Brandmeister^talk 07:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that some of Brandmeister's conduct is frustrating to other editors. I'd note in particular that his use of the word "verbatim" is incorrect, and potentially misleading to those who don't bother to read the primary documents. It's also true that he's received two topic bans in the past, 1 week and then 1 month.

However, I think it's also worth noting that none of the above discussion is about serious behavioral issues. I think the "verbatim" case is probably the worst thing presented here. One could certainly debate the validity of his analogy, but being offended by his good faith perspective on the world doesn't make it sanctionable. I also noticed that his most recent topic ban was over a decade ago. If he's managed to edit unsanctioned for over a decade, and now there are minor concerns about an uncomfortable analogy or poor choice of words, I don't think a TBAN would be in order, certainly not a permanent one. I think he could be given some rope here, and if he's really being destructive to the encyclopedia, I'm sure he'll be back here soon, in which case a ban might make more sense. Pecopteris (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've been editing this WP:AA2/WP:AA3 area for over 10 years now, genuinely trying to make it more balanced. Here, with regard to the ethnic cleansing allegation, some reliable sources disagree or don't support that, while Azerbaijani government allowed free passage for all those who wanted to leave. Super Dromaeosaurus, mentioned above, agreed with me: "Categories should reflect the article, and currently all it says about ethnic cleansing is that Pashinyan and Haaretz consider this as such and that Armenians are leaving due to fears over genocide and ethnic cleansing. The article does not convincingly justify the presence of the category. For that, a more nuanced analysis from a variety of sources will need to be added in the article". Still, back then we agreed to disagree with other editors and two ethnic cleansing categories currently stay in the article, editing-wise I've not been reverting it over their inclusion. Brandmeister^talk 10:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would advice Brandmeister not to keep elaborating on their slip of words over this sensitive issue because it makes it worse. In the article about the Armenians' flight (much of what is being mentioned here happened on its talk page) are mentioned cases of violence used by Azerbaijani soldiers against Armenian civilians, that UN report is irrelevant. However, I am not convinced, yet at least, that we could argue there's a systematic effort of ethnic cleansing, but some individual cases do exist.

Still I don't think there's anything sanctionable here. This is a hot topic and it is normal some people may get on their nerves. I've seen several users with a quite overreactive behaviour. What I also believe is that some users are inflaming each other rather than using being delicate and understanding of the situation of the other. But rarely are things perfect. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Brandmeister I think I was too quick to respond without properly reading into what happened regarding the Flight from Nagorno-Karabakh. This is really a content dispute about whether to consider it ethnic cleansing or now. Obviously, anything involving the Republic of Artsakh is going to be contentious, and I think that's what has happened here. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you anyway for understanding, JML1148. Brandmeister^talk 06:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds just like a difference of opinion, being amplified by KhndzorUtogh's use of inflammatory language. Best just to calm down, stop complaining, and keep editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Graeme Bartlett; a difference of opinion/content dispute that shouldn't be discussed at AN/I. (Non-administrator comment) Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while I have some tone concerns, the original complaint here makes it sound far worse than it actually is and this appears to be a run-of-the-mill difference of opinion. In fact, the original complaint basically does the same thing that Brandmeister is accused of: sanitizing ethnic cleansing as economic migration. Many refugees from Tigray or from the Central African Republic's civil war or from Sudan would, I'm sure, strongly object to having their situations referred to as economic migration.

I'd ask anyone involved in that discussion to do their part to turn down the heat, not crank up the furnace. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am concerned about Brandmeister's participation in this topic. Brandmeister had previously mis-attributed the words of a UNHCR source that stated it "could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing" to make it appear UNHCR did not consider the flight to be ethnic cleansing.[25] One would think that this allegory incident would've been a wake up call to Brandmeister to stop disrespecting ethnic cleansing victims, but since this report has been made Brandmeister tried removing the prevalent and expert Ocampo source for "balance" reasons while also adding undue expressions of doubt.[26] Brandmeister also misquoted another source to read that it came across no incidents of violence against civilians, when it only reads to have no reports.[27] And on Ocampo's own article, Brandmeister has cited an opinion piece by Rodney Dixon, a lawyer that Azerbaijan directly hired to help rejecting the Ocampo report,[28] to attack Ocampo's views.[29] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Brandmeister's changes in the first diff were factually true, as the source backs up the changes he made. Stating that Brandmeister tried "to make it appear UNHCR did not consider the flight to be ethnic cleansing," is a stretch at best. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree; in this edit, they claimed that The UNHCR, having noted no incidents of mistreatment, viewed the flight as a refugee situation rather than ethnic cleansing. However, what the source says is that the UNHCR viewed this as a refugee situation and could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing. The first suggests the UNHRC had ruled out the possibility of ethnic cleansing, while the second emphasizes the inability or unwillingness of the UNHRC to comment on the possibility of ethnic cleansing.

  I also agree with Kevo327's claim about the UN source; in this edit Brandmeister claimed that a UN mission reported no incidences of violence against civilians following the ceasefire agreement, but the source says that the mission did not come across any reports of incidences of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire. The difference is subtle, but significant; the first is a definitive declaration regarding the absence of violent incidents, while the second leaves room for potential incidents that were not reported.

  Combined with their claim that their edits were verbatim quotes from the UN Security Council resolutions there does appear to be an issue with source misrepresentation that needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Somehow I managed to miss the second change that Brandmeister made in this edit. The first is factually correct (in fact it verbatim quotes the source) , however that second part regarding the UNHCR's view on whether the Flight was ethnic cleansing is definitely misinterpreting the source. Same goes for the second edit you linked to. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's unclear how we can address this at the moment, given that Brandmeister hasn't even acknowledged that they have misrepresented sources, much less presented a commitment to not to do so in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say a formal warning, followed by an immediate topic ban if they misrepresent a source in this topic area again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prolific IP vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

107.9.140.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Over a hundred disruptive edits in five hours reverted by several editors. Disruption consists of nonexistent highways, nonexistent intersections, and nonexistent cities (there are no such places as "Duluth Lea" or "Jamesport" in Minnesota). The report made by another editor and expanded upon by me was declined at AIV. --Sable232 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the same IP who did the same nonsense on my Minecraft roads wiki of all things. Seems like they get around. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP has continued to vandalize Ohio road articles after the expiry of their block. See for example this diff; OpenStreetMap says SR 61 crosses I-80/I-90 without interchange, rather than interchanging with I-90/SR 2 as stated by the ip (which aren't concurrent here). – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 21:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user called Vif12vf has been hounding me and reverting some of the good-faith edits I made in Wikipedia. I have provided very clear rationale for my edit but the said user persists on reverting my edits without providing a reason. I have even tried to talk to them on their user talk page but the user just deleted my message. They also keep treating my edits as disruptive although they clearly are not. 103.196.139.76 (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You should try to get consensus among everyone else before you try to make massive changes to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in a bunch of articles. You should stop here and start discussing it. You're not being hounded. I agree your edits appear to be good faith, but that doesn't make them not disruptive. To edit one article and make the change you wanted, sure, try it. But you're trying to make these changes across a bunch of articles - that requires consensus.--v/r - TP 06:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be neutral, you believe North Korea is a "left-wing" state and want nobody to change this profile. I just personally consider this belief ridiculous and I am not surprise given your education background 安多撒兰 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

you should register an account and we can together make a case against this guy along with many other victims of his abusive edits 安多撒兰 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Figbiscuits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Figbiscuits is publishing declined or rejected drafts – or in the case of 2023 Isabela Cessna 206 crash, a draft which the author had just moved back to drafts saying it's not ready! – which don't demonstrate notability and/or otherwise aren't fit to publish. I've requested speedy on a couple of them, but Figbiscuits reverted these straight away (as is indeed their right, technically, not being the article creator) without any explanation, so they are now clogging up AfD. Trying to address this on their talk page hasn't proven fruitful. Could anything be done to calm this down a bit? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:HELPDESK#Photo and User talk:Steel Chambers are also of relevance, when I told them that promotional userpages aren't allowed, they responded that my userpage was promotional, before promptly reverting it. This editor is clearly not editing constructively. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've also come across this user this morning, and agree they need to desist from moving drafts. I've reverted or enacted speedy deletion requests on a few of them, but they're creating a lot of unnecessary work. The moving of drafts seems to be quite indiscriminate - some like the Cessna crash are OK, but others are not in a fit stage at all. Suggest at minimum a topic ban on page moves until they can demonstrate competence in that area, but maybe also a site block for WP:CIR issues.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Relax. 2023 Isabela Cessna 206 crash is fine. If you disagree, you know where AFD is. Happy to discuss it there. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

"as is indeed their right" - thanks for acknowledging that - so why are we here?

The way that Steel Chambers was treated is awful - a new user who simply wanted to put his picture on his page, and got severely bitten. Figbiscuits (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

When you move the Cessna article into the main space, and the creator moves it back to drafts indicating that it's not yet finished, what superior right do you have to overrule that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN Figbiscuits (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RMUM Tollens (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, let's forget about the Cessna crash. The article is in a decent state and can remain in main space. The draft creator doesn't have special rights to block its publication, and that's not even a RMUM issue. The bigger concern is the other draft moves this user has made, some of which are woefully inadequate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Cessna article has a section called "Dump", it's obviously incomplete. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that they're a new editor not familiar with Wikipedia norms and just how common userpage spam is, can someone provide other examples of problematic edits? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Yes, I can. There's this, where they're basically saying that my userpage is promotional. There's this, where they blanked somebody's userpage for seemingly no reason. They told Tenryuu that they were biting the newcomers for a comment towards a user that had a very promotional userpage and was relatively polite. There's more if you look through their contribs. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't appear to have a good grasp on notability or sourcing, which is why they're getting these moves wrong. Draft:Aidan Finnegan isn't a notable footballer (and is hardly sourced), and was moved to mainspace. So was Draft:Callum Wood, which I've just moved back to draft, who doesn't pass NSPORTS either. Neither has ever played a fully professional game. I haven't even looked at the many other articles they've moved today. No doubt some are fine are some are not, but they don't have the competence to be doing this. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the state of the Cessna article, the article was contested for an AfD previously (and as of the moment, majority of the text hasn't been changed since it was nominated for an AfD). When I asked for a copy of this article from an admin (discussion), I was specifically told that I should not move it to mainspace unless it had gone through WP:AfC. – Abacusada (t • c) 10:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh right yeah, I missed the AFD apologies. I've re-draftified it then.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Figbiscuits: Could you explain why you said that my userpage was promotional? Additionally, Steel Chambers wasn't a 'new user who...got severely bitten', they were here solely to promote themselves, which we have very clear rules against. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Am I the only one getting WP:DUCK feelz?--v/r - TP 10:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't want to be the person to say it, but yes, I actually am. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ditto. Either that or they've learned a heckuvalot more about Wikipedia in 13 days than I did in 13 years. (Then again, I am a slow learner.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not too familiar with the checkuser policy... but could we run a WP:CHECK on Figbiscuits? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think WP:SPI is probably the place to start, assuming this is a non-urgent issue...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're likely to get an answer along the lines of  CheckUser is not for fishing. And without a master to compare to, anything a checkuser could see is unlikely to be of much use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it even needs an SPI. They are aware of this discussion; if they continue to cause problems and waste other editor's time as they have here, they can be blocked. If not, then fine. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Have you considered the possibility that steel chambers and figbiscuts could be the same editor? We’ve had good hand bad hand accounts on here before, and if anyone cares to look the most recent ani log has a few entries for draft and promotional based new users who could be your part of a sock farm. I got work tonight, but if the spirit moves me I may look at this closer Friday/Saturday - assuming no one beats me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B326:48D4:ED48:AA9B:E89F:3CAE (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  yeah... anyone who links to wikipedia:don't demolish the house while it's still being built is not a newbie. ltbdl (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Figbiscuits I don't recommend moving drafts when this ANI thread is still ongoing. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• sigh*. I've pblocked them for the time being. It's a shame there isn't a function to only block moves but I've blocked them from draftspace.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could resurrect the whole "being able to remove autoconfirmed" proposal as another more granular function since people find useful. That would remove the ability to do moves. edited Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

For admins, Special:Permalink/1178685520 may be of interest, as well as the rest of Figbiscuits's edits to that now deleted page. Folly Mox (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The history of Figbiscuits's talkpage is also illustrative. Removing warnings with the edit summary do i look like i give a fuck?, feigning total ignorance, baby sealioning, page blanking, etc. Add this to the draft move nonsense, trolling at the Help desk, the deleted page linked above, pointy comments on other people's talkpages.

Also they managed to find WP:RM/TR and WP:DR? Their contributions can all fit on a single page for those wanting to inspect all the diffs, but this is blatantly not a new account, and used solely for disruption apart from a single legit COI cleanup. SPI isn't necessary for these kind of cases. Just block and move on. Folly Mox (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I first ran into this user on IRC, where they were asking a question about how many drafts total existed. (Not how many drafts are awaiting review, but how many pages total were in draftspace.) I refused to answer his question as not germane to the channel, and I wasn't the first one to decline doing so; it turned out he had a draft but for whatever reason he had buried the lede. When he did find his answer I pointedly asked him how knowing this information would be any help to him what-so-ever, and he got on a high horse about the number of drafts total rather than answer the question. I'm not surprised to find that he's been pulling this stunt, as he seems more concerned about there being less drafts in draftspace than he is actually imrpoving those pages to bring them up to par. Support topic-ban from the Draft: namespace in lieu of a technical solution to stop Willy-on-Wheels-style behaviour. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. AGF is not a suicide pact. They're welcome to file an unblock and if someone believes they can be a productive editor, no objection to an admin unblocking. Star Mississippi 17:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• I discussed this user with a few other admins last night. This edit's summary, attached to an edit which originally created a new page (before I history merged it with the respective draft), is indicative of someone with much more experience than the 300 some-odd edits this user has. Never mind someone with 3000 edits or more. It indicates someone who not only read the rules as we might expect of a bright and chipper new editor but someone who knew the specific rules with copying before they created this account. Throw my hat in for "this account is a sock" and they should attempt to explain their knowledge accordingly. Star Mississippi only beat me to blocking the user after I woke up to find this ANI started. Izno (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheFriendlyFas2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@TheFriendlyFas2

Potential Wikipedia:No Nazis case. Used to identify as a fascist on their userpage before changing it to third positionist.

Most of their edits have been religion-oriented and not endorsing of far-right beliefs but they have attempted to mass-change fascist parties from "far-right" to "third position."

Relevant examples:

Special:Diff/1058885918 Special:Diff/1058886551 Special:Diff/1177265016

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Identifying with third positionism on their userpage should be grounds for a WP:NAZI block. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that what I had done with regard to attempting to change the political positions of certain articles was erroneous and I accept that they were wrong of me. However those edits were made 2 years ago and after being reprimanded I never attempted to change anything again. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there are similar edits done more recently; specifically [30][31][32][33]. While they are from five months ago, when combined with the diffs provided by OP they do make it seem like there's a long-term POV-pushing issue here. Hatman31 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. I know NONAZIS is an essay, but come on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I just realized their username is quite literally "the friendly fascist". Double yikes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this diff seem to show them cynically probing our defences to see which specific euphemisms and synonyms for fascism we will allow. I suggest that the answer is none of them! They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a clear NOTHERE block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Manually unarchiving this so a proper admin decision can be made. This user is a self-identified fascist, even if there's little POV-pushing edits. ICurrently, no admin has clarified if this is permitted or considered grounds for a block. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

NONAZIS is just an essay as we all know but absent any real problematic behavior we have to be careful with reasons for a ban. If I wanted to make a martyr for an extremist online community, making a 'friendly' account somewhere notable and getting it banned just for the ideology would be a pretty good start at letting the community consider themselves victims. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"We might make a martyr of him by not letting him edit Wikipedia as a self-identified fascist" I personally am willing to take the risk. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not. NONAZIS Is. An. Essay. It is under no circumstances whatsoever valid grounds for a block. Show us some real grounds for a block -- grounds that would impeach an admitted communist, or an admitted monarchist, or an admitted Social Democrat -- and that's another thing. The diffs people are posting would not suffice for that. The easiest way to keep Wikipedia from being smeared as a bunch of people eager to dive into knee-jerk witch hunts is not to have them. Ravenswing 22:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Their username is "the friendly fascist". Come on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It might be an essay, but we should not, must not, and have an ethical obligation to not, allow Nazis or fascists in any form. Wikipedia ought to treat them like we treat pedophiles and block them on sight. It's astonishing that you're trying to allow self-identified fascists to remain here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point it's hard to say. It depends on whether they are still continuing to engage in disruptive activity, and their last edit was on 9/27 here at WP:ANI. I think there is definitely a pattern of undesirable behavior here, but there's also an opportunity to course-correct. Were I in this scenario, I would warn them that future behavior of this kind would result in an indef block. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are essays and there are essays. BRD is an essay, but the vast majority of the community (and, more importantly, our admins) acknowledge that not following it can be DISRUPTIVE and therefore a reason for blocking. It's the same for NONAZIS. If someone wants to hold fascist ideas in their heart of hearts, there's nothing we can or should do about that. But if they start to express their views in their editing, that's destructive to the encyclopedia, and disruptive to the community, and a damn good reason to block. Saying "NONAZIS" is just shorthand for "this editor can't keep their views in their head and off the page, so away they go for violating NPOV and DISRUPTION". So please, no one should get hung up on "it's just an essay".
  In this case NONAZIS, NPOV, DISRUPTION and the username policy are all pointing in the NOTHERE direction, screaming "Block this person, please". A block is most certainly called called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• And BTW "we have to be careful with reasons for a ban." No, no we don't. When the community decides an editor is not welcome, the reason for blocking them indefinitely is much, much less important then that they get blocked and shown the door. Blocks are to protect the encyclopedia and the community, not should not be a matter of bureaucratic pigeon-holing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken I'm having trouble reconciling this with your previous post. You said it yourself, its their disruptive, POV editing that gives a very good reason for a block. My point was never to say we should allow people to promote their fascist ideals through editing, just that we ban them for an actual reason, not just for their beliefs, as you yourself said there's nothing we [...] should do about that. Am I missing something in your position or policy? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a pretty clear pattern here: TheFriendlyFas2 makes an unsourced edit that downplays a party's far-right position, gets reverted, reverts back without making any attempt to communicate, gets reverted again. Waits a while, then sometimes goes back to try out a different unsourced label to replace "far-right". (For one example, see here.) In this thread, they say they've gotten their act together and are immediately refuted by the next reply. I've indeffed for a pattern of disruptive editing across multiple articles. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Very cool guys. When do we start blocking this other kind [34] [35]? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that first editor were recently making pro-Stalin-POV edits I'd be likely to indef. I'm not willing to read all the userboxes of the second to know what the issue is exactly.

  In general, I don't think it's helpful to play "what about" with blocks like these. If there's something wrong with the merits of this block, there must be a better reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This user made a series of harmful edits and they were blocked for it. However some people here were asking for them to be blocked due to their ideology specifically. I just wanted to say that if we're going to start hunting people for their political views we should do it right. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Shashwad Basavaraj Babalgaon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account is being used only for promotional purposes after being told to stop at least 3 times by virtue of his user page being deleted 3 times over the past few months. Their last edit was to add themselves to a notable people list on Alliance University with google, Spotify and LinkedIn as sources. The account has been promoting the person who is the namesake of the account. It is not prolific and active enough to bring to AIV. I feel it needs to be addressed though. Seawolf35 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Only edit I see that wasn't promotional appears to have been a test edit. Blocked indef'--v/r - TP 23:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Apphistorian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account has shown aggression, hostility, and made threats against me on Talk:American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft. They also engaged in what appears to be either page vandalism or an edit war due their personal and conflicting interests with me, a third party editor. Quote: "I am the Executive Director of the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association and I can attest that no one contacted the registry for information. Our breed name is COPYRIGHTED and cannot be used without our express written permission. I will be reviewing everything on this page and reporting any misinformation, as well as any ue of our copyrighted material." However, this appears to be major conflict-of-interest editing, as well as possible user harassment. See: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Due to this, The page has been nominated for deletion by User:Grorp: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft. However, page deletion does not sufficiently address User:Apphistorian making false claims about my violating Wikipedia policy by using "copyrighted material". All of the text written on the page is not the result of plagiarism, as User:Apphistorian claims, but largely written by me, and any publicly available material taken from the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association's website was properly cited and attributed to the ASHDHA using quotations and proper citations. This constitutes Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use rationale, under the rationale that the Wikipedia page I contributed was meant to be for nonprofit educational purposes. Obversa (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Commandeering_or_sanitizing_articles

User:Apphistorian also appears to be engaging in the "commandeering and sanitizing" of the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft page.

Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Quote: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is when an editor wants to do something which does not help Wikipedia's goal, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Changing pages to promote your own interests or those of other people, companies, or groups, is a COI. Where outside goals are more important to a user than building Wikipedia, that person has a conflict of interest. COI is not wanted in Wikipedia. When a user's changes harm the encyclopedia by breaking policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, the user's account may be blocked. COI editing can also make the person or group look bad outside of Wikipedia. It is best if users who have COIs say so, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they change. This is especially important if other users may disagree with the change that they make. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who try to hide their COIs are often exposed. This gives other users the feeling that they, and perhaps their employer, are secretly trying to change Wikipedia articles to support them. If you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to out them. Wikipedia's policy against harassment is more important than this guideline. COI situations are often discovered when the editor themselves says how they are linked to the subject of the article they are changing. In cases where the user does not say they have a COI, biased editing can be changed back to follow the neutral point of view policy."

Furthermore, per the second source: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." See in relation to this case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft

I have no affiliation with either the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association (ASHDHA) or the Sendera Draft Horse Registry (SDHR). I am a third party editor who originally wrote the article based on publicly available information and citations, as well as the notability of the horse breed in relation to other breeds, such as the Appaloosa, the Percheron, and other draft horses. However, User:Apphistorian, who has a self-noted conflict of interest as the Executive Director of the former organization, edited the page I wrote and contributed to reflect a biased point of view based on their personal objection to my unbiased inclusion of the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association (ASHDHA)'s dispute with the Sendera Draft Horse Registry (SDHR), which was also based on publicly available information.

Lastly, please see: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

I do not "own" the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft page, but neither does User:Apphistorian. Obversa (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Lastly: Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, citing https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

"If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently." Obversa (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Just some advice, please see WP:TLDR. You do not need to copy-paste large portions of pages like WP:COI here, editors are either familiar with its contents or can click the link to read it. The more concise you can be, the more likely it is that someone will read and address the issue, but if you're posting walls of text it's hard to find the pertinent information. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed for the legal threat. AfD is handling the article. Star Mississippi 17:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.