Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 5 October 2023 (→‎Brandmeister: closing with a logged warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Competence is required

    Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [1]. I provided verification [2] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [3] [4] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [5]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This case is mostly a content dispute, but Dustfreeworld has failed to discuss as part of the BRD cycle. I am not an admin, but if Vacosea wants to reinsert the information they feel is not covered, I would be happy to support the inclusion temporarily until discussion is completed, acting as an informal third opinion. Be careful not to revert, thereby deleting the many changes that have been made since your edit, simply make a minimal edit which includes the information you wish to see included.
    Dustfreeworld probably needs to show awareness that following a revert which the other user takes exception to, discussion is not optional. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like that at all, in my reading. Dustfreeworld has not removed anything put by Vacosea, except take out small details due to BLP issues (changing of "cheated three times" to "cheated", or changing "separated for more than two years" to "separated", as these are sourced to breaking news reports). Has Vacosea done anything wrong? No; these are editorial calls. Is Dustfreeworld required mandatorily to comment on the talk page of the article? Absolutely not. Is Dustfreeworld's warning to Vacosea uncalled for? Well, yeah... I think Dustfreeworld did not realise the impact that such a template may cause to an editor who is excitedly placing, whatever can be sourced, into the article. Like what is mentioned above, it is an editorial issue and need not be discussed here. Vacosea, request Dustfreeworld again to give his pov on the article's talk page. For future disputes, please follow the procedures listed out at dispute resolution. Thanks, Lourdes 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dustfreeworld said there was speculation/wrong information, but they have offered nothing to question the reports. Allegations of Rockowitz cheating on Lee and their marriage problem were covered before [6] [7], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [8]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "one more time", see context from previous comments. Vacosea (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, out of the 30+ edits made by User:Vacosea to the article Coco Lee, 16 of them involved removal of content, most of which was added by me. You can see that from the page’s history [9]. And yes, I DO think that “Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time”, too. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not explain their refusal to check with the sources and engage in discussion, and placing a warning template on my talk page about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information. It just goes on to show the contradictory and ever changing nature of their complaint. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree DustFreeworld answered a reasonable request to discuss with a warning template, that is treading into personal attack territory. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, scrub that, the warning came first, it wasn't warranted, but it wasn't in response to the request to discuss. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the clarification Boynamedsue :) Perhaps you can strike that as well? In case people may misread. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the warning [10] came after the talk section [11] [12]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.
    • 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175089915
    They misinterpreted the source as “Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home” (in the source it said Lee moved out of their previous home).
    So I added the “Cite check” template to call for source verification:
    • 22:52, 12 September 2023
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175121745
    My edit summary: Added { {Cite check} } tag. The page now reads: “Lee and her husband had been separated for more than two years before she died . . . In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home”? And the source cited mentioned nothing about “early 2023”. I think there maybe more. . . WP:GROWNUPS
    What I mean is, if they had separated in 2021, how can THEY moved out of their previous home together in 2023? It’s simply wrong, and the wrong information was added by User:Vacosea.
    After that edit of mine, User:Vacosea posted the “verification” they mentioned above to the article talk page and also edited the article and added a parameter (talk=September 2023 verification) to the Cite check template
    Cite check|date=September 2023|talk=September 2023 verification
    And then, they edited the article again to removed the wrong information they added, per what I had pointed out:
    In short, they KNEW they were wrong on that, had corrected it and had posted a “verification” on talk (that post is somewhat redundant IMHO, but now I know how it can be used). I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue). NOW I know I was wrong. I never anticipated that it will turn into an accusation of ME being incompetent. They knew they had put in wrong information to the article and they knew why the template was added but still make such false and misleading accusations (that I didn’t engage on talk and show “incompetence”). I suspect there maybe behavioural issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of my edits were accurate. After the cite check, I adjusted some details. Moving out and separating are not always the same thing anyway. On the other hand, Dustfreeworld didn't seem to have checked with any sources before reverting other information again, even though I showed the sources for correction, including early 2023/early this year. They placed a warning template, out of nowhere, about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information on my talk page. Just because their talk page has received many notices from other editors in the past doesn't mean they should be doing that with mine. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who are interested in Coco Lee’s marriage and what problematic content User:Vacosea had added may visit the talk page. I have posted some old evidence that support those. If you want the latest BREAKING news, 20 September 2023 (no, not old news), here you are:
    I’m very doubtful about their saying that “The vast majority of my edits were accurate”, respectfully.
    From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:Vacosea is still adding the contentious and likely wrong information to the article today. Surely this is not the first time that this user is warned on sourcing and content additions:
    I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [13], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [14][15], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [16] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [17] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve posted on the BLP notice board as well: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Coco Lee. I believe the issue is important as it may have real life consequences on the financial arrangements of the subjects’ family, and that the dubious information may also be defamatory. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dustfreeworld Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"... It's important for an editor to be able to point out stuff that is potentially defamatory. We might actually be effecting a chilling effect by telling editors to not point out such stuff. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We can do that without using legally-charged words. BLP covers it sufficiently, we do not need to use "defamation" / "libel". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “A discussion as to whether material is libelousis not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” WP:NLT --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Key words: a discussion about, not just lobbing the word into a comment and leaving it there like a ticking time bomb. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [18]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vacosea May I reiterate what another user said above: “Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity”. Thanks :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who is engaging in baseless personal attack is Dustfreeworld, however hard they try to change the subject or reframe around it. Vacosea (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that you are trying to make use of the “Goebbels effect” (or “big lie technique”), in the hope that “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. But experiments tell us that it won’t,
    • ″For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable … the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies″.
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And IMHO, what’s more important is that, people who are able to make the right judgement (believe the actual facts) may also have very negative impressions on those who keep repeating the lies (no matter those are organisations, governments or individual). Besides thinking that those are liars, people may also think that they are not reasonable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that, when you are being accused of making personal attacks, it is probably better not to respond by comparing the other party to a genocidal war criminal. Also, ixnay on the rolltay word, would have thought that was obvious, especially here. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation Boynamedsue. No, it’s not a comparison of any party to anyone, definitely not. The term . . . Effect just come up in a webpage and it sounds like a professional psychological term to me so I used it. I’m just describing a psychological phenomenon. No offence indeed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Repost just to add highlight:
    From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier
    (add: and I believe no consensus on talk is required before the deletion as it’s contentious topic) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Repost just to add highlight:
    I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read your mind from edit summaries only or a warning template [19] if you skip discussion on the talk page [20], even though you were active on Coco Lee and other articles and talk pages, including ones I was also editing [21]. The times cheated and separation time were not "another issue" or "corrected". They had been there since early on, through all the time you placed your recent death template [22], was reverted [23], and your cite check template [24]. "No consesus on talk is required before the deletion", while you could argue for it, is a very recent new point. Vacosea (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a content dispute where both users became quite aerated at different times. It's been moved back to the talkpage, so perhaps this should be closed now? It is just a parallel venue for argument. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I see some potential behavior issues that resemble forum shopping [25] (not because they posted there per se but their focus on linking to this ANI) and canvassing [26] (in the edit summary). They may have couched their aspersion of "lie"/"lies"/"liar" here, but repeat it so often that it feels gamey. Overconfident in their ability but quick to cast suspicion [27] [28]. Excessive text and highlighting [29][30] dance around the fact of their baseless personal attack [31] and what has been described as [32]. Vacosea (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What I see is you keep linking to the BLP board.
    No it’s not canvassing. It’s an attempt to let the other user know that, it’s possible that what they had suspected two months ago maybe true. As for your translations, I still find them suspicious after a second look. And I hope you are happy with your excessive linking. If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [33] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [34]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [35]. Those edits were unrelated to this, and when you attempted to raise suspicion about my translation, you did not comprehend the source material fully. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be my first edit on August 23 [36]. The number of citations Dustfreeworld kept could make short sentences. Multiple empty section templates had been added since August 2 [37]. I'm not out to get anyone and can take their word for it. What motivated me to come here, beside their warning template and skipping discussion, was that overall, what they were doing defied any easy explanation, at least to me looking from the outside. Vacosea (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one was false? Vacosea (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all are false. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion reminds me of children fighting incessantly in the back seat of the station wagon during a family road trip. "Just cut it out ... Don't make me pull this car over!" Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Consensus to site ban Squared.Circle.Boxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I consider fault on both sides. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I tried to resolve this on the users talk page. 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You protected the WP:WRONGVERSION. How dare you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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) [38]. 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Today — lol. El_C 14:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yep, no worries. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ritchie: Here is a purse of monies. SN54129 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN. Reasons [39], 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support CBAN They do not have the temperament to be able to edit here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Diff instead of oldid, for easier viewing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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).-- Ponyobons mots 19:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Bgsu98

    Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [40]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    OP Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64): clearly bad faith report. El_C 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes, this is an LTA. Just block the newest range when they pop up and semi-protect anything they touch.-- Ponyobons mots 15:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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.-- Ponyobons mots 15:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s not the same IP, then I apologize for the confusion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @GabberFlasted Talking to yourself? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editor Arbomhard

    First, I’d just like to put my own potential COI in this as someone who nominated the article in question for a recent failed AfD and who has been trying to work with the wider Linguistics Wikiproject to make the status of this fringe theory clearer as a fringe theory, which did result in me removing most references to Bomhard's work from the Nostratic article (this was potentially heavy handed, but the sources given were clearly WP:PROFRINGE). As a result of that AfD, multiple editors worked on changing the long-static article to improve it so it didn't have the issues that got it AfD'd in the first place.

    With regards to Nostratic, I’ve been trying to work with the larger wikiproject and building a consensus and I'm not the only editor working on this, and I don’t want to give the impression I was trying to Right Great Wrongs. To be clear, since this is an esoteric topic: Nostratic is a fringe theory and the subject of the article in question is one of the primary advocates of that fringe theory. That doesn't mean it hasn't seen real attention in academic press, just that it's viewed as a fringe theory regardless of that. If this is a difficult issue in particular to ascertain, I encourage any admin to go ahead and ask about its status on the Linguistics wikiproject.

    I’ve been going back and forth with user Arbomhard for a while now who was attempting to unilaterally change an article which they readily self-identify as about themselves to remove anything negative. I’ve tried engaging with them but they’ve been blanking comments, engaging in personal attacks, accusing a few editors of having an agenda, and attempting to exert ownership of both the Allan R. Bomhard and Nostratic articles. I've tried maintaining civility throughout and asked for sources so I could help them work on the article.

    I’ve also been trying to engage with them on both talk pages and a dispute noticeboard (where they reiterated their demand of “restore the article” and ignored multiple requests for citations until today, when they generally provided one in a reply that contained:

    Sorry, Warren, I do not mean to be rude, but you do not appear to have the requisite academic or professional credentials to be making the edits to this and several other Wikipedia articles. If I am mistaken here, please provide proof to the contrary. Being an outsider, you do not have a clear understanding of the dynamics involved. Again, you are trying to throw up meaningless procedural roadblocks instead of approaching the matter objectively and cooperatively. The current version is both incomplete and contains errors. I am probably one of the few people in the world who is qualified to make this statement.

    To be fair to Arbomhard, once their initial edits of a criticism-free un-cited article were reverted they engaged slightly more on the talk page and didn’t edit the articles further, and used the talk page to request their preferred version be restored, but the blanking of my own comments and a glance through their edit history reveals that almost all their edits on Wikipedia, ever, are to add their own research content to Wikipedia, typically from WP:PROFRINGE sources. I think this is a pretty cut and dry example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY, and given their edit history I think there’s going to need to be fairly consistent vigilance from linguist Wikipedians to avoid WP:PROFRINGE material percolating back into the articles if they continue to edit. This is a particular concern given their leapfrog into a BLP dispute noticeboard post (yay!) which wholly ignored the good faith efforts of myself and another editor (and administrator, David Eppstein) to explain exactly what was going on (less yay) and reitterated demands for a criticism- and citation-free version of the article.

    Apologies for the lack of brevity, this one felt like it took a bit of explaining. Warrenmck (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A dispute was originally filed at DRN. I advised that it be moved to BLPN, and advised User:Warrenmck to wait to file a case here and see if the content dispute at BLPN would resolve the matter. One editor took my advice, and one didn't; that is typical. I agree that User:Arbomhard has insulted Warrenmck.
    Are User:Warrenmck and User:Arbomhard willing to resolve the content dispute at BLPN first and hold off on this conduct matter? Our objective should be to improve the encyclopedia including the article on Allan R. Bomhard. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I opted out of BLPN following the reply that got posted at Nostratic, and my issue isn’t specifically the content dispute, rather the behaviour underpinning it. I’ve not responded there, and my understanding was that this isn’t inappropriate, just perhaps not the best possible solution under normal circumstances (which clearly I don’t think these are). If I’m wrong about that, apologies, but I don’t see how a second dispute page repeating the exact same thing after editors have explained we need citations for weeks was anything other than an abuse of process at this point to attempt to exert ownership over the article, as highlighted by the abject refusal to engage but a perfect willingness to open a dispute (which would require that engagement). I genuinely believe the editor in question is not here to build an encyclopedia, and while I think it’s possible some good could come from the content dispute I’ve been just swallowing a lot of incivility in the name of trying to positively engage in good faith which I don’t see will ever be forthcoming from Arbomhard. Their literal entire edit history is adding their own content to fringe articles, and they’ve been asked for days to cite anything and have simply scattered “restore the original version” across, by my count, five pages now without substantively engaging anyone who has been trying to help.
    if you genuinely believe it’s in the best interest of Wikipedia for this to be tabled until after, I’ll accept that. But this is why I responded to the first DRN post with “I’ve had an ANI ready to go about this situation” and only posted it when personal attacks were doubled down on after that DRN discussion and the reposted dispute to BLPN made it clear Arbomhard was not actually going to engage either civilly or in good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the locus of the behavioral issues involves Nostratic languages, its talk page, and related articles, and not just the BLP Allan R. Bomhard, I think discussion here is not redundant with the BLPN discussion and should continue. (My own position is that I am supportive of independent scholarship but not supportive of fringe-pushing nor of editors whose primary purpose is self-promotion, all of which are in evidence here.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to draw attention to the fact that @Arbomhard is responding to this ANI at the talk page for Nostratic Languages. Warrenmck (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI. That said, they also seem to be content-free complaints about Warrenmck, rather than actually explaining whatever problem they have with specific edits to the article. Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI.
    I could have misread
    You have also quoted out of context.
    but the discussion that was under was only ever quoted by me here, other than that I never quoted it. Did I misread a post-ANI comment about a thread a week ago? Sincere question, I don't want to accidentally be creating drama out of the ether here if I misread something.
    Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict.
    I've genuinely tried avoiding this specific discussion with him, which is why I haven't responded to it at any point. I don't want to get into a discussion of credentials on Wikipedia. Let me just leave it at "I generally disagree with his statements on this" and that I've been working carefully to build consensus where possible and cite my claims carefully instead. I think it's perhaps a bit risky to consider a page about a fringe theory a WP:EXPERT conflict, however. At least when considering the full context. Warrenmck (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, discussion at Talk:Allan R. Bomhard seems to be going downhill. The fact that Arbomhard goes back and forth between using their account and (apparently) using various IPs makes things a bit confusing (here the IP wisely removes a poorly-thought-out attack posted by the account, but less egregious attacks and IDHT behavior are continuing). 57.140.16.56 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Three-Part Caution

    I have read the discourse on the article talk page and the other discussions, and think that a caution to User:Arbomhard is in order for several interrelated reasons:

    For these reasons, User:Arbomhard should be formally cautioned.
    I think it's worth pointing out that the behaviour that caused this ANI has been ongoing since the ANI was opened, even with me intentionally not engaging with any of the talk page drama. At the slight risk of WP:BLUDGEON, I'm not sure how a formal caution helps when this is clearly a single purpose self promotion account that refuses to engage in good faith and opens multiple noticeboard posts over a specific issue while refusing to engage with anyone. Right now his presence in various talk pages has wholly derailed the good faith attempts to clean up those articles and he's so avoidant of engaging in good faith that we can't actually make any progress, even when we're trying to work with him. It's very clear that @Arbomhard is attempting to skip consensus to get his preferred version of the article, and his preferred version is very weasel-y, with his insistence on certain statements about his status as a linguist or academic while refusing to provide sources for the meaning of that status (i.e., "retired linguist" or listing where his degrees were obtained but not what qualifications were obtained, something he has explicitly stated he won't provide information for in a verifiable way while still wanting mentioned). I think he's attempting to use Wikipedia to sanitize his own academic reputation as well of that of his theory, rather than anything even resembling building an encyclopedia. Warrenmck (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the diffs, User:Warrenmck. User:Arbomhard - Editing your biography while logged out appears to be trying to conceal your conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that escalates things into deserving a pageblock from his article, and potentially from Nostratic languages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UA0Volodymyr

    This user does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. They added a massive amount of biased and badly-written text to Kira Rudyk ([41]), falsely claiming that its previous removal was vandalism. I re-removed it, as did another editor ([42]), but the user keeps restoring it (latest revert earlier today [43]). Today they attempted to get the page protected, in a bad-faith attempt to prevent their harmful changes from being removed ([44]).

    Additionally, they have now begun to stalk my other edits, undoing them indiscriminately. Today, they have gone on another revert-spree: [45], [46], [47].

    The account was created just three weeks ago, and only started actually editing on 22 September, but these actions do not seem like those of a new editor, so I wonder if they are a sockpuppet of some kind. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the article was subject to edit-warring of two non-extended-confirmed users, I protected it according to WP:RUSUKR on a random version. Someone must evaluate whether a revert is needed, or, even better, discuss at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not in any way "random". You have evidently decided to encourage and support the disruptive editor and likely sockpuppet I reported, by protecting badly written, extremely biased crap that multiple editors have previously removed. "Someone must evaluate whether a revert is needed"? Multiple people already did. You obviously didn't bother to look at the article history. And you have also ignored the disruptive behaviour at multiple other articles that I pointed out. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the WP:RUSUKR sanctions regime dictates this page must be protected at that level, period. It is entirely conceivable that Ymblanter didn't have time to evaluate whether a revert is needed. So you assuming the worst, reflects poorly on you rather than him, I'd challenge. Anyway, I see that the article has already been edited heavily on the side of content removal. I did not review those changes, or the article itself closely, but I did see that Ymblanter made a mistake in assigning a lower protection level than is required, so I fixed that. El_C 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing. This is a topic which is subject to general sanctions because of its contentiousness, but you think it's OK for someone to have protected an article in the state favoured by a new, suspicious and disruptive user, because (you assume) they "didn't have time" to evaluate whether a revert was needed. The user I reported had already been reverted by multiple people. I reported further disruptive and suspicious behaviour as well. But Ymblanter just ignored all of that and protected the article in the state that the disruptive user wanted. And all you could be bothered to do was increase the protection.
    Well, you could have nipped this in the bud, but the disruptive user - who I do not doubt is a sockpuppet - continues to behave problematically, including by ignoring this discussion, though I'm sure they enjoyed the endorsement of their behaviour. The article is in a state which anyone who understands neutrality and quality will be disgusted by, but evidently doesn't trouble you in the slightest. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    '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)[reply]

    This is User:Old Guard - have you told them you posted this here? Secretlondon (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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'. [48] WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    The content you removed [49] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Bayreuth0115

    Bayreuth0115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted edits with the edit summary "vandalism" or "undoing vandalism" (ex: "recover the page from vandalism" or "vandalism"). This latter edit simply removed a maintenance template that I added to the article. My edits provide clear explanations with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies: MOS:DTAB, MOS:COLOR, etc. Many of these edits were to properly format tables in compliance with the MOS, to remove inappropriate uses of color and bold, and to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. @Bayreuth0115 has ignored repeated warnings on their talk page User talk:Bayreuth0115#September 2023 (as well as earlier this year, User talk:Bayreuth0115#February 2023). They have ignored requests to visit the talk page where discussions are on-going regarding this article (Talk:2023–24 figure skating season), ex: "Again, see the article's talk page". The bottom line: this user refuses to communicate. Any help would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bayreuth0115 has continued to ignore all avenues of communication, but did drop a warning template on my talk page and then requested full protection of 2023–24 figure skating season. Any administrator willing to impart the importance of communication on this user would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On 7 February 2023, @Bgsu98 has ignored and then deleted my warning of their 3RR behavior on their talk page. With users having serious behaviors like that, for a couple of days I did not think communication would help solve the situation. Bayreuth0115 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "AI" generated inanity
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Here’s what I think, and you can choose to take or not take the advice given:
    You could seek formal intervention by reporting the user to Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum, emphasizing the user’s persistent revert of edits, refusal to communicate, and disregard for warnings and Wikipedia guidelines. While framing your report, meticulously document each instance of the said behavior, referencing specific edits, ignored warnings, and neglected talk page discussions, to substantiate your claims. This will allow the administrators to impartially evaluate the situation, based on the evidence provided, and decide on a suitable course of corrective action, such as a warning, temporary block, or other sanctions, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hope that helps, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a behavioral issue that doesn't appear to come under any of the more specialized noticeboards, so this is the appropriate dispute resolution forum. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT (which would help explain its uselessness). --JBL (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This, too. Not encouraging. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, yes, it does. I don't think we have anything to fear from AI that is so obvious. We may have something to fear from AI that is not detected. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case I am hatting this to increase the likelihood someone has something useful to say to the OP. --JBL (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bayreuth0115: I don't see a single edit to any talk page at all with the exception of the very recent 3RR warning to Bgsu98's talk page after this report was opened and one other vague edit war warning in February also directed at Bgsu98. You refuse to talk. This is a colalborative project. Start using talk pages to discuss changes, quit labeling good faith edits as vandalism, or find yourself uninvited from this project for ownership issues.--v/r - TP 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I took back any words of mine regarding "vandalism". My mistakes. Bayreuth0115 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting out of hand, frankly. As of today, Bayreuth0015 persists in adding back WP:FANCRUFT well beyond the reasonable scope of this article. The editor is clearly aware of the concerns of the community regarding their edits, given the post above, but refuses to engage on the article talk page. Instead, they persist in reverting, most recently in the last couple hours. I think we need an administrator who will contact Bayreuth0015 and make it clear their edits are disruptive, and may soon result in a block (it's really past time for one already.) Otherwise nothing it going to get any better because Bayreuth0015 has made it clear they decline to stop trying to force a very large edit on an already bloated article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    34K worth of unsourced fancruft, at that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra Eyes Please on James Gordon Meek

    Experienced editors and/or admins are kindly asked to keep an eye on the above linked article where there has been some very heavy editing that may touch on BLP issues. See also this discussion at BLPN. Any discussion of the issues should probably stay there in order to avoid any unnecessary forking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've applied WP:ECP, invoking WP:ARBBLP. The version up at the time of my writing this is not acceptable. Excessive WP:REFBOMB in nearly every paragraph makes the piece challenging to read—and challenging verify, because the first ref following a quote, didn't contain that quote, in the 2 times I checked. Meaning, that one would need to potentially go through double digits refs to verify a quoted excerpt. More problematic still are the unreliable sources that are mixed in with reliable one. I notice a similar problem happening in March with another non-WP:XC user (LauraIngallsEvenWilder, who seem to have left over it; the user edit warring the problematic version now is Virginia Courtsesan). I realize two (?) users in the course of a few months usually isn't enough to apply WP:SEMI, not to mention ECP. But this is an extremely sensitive subject matter with WP:CHILDPROTECT issues, and crimes, being featured front and centre. El_C 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So Virginia Courtsesan posted the following to my talk page (diff), but I want to keep the discussion focused in one (wider) forum, so I moved it here (see hatted content directly below).

    My chief concern is that one user (Sparkly) showed up the day of Meek's sentencing, essentially blanking the entire section dealing with the crime which had 100+ footnotes, then went to other pages that talk about Meek to do the same, then when I objected that user stalked other Virginia criminals I'd edited and added spurious tags such as here, and he gets reverte by other editors for similar blanking of crime articles claiming CNN is "fringe", etc here and here again removing information about highly notable and undisputed facts in major outlets about Meek's pedophilia, etc. I have engaged with good-faith complaints on the Meek talk page, and even where I disagree with the removal of information such as Meek's writing to a Virginia paper to offer his (professional) support for who should become the Chief Judge over his district at the time he's engaged in child grooming, original offender in creation of CSAM images and possession/trafficking of those images - even where I've disagreed with the removal, I haven't reverted it but just noted on the talk page that I disagree and leave it to others. My concern now is that the copy of the page that got "protected" is the copy that was essentially blanked - I had assumed over the next 24-48 hours the facts would slowly be added back in as they were verified, but there's been no effort to do so. There are 114,000 google hits for James Gordon Meek + Toddler, the fact he boasted of having raped a female toddler and twice followed that up and shared a video depicting the rape of a screaming toddler is widely reported in every major news outlet and he has given no denial publicly or in trial of that fact. Yet Wiki has just removed it, because a drive-by editor decided to blank the article, call it all a Pizzagate conspiracy and throw it on a bunch of these messageboards. So I'm asking that someone take the time to go through the entire section that was essentially deleted it, and restore it (other than any parts they feel are objectionable which they can leave off - and we can all agree to calmly discuss on the talk page). Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Hello, I saw you edit-protected James Gordon Meek which made partial sense given the sudden flare of interest and dispute - but you oddly chose to preserve a "version" that did not exist before S...quite frankly, large-scale almost-vandalism that does not contain even basic widely-reported never-disputed facts to which he's plead guilty and it's widely reported, etc. It seems to be hiding important contextul information that he was raided by the FBI, that wild speculation arose including a scandal involving the Rolling Stone which then flared into articles of its own about how RS covered Meek's prosecution, removed the portions of him boasting of raping a toddler, removed essentially all information even where it was clearly sourced to reliable sources. Is it getting added back in, or can it at least be edit-protected to a version that contained the information that had always been there until the day of his sentencing sudden attention flared up? (Doesn't have to be my version, just a version by Fallengray or another user who didn't just mass-delete everything about the case). Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

    It's especially important to do so (narrowing the venue), because I feel like there are WP:IDHT problems that are exhibited elsewhere, too. Problems that need to be tackled head-on. For example, the problem of having a quoted excerpt alongside double digits refrs, but we don't know which of those refs actually attributes said quote (if it does at all); that, alongside the mix of reliable and unreliable sources, were all explained to this editor multiple times. The latest being just yesterday, in an edit summary by SparklyNights in which they write (in part): Removes poorly sourced content from this BLP (including content that cannot realistically be verified due to citation overkill). However, Virginia Courtsesan reverts the whole thing back in, those problems and all, with an unresponsive edit summary that simply reads: Undid revision 1178103964 , see talk page.

    But there is no talk to be had while the problematic version is left standing, counter to the ethos of WP:ONUS, and there is no wholesale reverting of content that was pointed out to be in violation of the WP:BLP policy and WP:RS guideline. All key tenets and imperatives that I suspect Virginia Courtsesan only has limited familiarity with. Which is especially pressing for contentious topics and pages. And, if similar such behaviour were to occur outside this one page, these may lead to editing restrictions (in this case under the WP:ARBBLP sanctions regime). I think it's best to be straightforward and blunt on that. El_C 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As I wrote in the WP:BLPN thread, I considered the article as then under discussion to be in violation of WP:BLP policy. The sourcing was clearly sometimes inappropriate (e.g. a YouTube channel of no obvious merit, a Ghanaian tabloid website being cited for an article with no connection to Ghana...) and it was clear that there was some synthesis going on (see this brief discussion on Talk James Gordon Meek regarding one such example [50]). Furthermore the shear density of the content combined with the citation overkill made it nearly impossible to properly verify. The best advice I could offer to Virginia Courtsesan would be (a) that articles are supposed to summarise the important details regarding a topic, rather than list everything, and (b) that biographies aren't supposed to be narratives on evil, counters to conspiracy theories, or dense multilayered detective stories modelled on Umburto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Less words is good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seriously considering the possibility of @Virginian Courtsesan being the same person as @LauraIngallsEvenWilder (the disruptive editor that @El C just mentioned above). The latter user created their account in 2022 and only became active on Wikipedia after they started editing Meek's page in March 2023. In that same month, one topic was created at the BLP noticeboard about his BLP-violating edits (here). LauraIngalls then panicked and left Wikipedia without even responding to that thread (his last edit). About 3 weeks later, Virginia Courtsesan created his account on Wikipedia and immediatelly (on the same day) started editing Meek's page (diff), still also using a primary source (an affidavit) to edit the article (diff), which hints at the exact same pattern of behavior that editors from the BLP noticeboard were complaining that LauraIngalls was doing in the first place. Even the edit summaries of these two users read very similar.
    The primary purpose of both of those accounts is to edit the James Gordan Meek page, both users are fond of using legal documents as sources to the article, both don't seem to understand wikipedia's BLP policies, both have similar edit summaries. Even when they are not editing Meek's page, both users like to insert information about him on non-related articles (diff, diff; diff, diff). Either way, I think Virginia Courtsesan should be restricted from James Meek's page, at least until he shows some understanding on what he did wrong. SparklyNights 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also relevant: a possible sock of LauraIngallsEvenWilder (Checknfax). Revengeful username, only edits Meek's page, contribs tagged with BLP issues, account created 17 days after LauraIngall left. Also, this account started editing Meek's page just 2 days before the @Virginia Courtsesan account was created and started editing the same article. I believe both Virginia Courtsesan and @Checknfax are socks of LauraIngallsEvenWilder. LauraIngallsEvenWilder seems to be unrelated to @LauraIngalli. SparklyNights 17:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirmed, @SparklyNights is right in that I am not this person. Thank you! 138.51.42.131 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, SparklyNights, you are also a non-WP:XC user, seeing as you joined in July and only been actively editing for several weeks. This, like the above possible connection you draw between the two users, may well be indicative of nothing, or WP:SPI-something. I've no idea, but unless I'm missing something (likely), your own brief tenure here is also a fact. Again, this isn't a claim of any wrongdoing, but I just noticed that, so am noting it for the record. El_C 23:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    A quick CU check didn't turn up anything. Solid block however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AttackTheMoonNow (talk · contribs) is WMF-banned for doing this, it's probably a new incarnation. Acroterion (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    AIV is perfectly fine to report obvious socks of banned users. Acroterion (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ATMN was stirred up again by this profile in the Observer [51] Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    My initial thought was for a final warning, however they have already received topic bans twice in the past ([52] and [53]). 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)[reply]
    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. Brandmeistertalk 07:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. Brandmeistertalk 10:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thank you anyway for understanding, JML1148. Brandmeistertalk 06:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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.[54] 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.[55] 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.[56] 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,[57] to attack Ocampo's views.[58] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dashboard

    There is a major issue with the admin dashboard, when I access it, some vulgar imagery is displayed covering all the menus. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user also attacked my talk page. User is Special:Contribs/176.103.89.45. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please help get rid of it from my talk page history? It's obscene. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed it from public view. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Might need to revdel every revision from that IP. Hole pics aren't fun to stumble upon on heavily used pages. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There seem to be quite a few other edits that need revdelling in the contributions listed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and revdel'd the lot of them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is happening again(though with imagery that isn't vulgar). 331dot (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @331dot: Looks like it's Special:Contributions/Wikia7831 doing it. – 2804:F14:80BB:7801:2895:7C8F:A546:2D27 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing those last few images were the vulgar ones?(edit: turns out, no) People would probably appreciate some revdels for those as well (lest they go check what vandalism was reverted unaware).
    – 2804:F14:80BB:7801:2895:7C8F:A546:2D27 (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revldel'ed them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Camal2015

    (non-admin closure) Cullen328 blocked Camal2015 for one week. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [59] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    It looks like Fdom5997 has been editing that article for the last few months, and today was your first edit. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Over the top rhetoric when discussing the Wikimedia Foundation

    Vanisaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) While discussing an RfC on potential language to be added to the top of WP:VPWMF, Vanisaac seems to be blinded by rage is using over the top rehetoric towards the foundation and is lashing out at other volunteers and foundation employees alike (posts as of this submission Special:Diff/1, 2, 3). A request to tone down the rhetoric and strike incorrect statements led to striking that replaced a false accusation towards me with hostile rhetoric towards other editors. While I share this editors concerns about the proposed language, and did not support it being proposed in the first place, this editor's conduct feels over the line in ways that are not going to help anyone have a productive conversation. I post this in hope feedback from other members of the community might help this editor rethink some of their writing which appears to violate our behavioral guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Their language is certainly caustic and warrants a finger waggling, but to categorize the editor as "blinded by rage" is hyperbole that likewise could stand to be toned down, and taking this straight to ANI without so much as hitting their talk page with a "WTH dude?" feels to me over the line. Ravenswing 05:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the doubling down that occurred in the conversation I did have I'm not sure what a talk page discussion would have accomplished. As for the blinded phrasing I will reword. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying similarly to Ravenswing (two conflicts now!). It is language that I would describe as aggressive and uncollegial (and unproductive as stated), but I don't see it as blind rage, and it falls within the zone of language that the community has found difficult to find a way forward on even outside of WMF discussions. (My first time to see Special:Diff/1! I take it as an optimistic reminder of a community looking to move forward.) CMD (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my hope that editors understanding when they are being aggressive and uncollegial and otherwise violating behavioral expectations through community feedback is a way forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved, arrived post-rewording. One linked diff shows the editor saying "If you have a problem with an editor's conduct, go to ANI like everyone else." which suggests coming straight here was at least somewhat prudent to avoid accidentally escalating the situation. Given the quick rewording, I don't see any wp:boomerang in this specific case. —siroχo 06:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A formal warning is likely most appropriate here unless Vanisaac continues to be uncivil. I don't think it's worth going any further, and hopefully it will remind him to be more civil in future. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a formal written warning to Vanisaac for being unhelpfully brusque. They also ought to be aware now that their rhetoric is being watched, and should take heart that the best way to proceed from hereon out without a block is to comply dutifully with the law of holes. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I think you posted that first link without piping it properly, it literally goes to Special:Diff/1 (which, I've just learned, is somehow Luis Oliveira adding himself to Wikipedia:Wikipedians in January 2002). I was really scratching my head over this for a minute until I realized that the actual revision ID was 1. jp×g 19:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Əhməd Qurbanov and User:EloquentEditor

    Damage undone, pages protected, lessons learned WaggersTALK 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [60] [61] despite me letting them know of WP:GS/AA and its restrictions twice. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Justinw303 - disruptive editing and egregious personal attacks

    Indef blocked for incivility WaggersTALK 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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

    Request for range block

    I'm not sure how I'd write down one of these, nor which IP to notify (I'm guessing the most recently used one?), but I'll give this a shot anyway since I was advised to file one here on WP:SPI.

    An editor with a dynamic IP in the IP range 2001:448a::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made four bolded recommendations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skibidi Toilet (2nd nomination) and has ignored two requests to follow WP:DISCUSSAFD and append their first recommendation. IPs I believe the editor edited under include:

    2001:448a:11a3:16ea:65d5:d7bb:91a9:5d03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:3db0:383d:f205:3b64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:6969:9ba8:149d:c97a (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:a1ec:400e:a8f5:f38b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Jurta talk 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What? You asking me at ANI? 2001:448A:11A3:16EA:65D5:D7BB:91A9:5D03 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to provide the following links to the admins: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:448a:11a6:1b76:d15b:60dd:5e62:aa13 (failed due; "There is no indication that I can see that this person abused multiple accounts. This is because they are logged-out and on dynamic IPs which means that the IP address they are using could change frequently"), [62] User has blocks on certain pages for similar disruption, [63] this as well. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping @Ohnoitsjamie: who had already p-blocked that range. El_C 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added the target Cendol to an existing partial block since that (very large) range was disrupting Cendol with tiresome nationalist crap. Probably not the same individual, but it's easy enough to add the AfD to the list of pblock targets, which I've now done. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You just added the target cendol? It's my favorite Sundanese dessert. 2001:448A:11A3:1307:944C:E87:591:DBB6 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:TheFriendlyFas2

    Reported user blocked by indefinitely by theleekycauldron for disruptive editing. --JBL (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Identifying with third positionism on their userpage should be grounds for a WP:NAZI block. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It looks like there are similar edits done more recently; specifically [64][65][66][67]. 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)[reply]
    Yikes. I know NONAZIS is an essay, but come on. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized their username is quite literally "the friendly fascist". Double yikes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yeah, this seems like a clear NOTHERE block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Their username is "the friendly fascist". Come on. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Very cool guys. When do we start blocking this other kind [68] [69]? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    YaleianKing

    Both accounts indef blocked for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [70]

    Khalaj people: Removed sourced information and added unsourced info multiple times, starting from August 2022 till now [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

    SUMKA: Altered sourced info [80] [81] [82] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    PaxDominiVobiscum and WP:CIR

    Going through this user's contributions leads to some bizarre findings. There's an edit such as this, which appears vandalistic or at least careless, or a number of strange edits to short descriptions that add emojis or country flags or descriptions that do not at all describe what the article is about, like this, this, this, and this. There's also this, which is almost constructive, but contains a typo.

    I'm not a fan of blocking new users or somewhat more experienced users for CIR issues without giving a warning and a chance to improve, but this user's editing behavior seems to be getting worse from their initial (but still problematic) edits to the encyclopedia. The use of emojis seems to be a new thing from the past several months and the apparent careless/vandalistic edit is the user's most recent edit. After discovering this user today, I feel like I will be needing to keep an eye on them to revert or fix their changes. Uhai (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is certainly weird. Some of the edits make me believe that they are editing in good faith, but don't understand that emojis aren't used. This edit could just be put down to a butt dial midway through editing. I've left a comment explaining to them what they've done wrong. I don't think anything else needs to happen for the time being unless they continue to be unconstructive. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly severely disabled, using a special word processor (predicts words and emojis).... Lourdes 08:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have stated on their userpage that they are severely disabled. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • They only edit once every few weeks or months. Might need a indefinite block with a talk page message, and then let them appeal the block from there to discuss their editing. I don't see how else this disruptive editing gets addressed before archivebot sends this to the back.--v/r - TP 13:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Or just a final warning that any further unconstructive edits or edits involving emojis will lead to a block. Blocking them now feels like trying to pre-empt any further edits. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      All blocks are pre-emptive. We block to prevent future bad behavior, not for poor past behavior. All blocks are to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. WP:Blocking policy second paragraph said "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" (emphasis mine).--v/r - TP 06:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential vandalism in a photo at Bergmann–Bayard pistol history

    Hi, I'm a relatively new editor here but I found an issue here that I'm not sure how to proceed with so I will describe it here:

    The Bergmann–Bayard pistol article had a questionable photo in it from the commons from User:Triden123 placed in the mainspace on wikipedia 5 February 2023 by 2600:1700:DA1:5600:14B:536B:59F:8384 until it was recently caught by another editor. The changes as described by the editor in the edit summary were: Removed the picture for what looked to be a scrotum in the lower frame of the image.

    The change was quickly reverted (most likely because it removed the photo and someone just quickly repaired the infobox). In reviewing the change log, I think I have to agree with the editor that removed it; I replaced the image with the original one prior to the questionable image's inclusion. I just wanted to flag the admins in here because of the content and ask for next steps and guidance. I'm not sure if this can be solved entirely here, or if there is an issue, to be raised at the commons as well. Thanks MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, looks like balls to me. Well we can keep it out of the article here via the usual editorial processes, but if you want it to be deleted from commons you will need to start a discussion there. Uploader only has one contribution, so really its checking if the pic is in use on any other wiki, replacing the photo, then nominating it for deletion on commons. Commons is much better these days at getting rid of obvious crap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I've created a speedy deletion tag over there on the image properly, but I'm unfamiliar with the process on the commons. Thanks for your help! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was deleted on Commons as a Reddit copvio so I'd say this is all taken care of now (except please don't ever use or feature weapons in your birthday suit and check your images before uploading, but that seems to be more of a 'them' issue on Reddit than for any of us). Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOLLOCKS may or may not apply. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of RS at Mosin–Nagant

    Blocked x 36 hrs for edit warring. The OP is gently cautioned about that as well, though I'm disinclined to press the matter given the overtly disruptive nature of the IP's editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. Tessaract2Hi! 01:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing by IP at History of Taiwan

    184.145.61.182 has been repeatedly changing the section title on the period of Taiwan during Japanese rule at History of Taiwan from Japanese Empire to Japanese Taiwan ([83] [84] [85] [86]). No other section does this (ex. Dutch and Spanish colonies, Kingdom of Tungning, Qing dynasty, Republic of China). Their repeated edit summary reason is Improve vocabulary accuracy. After two warnings at User talk:184.145.61.182 for disruptive editing and opening a talk section at the article, they have not responded and persisted in making the change. They also made a nonsensical talk section asking for edit protection and to lock the page because it can be controversial, and for another talk page to be created for discussion regarding the history of the island, which is ridiculous because the page is about the history of Taiwan. Qiushufang (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Qiushufang: I haven't looked fully into what's actually happening here, but a reminder for next time: please don't jump straight to a level 3 warning when reverting an editor. I know it's tempting, but we have to start with a level 1 warning unless it's particularly egregious. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Qiushufang I am concerned that you may be assuming bad faith with the IP. I don't see a reason to believe that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Both of you are also edit warring, and close to violating WP:3RR. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has made only one change and one topic, and then immediately reverted, asked for the page to be locked, and for another page to be created to discuss the topic the page was created for. I warned them. They did not respond. I made a talk page for discussion.They did not respond. The edit is also not universal and restricted only one section, which does not seem to match their edit reason. At what point do I assume bad faith? JML1148 Qiushufang (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is definitely veering into WP:ICHY territory. However, WP:AGF is a thing, and immediately calling it disruptive editing is definitely not good faith. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JML1148: I also don't believe the first instinct of a new user is to immediately ask for a page lock upon reversion. How do they know what a page lock, edit protection is? They immediately asked for a lock after reverting once ([87] [88]). It's not impossible that they're new but combined with their single issue and tendentious reversion, this seems unlikely. Qiushufang (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of assuming bad faith. It's equally possible that they tried to edit a page but couldn't because of page protection. I certainly knew what page protection was before I was an editor after wondering what the blue lock was in the corner of the page. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC) I've struck out part of my comment. I went too far there, assuming bad faith myself. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I mentioned it was not impossible and took into consideration their tendentious one topic editing as well. And in any case, asking for a lock as their first response right after reverting is the strange part. My first warning was after they had already reverted twice, the second time without any reason, and requested the lock. Their reason for the change is also nonsensical and a standard edit summary for pushing through changes. It did not improve vocabulary as they said. In one reversion they also damaged the article link. When taking all this into account, I'm unsure what to think of this other than targeted disruptive editing. Qiushufang (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that regardless of good faith, they have made no attempt at communication and ignored any requests for it. Qiushufang (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Qiushufang I've struck out part of my comment above. I went too far immediately saying you had shown bad faith again. Apologies. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JML1148 Thank you for your reconsideration. I've started noticing a trend of IPs with similar interests (Taiwan, China, Taiwan-Japan relations, anime) geolocating to the same place that have been abandoned after a few days or months of use that could possibly be linked to this IP. Not sure if they're breaking any rules but collectively they've accrued a substantial number of warnings. See the following if you're interested:
    Special:Contributions/184.145.61.182
    Special:Contributions/184.145.53.53
    Special:Contributions/184.148.109.174
    Special:Contributions/184.148.109.63
    Special:Contributions/174.89.100.221
    Special:Contributions/184.146.37.152
    Special:Contributions/142.113.184.227
    Special:Contributions/174.95.137.59
    Special:Contributions/142.113.169.32
    Special:Contributions/174.89.100.7
    Qiushufang (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for disruptive editing. I don't see a reason to waste more editor time trying to get through to the user.--v/r - TP 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Their refusal to acknowledge any warning, but showing that they can make comments on talk pages, is just plain WP:ICHY. Good block. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaranoFan chronic incivility, conspiracy theories

    I am tired of having my edits construed by User:MaranoFan as "sabotage". At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Him Back!, which was about an article they created, I supported a redirect as there was no reliable indication of future notability at the time. The closer found a consensus to redirect. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Help requested, MaranoFan now says that the "Get Him Back!" deletion discussion "saw multiple votes influenced by Four Award rivalries" and called the votes "blatant bad-faith sabotage". I cited policy; the redirect vote had nothing to do with them personally. If they disagree with the outcome of a deletion discussion, MaranoFan should appeal the decision at Deletion review, not malign a consensus as "sabotage".

    Based on their comments, I am asking for MaranoFan to be blocked for a time due to personal attacks. Claiming multiple editors acted to "sabotage" them is extremely offensive. I spend most of my time doing research and writing articles with occasional steps into deletion discussions and page moves, not sabotaging other editors. I continue to abide by an informal interaction ban with MaranoFan, as per their wishes, after a previous ANI in May 2023. I do not edit any of the topics they frequent, nor have I commented on one of their FACs or DYKs, and I have not referred to their edits or actions anywhere aside from the ANI page since. With their comments at Talk:DYK, MaranoFan has not done the same. I would have not opened another ANI if they were just referring to me because it's not worth it, but saying "multiple votes" were sabotage and influenced by "Four Award rivalries"? No—this conspiracy nonsense needs to be stopped now. Heartfox (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "I continue to abide by an informal interaction ban with MaranoFan" What??? It must be a funny type of interaction ban that allows someone to vote to redirect an article created by the other person. This is the same user who harrassed me with a 9kb essay a few hours after being asked to stop bothering me. When my unanimously supported IBAN request with this person was archived without action, they again decided to get involved in a discussion about deleting an article created by me. I briefly raised this at AN but got no response. Last month, they created an article over my redirect, so sorry, but no, they have not "abided by an informal interaction ban" with me. For context, this user and I both nominate music articles at FAC which often compete for attention from same or similar reviewers. They have apparently had problems with me since my very first FAC more than two years ago, but have still involved themselves with five of my other nominations. As for this user's Four Awards-influenced grudge being "conspiracy nonsense", they have nominated two articles for the award this year and are creating more, usually over redirects for Mariah Carey songs created by me. This is the same award I would have been eligible for with the article whose AfD they commented on (and am now disqualified), and their previous derailment of one of my nominations was also on an article nominated for the process.
    This user's constant witchhunt to get rid of me (clearly proved by them asking for me to be blocked again and again but opposing an IBAN) has gotten extremely tiring and I reiterate my request for an IBAN so they can stop wasting my and the community's time. A block for this user is also something I am now willing to consider supporting. This is not the first time they have tried to take out FAC nominators they don't like. At some point we have to say enough is enough.--NØ 17:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral comment My redirect vote! at the AfD was not canvassed or influenced by anyone, but based on my common voting pattern where individual songs on an unreleased album should not have articles until the album is released or the song is released as a single. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "My redirect"? A user doesn't get to reserve creation and own editing of an article because they made a redirect five years prior. I created "Outside" and "Clown" because new sources were published this year, e.g. Chan book. It had absolutely nothing to do with MaranoFan. This is yet another example of MaranoFan's ridiculous ownership and their baseless conspiracy charges against other editors. Claiming me creating an article out of a redirect five years later to be a "witchhunt against competition" is just ridiculous. Heartfox (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's a funny kind of an "informal interaction ban" being "abided", where one can vote to redirect the other party's article and characterize their edits as "conspiracy nonsense", "ridiculous ownership", and "baseless conspiracy charges". I just bust out laughing. Now let's do a real, formalized one so I don't have to deal with this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense every few months.--NØ 19:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Here's Heartfox hiding comments from me and two admins on my FAC, several days after when they claim they have been "abiding by an informal interaction ban" with me. Something they seem to be asking me to get blocked for.--NØ 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I think we're getting a little off track. Here's what I think we oughtta do:

    1. Heartfox and MaranoFan are subject to a two-way involuntary interaction ban.
    2. MaranoFan is warned about casting aspersions.
    3. Heartfox is reminded that deescalation of conflict is preferable wherever possible.
    • Support as proposer – it's pretty clear that we got bad blood, but a block doesn't seem like the best remedy for either party. Let's get them out of each other's hair so they can do what they're good at. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as what I had proposed five months ago when I already foresaw more drama incoming. I am not satisfied with how the supposed "informal interaction ban" has been selectively obeyed by others involved, formalization is necessary. Heartfox had a problem with me since my very first FAC, but kept forcing interactions with me. Then said they’ll ”be certain to avoid me in the future” and returned to cast an aspersion on my FAC. After a few hours of being asked to stay away from me, they posted a 9kb essay about me to ANI. And after a virtually unanimously supported IBAN proposal, thought it was a good idea to vote about the prospective deletion of my work. So, holy mother of escalation, I oppose any “voluntary” solution to this problem. The fact that they have posted several essays to ANI trashing my conduct but beg not to have an interaction ban is absolutely mortifying and should tell everyone what they need to know. They seem to want to have some avenue left to set up another trap in the future in an attempt to "get rid" of me. Sorry, but I will not be taken out and will continue writing more of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as I have been doing the past three years. It's time to put the community headache to bed.--NØ 20:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. MaranoFan cited an online forum as their source to justify the imminent notability of an article, which, predictably, turned out to be false in any case. Citing unreliable material even though they know how to determine source reliability demonstrates that they are obsessive regarding Four Awards. It has gotten out of control to the point where they have dragged in "multiple editors" (not just me) into a sabotage conspiracy theory regarding the deletion discussion. I don't know what to do when an editor thinks everything is a personal attack against them. MaranoFan should either withdraw their comment about "multiple editors" sabotaging them or submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Him Back! to Deletion review. If not, they should be blocked for casting aspersions.
    I have been editing for over 8 years and never received an interaction ban or a temporary block, so I oppose a two-way involuntary interaction ban. To have my name dragged into the muck of someone who has been site-banned in the past does not seem appropriate. In addition to not commenting on their FACs and DYKs since May 2023, I will commit to not commenting in deletion discussions or page moves regarding articles MaranoFan created in the future. Heartfox (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral comment Why would we or they take an article that's now been created and properly sourced to DR? It was redirected and now is a full article (as I expected to occur); there's no deletion to review. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If MaranoFan believes that multiple votes were sabotage/only added on the basis of "Four Award rivalries" they should bring it to deletion review and state some evidence rather than cast aspersions at Talk:DYK. If overturned from redirect to keep, it might ease their concerns about whether the article is eligible for a Four Award. Heartfox (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BURO...no. That's not the purpose of DR. The article isn't in danger of deletion at all. We're not going to force someone to do a pointless exercise like you want them to in what I think is a pretty blatant attempt at forcing a proxy block. Move on already, and with that, support IBAN because I cannot take you at your word that you'll just keep dragging them into the muck and the other subject just wants to move on themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's patently obvious that these two editors don't, and can't, get along. Short of just blocking these two, a two-way IBAN (involuntary, at that; I do not believe a voluntary IBAN will work here) seems like the optimal solution. Also consider that a two-way IBAN was already supported but not formalized. SkyWarrior 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I think this is the best option for this situation and for both editors. I agree with SkyWarrior's rationale. I do not see the situation between these two editors improving in the future and this kind of two-way ban seems to be the only way forward in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: two editors with 40,000 edits and 28 featured articles between them surely have better things to do on wikipedia than the sniping that we're seeing here. If Heartfox is as they say in fact already voluntarily abiding by an informal IBAN this will not affect them in any way; if MaranoFan wants Heartfox to stop engaging with them then casting aspersions about "bad-faith sabotage" is not helping their cause. I would further suggest that though Heartfox voting in the "Get Him Back!" AfD might not be explicitly prohibited by the text of WP:IBAN, participating in an AfD about an article created by MaranoFan and which MaranoFan has already participated in is at best A Bad Idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting for the record that I have indef'd MaranoFan ‎because, on reading this thread and the links given in it, I find his battleground mentality utterly appalling and completely corrosive to good-faith collaboration and this appears to be a much more widespread issue than an running feud with Heartfox. The block is explicitly intended to be indefinite, not infinite, and blocking long-term contributors is not something I take any pleasure in but we cannot allow one editor to undermine community processes by labelling a consensus they don't with "sabotage". My detailed rationale can be found at the diff above and I welcome review of my actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry for reopening this discussion but I believe there still needs to be a two-way IBAN enacted despite the indef on one of the parties. SkyWarrior 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as needed to stop the bickering between these two editors. Also support unblock of MaranoFan, an indefinite block seems overly zealous in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - thanks for reopening this, it seems like something we should conclude once and for all, after it was parked without conclusion on May. And most likely MaranoFan will be back at some point in the coming days or weeks, once the dust has settled. Since the two appear unable to work collaboratively together, the 2-way IBAN seems sensible, along with the other two notes leeky has made. It's not a punishment, just a recognition that they can both be productive of they don't have anything to do with each other.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IBAN but also support unblock MaranoFan. I also support the unblock of MaranoFan because it seems like an excessive block and in violation of policy WP:BLOCK. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IB, with the caveat that I have unblocked MaranoFan per the discussion on their Talk. Both editors' behavior cannot continue and while I'm optimistic we won't be back here, a mutual IB is the only way to help ensure it. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Star Mississippi I'm very disappointed that you've decided to impose your judgement over mine and Amakuru's without any discussion whatsoever. The block was well within the bounds of policy and admin discretion and you even note in on MF's talk page that you agree with it. It had not yet served its purpose, being barely seven hours old, and discussion was ongoing on the talk page. Furthermore, your unblock summary of "per talk page" makes it sound as though you were acting with some sort of consensus when not a single uninvolved admin had seen anything wrong with the block. It's exactly these sorts of shoddy unblocks that make long-term user conduct issues so difficult to deal with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe I was correct in my action and there was consensus for it among other uninvolved editors, although you may have disagreed, but do not have the stamina nor interest in protracted dispute or this progressing where other admin actions have. I will undo my unblock.
      Where I believed you were OK with it being temporary was your own wording that you did not intend for it to be infinite, but rather to stop the problematic editing and address it, which I believe it did and MF addressed the issues. Perhaps that was my misreading and I apologize. Star Mississippi 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if that makes the situation better or worse, which is exactly why a knee-jerk unblock was a bad idea. I fully intend(ed?) for the block to be temporary, though perhaps a bit less temporary than seven hours. A temporary block of a few days would have been in order. I've given my reasons for making it indef on MF's talk page at some length but I feel he needs to reflect on his approach to editing and especially to discussions and disagreements and that a few hours is not enough time for that. There was a discussion ongoing on the talk page where several other editors had reached out with advice and I do think MF was beginning to "get it". An unblock may have been on the horizon somewhere but your action caused more problems than it solved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      not a single uninvolved admin Are you implying that SM is involved? GMGtalk 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the avoidance of doubt, zero interaction outside of project spaces, third party editor Talks although not on any related subjects that I am able to see. Log for anyone to assess as I do not have anything to hide.
      @HJ Mitchell I believe the editor's reaction to my reblock shows they are continuing to get it and understand how they should proceed. MY personal belief as an admin is that x hours v. y days doesn't particulary matter if the editor shows they understand what led to the block. This is part of the issue with preventative v. punitive blocks that I think is a broader issue than you and I disagreeing here. If they end up back here despite an interaction ban, I'll happily eat crow. (Happy to take this to your Talk if you prefer). Star Mississippi 19:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dragoni 2009

    This report concerns the various edits of Dragoni 2009. My first time noticing Dragoni 2009 was in the Kosovo (1RR) article, in which the following incidents happened:

    • Dragoni 2009 attempted to undermine the status of the Serbian language in Kosovo. He let Albanian language be considered "official", yet changed Serbian to be "co-official". This edit was done in various part of the article[89][90]. The edits was reverted by another editor, Griboski, and in which the editor explained the reason for the revert: [91]
    • Within 24 hours in the same 1RR article, Dragoni 2009 would not only revert Griboski's revert but also expand his disruption. [92][93][94]. This was also done without any contribution to the TP. As a result, I would revert these edits of him and take it to the article's TP.[95]. I would also give him a warning on his user TP.[96]. The user never replied to any of them.

    Let me make it clear to the ones reading this report that Serbian- and Albanian language has the exact same political status in Kosovo. Dragoni 2009 was, without a doubt, aware of it when he ignored these explanations by me and the other editor from the start. It became even more clear to me that his POV edits was done on purpose when these following edits happened:

    • Dragoni 2009 would continue to undermine the status of the Serbian language by this edit [97] on the. Changing order and native name in Community of Serb Municipalities without any logical reason.
    • In the Minority languages of Kosovo article, Dragoni 2009 would continue his rampage of listing Albanian as "official" and Serbian as "co-official".[99] This was later reverted by another user[100].

    A big motive behind this report is the fact that there are multiple editors who have had issues with the user's edits. In recent weeks, Dragoni 2009 has received multiple warnings and concerns on his TP by various editors.[101][102][103][104][105][106] And the last one, mine [107]. Still visible on his TP, he would write "Wikepedia admins are so propagandistic and rascist. thank you".

    Me or other editors have clearly had no impact on this user, so I was left no choice than to file this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzorzaI (talk • contribs)

    • This edit appears to show the user edits with a nationalist point of view and intends to "fix" what they perceive to be offenses against their people. I've blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as they aren't here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 02:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @TParis: It looks like you indeffed them, then changed the block duration to 31 hours about a minute later, immediately before commenting in this thread. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dang it, lol. I use Twinkle for block notices. I forgot to uncheck the "Block user" box after I manually blocked. Thanks for the heads up. Returning it to an indef.--v/r - TP 04:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @TParis Thank you for your time. Btw you might have forgot to change the block duration of the template on the user's TP --Azor (talk). 05:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, thanks. More twinkle mishaps.--v/r - TP 05:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Prolific IP vandalism

    ALL ROADS LEAD TO VANDALISM
    (non-admin closure) 107.9.140.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours by ScottishFinnishRadish for vandalism. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    I've blocked for 31 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Vif12vf

    103.196.139.76 should not change multiple articles without prior discussion and should definitely not continue once reverted. Please let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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

    Esomeonee7 account used for POV/vandalism only

    Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I initially reverted one new disruptive edit by this user and gave them a fresh warning ([108]), but after looking at their other edits it's clear that they're only here to vandalize and push a POV. They already received multiple direct warnings in August 2023 (see user talk page), by which point they had vandalized many times (e.g. [109], [110], [111]). They have given zero responses and since August they've continued to vandalize without interruption (e.g. [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]). R Prazeres (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Figbiscuits

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    WP:OWN Figbiscuits (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RMUM Tollens (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The Cessna article has a section called "Dump", it's obviously incomplete. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oh right yeah, I missed the AFD apologies. I've re-draftified it then.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    @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)[reply]
    • Am I the only one getting WP:DUCK feelz?--v/r - TP 10:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      You're likely to get an answer along the lines of fish 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    @Figbiscuits I don't recommend moving drafts when this ANI thread is still ongoing. Ca talk to me! 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    User:Catyahill and User:41.198.133.82 at Coloureds

    Catyahill and the IP user (one and the same person, I believe, based on these edits, have been vandalizing and edit-warring at Coloureds, insisting on rewriting the history of this minority group of South Africa. Despite multiple warnings, they continue to insist on their version without discussion. Because multiple violations are involved here (WP:3RR, WP:SOCK), I've brought the matter here rather than one of the other notice boards. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @WikiDan61 I've partially blocked both the account and the IP from that one article, hopefully to encourage them to the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Sbelknap on saturated fat and related topics

    Sbelknap was blocked from editing the red meat article back in December 2022 due to his repeated disruption of the article and talk-page and WP:POV editing. The blocking reason was "for persistent tendentious editing and edit warring against consensus". The same user disrupted other articles related to saturated fat in which he wanted to use various articles and talk-pages to promote his WP:Fringe views and conspiracy theories about diet.

    The same user has now returned on the saturated fat [118] and taurine talk-pages and is again making the same edits that resulted in their block before. Sbelknap argues against the medical consensus, and claims "that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease" [119]. He also says that all of the dietary guidelines are "flawed". It must be noted that his view is in direct opposition to the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, European Society of Cardiology and all the other leading medical organizations in the world that are telling people to limit saturated fat, not increase it.

    Sbelknap is a noted carnivore diet advocate who claims that all plant-foods are "candy" [120]. I filed a complaint last year about his conflict of interest editing on red meat and saturated fat [121]. Sbelknap has connections with Nina Teicholz and her research-tank that opposes scientific consensus on saturated fat.

    After his block from the red meat article last year, the admin Bishonen wrote to Sbelknap "you can still edit the rest of Wikipedia, though I'm also extending a warning for your only-too-similar editing of Saturated fat and its talkpage. Please demonstrate that you can edit collaborately at Saturated fat and you will have a better chance of being unblocked at Red meat also" [122]. The problem here is that Sbelknap has returned to the saturated fat talk-page and is doing exactly the same disruptive and tendentious editing that he did before. He has not edited collaborately, he deliberately ignores scientific consensus and Wikipedia policy on Fringe views and NPOV.

    Sbelknap started editing the saturated fat talk-page again on the 9 September 2023‎. There are now two extremely long talk-page discussions involving Sbelknap on the talk-page [123]. The user ignores consensus and what other experienced users have written, then he claims many times "Something is very wrong here" and "Something is very wrong here. What is going on?" [124], [125], [126]. I would go as far as calling this repetitive behavior trolling. This sort of behaviour is not good faith and as the admin wrote to him about his previous block [127] he is ignoring advice from experienced Wikipedia users.

    The same behaviour can be seen on the taurine talk-page [128], it is disruptive. Sbelknap's behaviour is totally unacceptable and is continuous of what he was doing before. I believe a topic-ban is appropriate here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of the talk page is to arrive at a consensus. I am not the only editor making these points. Other engaged editors have raised the same issues that I am raising.
    According to NPOV, "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them" The saturated fat article suppresses an alternate POV that is presented in high quality secondary sources from peer-reviewed medical literature. sbelknap (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no connections of any kind with Nina Teicholzsbelknap (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint above contains misstatements. I have made no recent edits to the content of the saturated fat article. Today, I added a POV tag to the saturated fat article, reflecting the discussion on the talk page. I have acted in good faith, have worked to achieve consensus on presenting the important POVs on saturated fat in the talk page. There is something very wrong here.sbelknap (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behaviour this and last month on the saturated fat talk-page is exactly the same as you did last December on the red meat article and talk-page that resulted in your block, saying the same stuff over and over. You do not have consensus to be putting this template on the article [129]. This was noted to you regarding your previous block on the red meat article [130]. Nothing has changed here. You are not listening to other users. You ignore all advice from other users and continue to use talk-pages as a place to promote your WP:Fringe material. After you are told why you are wrong and why the sources you are suggesting are unreliable you ignore that then suggest they should be included anyway.
    You have made it clear that you reject all advice from medical organizations on saturated fat and you believe all the guidelines are "flawed". It is not our fault that you reject medical consensus on this topic, we are not going to promote fringe views on saturated fat just to please you. You have disrupted the red meat, saturated fat and taurine talk-pages. There is a serious pattern here of disruption, ignoring medical and Wikipedia consensus. You are seriously wasting other users editing time... This is just a repeat of what happened last December. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made no edits to the content of the saturated fat wikipedia article. I have added a POV tag to the head of the article as per discussion on the talk page. I have engaged in good faith discussion on the talk page for this article. I am not saying the same stuff over and over. There is a disagreement among engaged editors on whether alternate POVs regarding healthfulness of saturated fat are to be included in the saturated fat article.
    Here at wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources. There are many high-quality secondary sources regarding the healthfulness of saturated fat that are being omitted from mention on the saturated fat article on wikipedia.
    There is a failure of good stewardship of wikipedia evident on this article. sbelknap (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, since editing the saturated talk-page since September 9. You have only pushed at length to put one fringe paper onto the article. So after dozens of comments and writing 1000s of words you have not suggested anything productive for the article, just suggested one fringe source from Hamley.

    • I am puzzled by the claim that the Hamley article is unreliable. No engaged editor has presented any plausible reason why they hold this opinion. Each objection raised has been shown to be wrong. What is going on here? [131]
    • So far, the objections raised to inclusion of Hamley in this wikipedia article range from specious to laughable. I've countered each one fully. Enough of this. Lets craft some text on the Hamley article to put in the article. [132]
    • These objections to inclusion of Hamley's meta-analysis in this wikipedia article on saturated fat are without merit. [133]
    • This article could be improved by including the points made by Hamley. [134]

    You kept making comments like this despite being told that the Hamley source is not reliable for Wikipedia, so this is not good faith editing or cooperating with other Wikipedia users. This type of repetitive and persistent tendentious editing on talk-pages is not helpful and it has happened on more than one. As for typing the same comment, yes you have done that.

    • There is something wrong here. This is not good stewardship of wikipedia. [135]
    • There is a serious problem with this article. Something is wrong here. [136]
    • Something is very wrong here. What is going on? [137]
    • Something here is rotten. [138]

    This is disruptive repetitive behaviour that is soaking up other users editing time. Like I said I believe a topic ban is appropriate here. You have not learned anything from your previous block. Wikipedia is not the place to argue against medical consensus but you seem to be using talk-pages to do that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have mischaracterized the discussion.
    Other editors have made similar attempts to bring balance to the saturated fat article.
    Prior to September 9, I presented several other high-quality secondary sources for mention in the saturated fat article.
    Some editors prefer to omit mention of high-quality secondary sources that present an alternate view on the healthfulness of saturated fat while other editors prefer to include mention of these sources.
    It's not just one article and its not just one editor.
    Why are you threatening me with a topic ban for posting an informed suggestion to a talk page? sbelknap (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this user's behavior, historical issues with WP:ANI, disruptive editing, and a general vibe of WP:NOTHERE, I propose an SBAN. This user's refusal to accept scientific consensus on a wide variety of issues also gives me doubts regarding their competency to contribute to the site. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shashwad Basavaraj Babalgaon

    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)[reply]

    User:Apphistorian

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @2601:447:c781:c920:5cbd:782c:f383:4392 Hate speech, personal attacks on Ethiopia

    This user has vandalized the page of Ethiopia, also promoting hate speech through their comments seen in this revision off of what they added in this revision: [139]

    The revisions include changing the common name to "Raw Meat Eaters" The long name name to "Aidsthopia" The leader to "Negro Zoothopian" and vandalism of the religious numbers.

    The edit summary is "Idk I hate ethiopia" clearly showing this user has no intent toward working on an encyclopedia based off their edits and this edit summary. Noorullah (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the edit in question has been reverted. What further action do you think should be taken now, given that the edit was unregistered and no further edits seem to have been made from this IP address? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger Maybe a temporary IP block? Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically a Range block. @Phil Bridger Noorullah (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, when vandalism is combined with racist hate speech, action is called for. I've blocked the IP editor for 31 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1178775701"