Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User:Victuallers and misuse of the admin tools

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

When looking at Special:NewPagesFeed, I noticed Rose Edouin, a creation by User:Victuallers with the indication "Previously deleted". Having been aware of multiple issues with some of their creations, I checked what this was about, and noticed that they deleted an apparently perfectly valid redirect before creating the "new" page under their own name. I raised this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Rose Edouin, and checked their logs to see if this happened regularly.

Sure enough, the last few weeks alone, they deleted existing redirects at Terri Libenson, Nell Gifford, Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol and Ena May Neill. A lot worse was their Undeletion of Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb, with the reason "This page was deleted without explanation. She is notable by AU experts. How this missed AfD baffles me. I strongly suspect this was a bit of stalking and they didnt even use their ownname." No idea how they succeeded in missing the rather clear explanation given by User:Justlettersandnumbers at the time of deletion: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/newcomb-caroline-elizabeth-2238/text2441, https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/1883". And sure enough, Victuallers succeeded in bringing a copyright violation back into the mainspace...

The combination of repeated WP:INVOLVED misuse of the tools (deleting valid page history to get the credit as page creator) and misuse of the tool to undelete a copyvio (with the lack of competence in not even finding the deletion reason), coupled with other recent issues like copyright violations, total disregard for proper attribution (which had to be explained nearly step-by-step before they got it), ... makes me doubt that they should continue to be an admin, but perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient? Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm a newish admin, and AFC is not my main cup of tea. Isn't it common practice to G6 a mainspace redirect—one that has only minor history—to make way for an AFC draft publication? That's what happened with Terri Libenson. Victuallers is not credited as the page creator, since another editor created the draft. I haven't looked into the others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

At least Rose Edouin was not an AFC accept/move. It was a copy-paste-edit fork from another article, slapped in place after deleting the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've struck out Libenson, as that is the only one not deleted to put his own creation. I don't know if this is or isn't standard AfC practice, but in any case it doesn't belong with the others in this report, thanks. Fram (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Newcomb isn't as clear a copyvio as the original deleter thought - the referenced article it copies from is licensed as CC BY 4.0. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I haven't yet read this discussion (to which I was pinged) in full. I think you may be partially right about the Newcomb article – the museumvictoria.com.au page carries no CC release and is clearly marked as copyright, so may (or may not) fall under their "otherwise noted" exception (wouldn't it be good if institutions could learn how to implement the CC releases they want to make?). But I see no justification for the copying of content from here, and am guessing that that was my principal reason for deleting the page on 28 November 2018. There was then, and still is, a substantial CCI still open for this user (any help much appreciated!). I've removed the residual copyvios from the ADB from Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb. We really need to engrave in stone that G12 deletions may not be restored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Further to this comment, I've gone ahead and bolded the sentence "Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all" in the header of WP:REFUND. Victuallers, could you kindly confirm that you understand the potential problems with ignoring that advice, and that you will take care not to repeat that particular mistake? And that if for some (inconceivable) reason it's imperative to undelete a copyvio, you will be sure to clean and revdelete it immediately? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers:, I think its implicit in me calling it a mistake. But I'm happy to explicitly confirm that I see why it was a mistake and the need to clean up. I'm happy to help with the CCI. I'm in a Wikipedia training session at the moment, but I'll get on to it. HTH Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Rose Edouin had exactly one edit, creating a redirect. There is nothing else in the history. Anyone with the page mover right would've been able to move a draft on top of it, replacing it. It's pretty standard, and the history didn't need to be recovered. Could some admin check to see if the histories of the Gifford, Rivarol, and Neill articles are the same? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted Gifford, as that was a redirect that didn't need to be deleted. I left de Rivarol as it was, because the redirect was created by Victuallers themself. Neill, I'd like a second opinion on. Victuallers created it in 2015. After a couple of edits and a short talk page discussion, it was redirected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted the deleted edits on Neill. They are relevant to the article history, and the first edit was by Victuallers, so that wasn't an attempt to "steal credit" for article creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: What do you mean need to be deleted? Which need to be deleted, which don't, and which need to be undeleted? The whole point of creating this ability in the page mover right is a redirect isn't meaningful content that needs to be retained. If there's more than just a redirect, it should probably be retained, but not just a redirect. The only real function of undeleting a redirect is to ensure the wrong person gets notified if an article is, say, tagged for deletion, and to ensure that the person who might want to receive notifications about incoming links cannot get them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good point about notifications, Rhododendrites. I want to see how this discussion goes, but I may go ahead and re-delete those two edits, and I wouldn't considered it a WP:WHEEL case if somebody overrode me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it can yield better results in terms of more relevant notifications if redirects are deleted. It does feel a bit wrong if admins use deletion to give themselves creator credit, but {{db-move}} allows anyone to request that, so perhaps it shouldn't feel wrong. —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think you will find they are the same. This has been discussed before with the same conclusion as yours Rhododendrites. Victuallers (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the deletions. I've done similar myself in the past and done similar for non-admins who have asked me to. A redirect is not meaningful history. Undeleting something that was G12'd is poor; @Victuallers you should have discussed that with the deleting admin first and come to an agreement that it could be undeleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram it sounds like you've been working really hard on coaching this admin but haven't been able to build the positive working relationship you'd like to have or elicit editorial/behavioral changes you think are important. I'm sure we can collectively work out a win-win low-drama solution that moves us forward. What's the most critical issue that needs attention? How can we most help *you* today? jengod (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Jengod, it sounds like you're using an AI bot and haven't instructed it very well. What is your comment intended to accomplish? Bishonen | tålk 08:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I disagree about the desirability of deleting redirects. There's an attribution issue under the license, I believe? One could say that only matters when there have been substantial edits since creation, but that's a slippery slope: Ena May Neill received 2 small copyedits in addition to one by Victuallers himself before its redirection, and the redirect decision itself constitutes another part of the history that should be transparently documented; the discussion is on the talk page of the article and so was presumably also deleted? Also, it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion or other deletion proposal to notify all substantial contributors to the article. Notifying only the creator may be what you get it you let some automated process such as Twinkle do it for you (and that's already more than some nominators do), but in many instances there are others who contributed to the article and thus should be notified. This is a collaborative project; the norm should be that an article gets worked on by multiple editors, and we are held responsible for our edits, including our interactions with fellow contributors, and shouldn't fall back on automated processes as an excuse (or expect everyone to be monitoring their watchlists, another form of automation; those are often huge, plus the article may have been moved and the nomination thus be for a new title). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Even in that one article that had more than just the redirect itself -- an article which Victuallers created, but which Fram included in assuming bad faith that Victuallers was "misusing admin tools" to get the credit as page creator -- the only edits that weren't Victuallers did not contain anything copyrightable. Someone ran AWB; another person ran some other script which replaced the name of a template. There's nothing to attribute. I would be curious to hear why Victuallers deleted their own draft instead of just revising the old version, though, because it's odd not because it's insidious. it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion - It's not. Not even the creator is mandatory. Would be nice, but in practice it never happens beyond what's automated. When it does, it's just as likely as not to be labeled canvassing. I know, I know, but these are the times we live in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So deleting things that don't meet any of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria isn't a misuse of admin tools? Huh? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What was deleted without arguably meeting G6 or G7? —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I must be way out of step, then; I've always followed the instructions at AfD and informed all major contributors, and I was pretty horrified when an article of mine was speedy deleted on erroneous grounds (the nominator and the admin had only to look at my first edit summary) without any notification. No, it's not mandatory, but neither is more than minimal civility. It's seriously uncollaborative to ask for people's work to be deleted without the simple courtesy of letting them know (even creators of attack pages should get a templated notification), and automation is a poor excuse. Anyone who can't be bothered to even tell their colleagues that they have asked for their work to be deleted shouldn't be surprised if the level of acrimony and assumption of bad faith on the project continues to rise. (And, as I said, it's a slippery slope. What about the discussion that led to the redirect? What if a non-admin was examining one of those two people's gnoming patterns for some reason, including improving a tool?) It's also wasteful, but I know we aren't supposed to make any arguments based on server capacity. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment was intended to communicate that Fram's first post when he came here looking for help indicated that he believed there were grave issues that needed to be addressed.

>"perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient?" Fram requested help with coaching. What has he already communicated about that didn't get a response or a behavior change, and what would he like reinforced by other people? jengod (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see from your edit summary @Bishonen that you actually think I used AI

to write that comment? LOL and I strongly deny the accusation! The only time I've ever touched such a thing was at my kid's birthday party they coaxed me to give ChatGPT and I asked it to write a Wikipedia article on cienegas of California and it did a meh job. The kids told me I gave it too long a prompt tho. jengod (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What I would like is that other people take a look at their edits (e.g. by removing the autopatrolled right) so I no longer have to inform an admin about copyright violations, the need for attribution and how to do it, that machine translations shouldn't be trusted (or used), ... and that I no longer get the feeling that I'm the only one looking at their sometimes very poor creations (e.g. recently I tried to clean up one paragraph of one of their creations, here, correcting 5 factual errors and some other stuff. I see now that in doing this, I introduced one capitalization error though...). Fram (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram

• Oh my gosh I didn't even know we had a policy against machine translations. I have quoted from a Google Translate version in at least two articles bc I didn't know better! (noting inline that the quotes were machine-translated, of course). A nice polyglot came along and did a proper human translation in one case that made it to DYK, but for all I know my sentence from Swedish on my leopard-trainer article is completely goofily wrong. Do we have a translation helpdesk instead? Or what are we supposed to do if we're monolingual idiots (such as myself) but found a reference to a topic we're covering in a non-English source?
• "the need for attribution and how do to it" - in what way? Like I assume things in new articles created by Vic are referenced...but wonky somehow?
• Copyvios should just be deleted, right?
• Have you tried tagging inline and at the top as a form of editorial commentary? When someone puts a critical tag on an article I'm emotionally attached to I usually jump right on fixes if I see any hope of fixing the problem at my current level of expertise. Judicious editorial criticism is the most precious thing in the world to a writer. We can be trained, I swear!
• What about looping in WikiProject reviewers with project tagging? Or a note on talk page? I know that's slower than we'd all like but no one should be working on any part of Wiki in a vacuum, it's a team project, we all make each other better, etc etc.

jengod (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've actually done a few similar undeletions recently (not of Victuallers's work) and I don't really see it as a matter of copyright but of history that's potentially interesting and should stay accessible to non-admins where possible. I think it's interesting to note that Terri Libenson was a redirect for over fourteen years before becoming an article and ditto with Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol (for nearly nine years), and have undeleted them accordingly. I don't think it's quite a deal-breaker and if consensus is that these should be re-deleted I could live with that. An example of a redirect I recently undeleted in similar circumstances was Signe Byrge Sørensen; I found it while checking deleted contributions of Patrick, inspired by this RFC about removal of text about minor edits because the relevant text was added by Patrick way back in 2003. (I went to check his deleted edits from around that time in case I was missing something, and found this edit to "Dating" that I undeleted from around that time). I've found all sorts of things by checking his and my deleted edits, but most of these sorts of deletions seem accidental and almost all deletions I've reviewed by looking at deleted contributions were completely fine. Graham87 (talk) 07:45/08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also re Terri Libenson, I've just discovered that the talk page was created by a bot in 2014, so in that case I feel more strongly that the corresponding article history should be undeleted to show *why* the bot created the talk page way before the article existed. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that having history accessible to non-admins is a laudable goal, but for trivial bits like redirect creation, notifications going to the right person instead of a bot is an equally acceptable goal. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that as a problem with the tools though (albeit a corner case that's hard to fix). People should take responsibility for every edit they make, either with or without a semi-automated tool, and should check to see whether what the tool is doing makes sense. (Speaking as someone who does all deletion nominations, etc. manually). I've just encountered so many weird cases with so many pages (some random examples) that I barely trust any semi-automated tool here. Graham87 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that redirect creation is "trivial", choosing to redirect a page to another is an editorial decision with equal significance to choosing to create an article at that title. If bots are delivering notifications to the wrong person then that is a problem with the bot not a reason to speedy delete pages that don't meet the speedy deletion criterion and/or declare other editors' work "trivial". We should always fix the bot to work with the encyclopaedia rather than attempting to "fix" the encyclopaedia to work with an incorrectly coded bot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There's not just bot and Twinkle notifications that go to the page creator, but also Echo notifications for "someone has linked to your page" that go to the earliest editor in the page history. I don't think there is a good way to fix those in software. But it would perhaps be better for everyone if the creation credit for KAIA (group), a redirect that was turned into an article, would be given to the person who converted the redirect to an article, not to me who just happened to create the redirect while gnoming. (As an aside, creating articles about people who become important politicians is a good way to be informed about what they do; my most successful article creation is Ursula von der Leyen and she gets a lot of links). —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Echo notifications should also be fixed, for exactly the same reasons (phab:T66090 is relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Re the KAIA situation, I agree because you created the redirect before the girl group was even founded, so I moved the redirect edit back to KAIA where it was originally. I've made similar history switches before, such as at "Bardcore". Re echo notifications not going to the page creator: I've experienced it myself but it's a minor inconvenience; for example I think the redirect edit before my article creation in this diff at Kevin Cullen (doctor) is integral to its history. Graham87 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Strictly speaking, the history of KAIA now a bit of a lie, but it makes more sense than before :) I usually leave such situations alone unless there is a good reason to mess with the histories. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Vis à vis User:Justlettersandnumbers: Copyright issues; but alerting Victuallers is 'silly [and] nagging'. Also [1]. No brainer. Pull his autopatrolled right. A shame that an editor as supposedly experienced as him needs to be treated this way, but you see, he puts quantity ahead of quality. See UP. Their understanding of INVOLVED was also questioned some time ago. SN54129 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are being unfair here. Quality is so important that it should never be confused with quantity. Alerts to errors are important, as is fixing them, and they are responded to. I think you are drawing unfair conclusions. Victuallers (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't autopatroller bundled with admin rights? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I see that it's not, but that admins can grant the right to themselves without discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It used to be bundled, but was removed following an RfC in December 2021. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's preferable to occasionally delete redirects with little-to-no history when creating a new article. If it's of interest to nobody, then "move over redirect from draftspace" is okay. The more work done in draftspace, the more of a claim you have to be the "page creator". You deserve it. SWinxy (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Autopatrolled user right

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

---

There's been some suggestions above that Victaullers' Autopatrolled right be revoked or otherwise reviewed, so I am opening this sub-discussion. I have no strong feeling on the matter but it is reasonable to have a discussion-- I reviewed Victaullers' article creations over the summer as part of a CCI request Fram submitted. I was planning on declining the CCI as the violations were too small and sporadic to warrant a lengthy review for copyright issues. However, Fram raised issues regarding source-to-text integrity and factual errors that I thought might be appropriate for review at ANI. I got busy with other stuff before I could action this though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"planning on declining the CCI" ?? I'm confused. The CCI investigation was refused. Is there another? At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it. The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views. My quick request about "coaching" said "Coaching is a partnership between coach and client" - we shouldnt misuse the word here. I'm not sure that anyone has ever become a successful coach by insisting that they need to be involved. Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers Sorry, I left out the detail about the CCI already being declined. I was planning on declining it and then opening a discussion in a different venue, but I got busy with other stuff and it was declined by someone else before I could do this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to WP:AGF on Victuallers deleting redirects, but restoring a copyvio article without removing the infringing text is hard to do. I wasn't able find evidence of any further errors on Victuallers' part, but a thorough review may be needed. Until then, I am undecided on whether to revoke Autopatrolled status. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That was my mistake - I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the issues listed above, there are things like using unreliable sources (e.g. here), making basic factual errors (e.g. [2]), even reintroducing wrong WP:OR claims after they have been corrected ([3] and [4]). General cleanup is often necessary as well[5][6]. These are just some examples from the few articles I touched during NPP, I skipped a lot of them to avoid giving the impression of harassment. Fram (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Revoke Per above. There are too many issues, too frequently, with too much concern for quantity over quality; V. would probably find it, after all, easier to follow summary style and attribution if he wasn't currently trying to write an article about a woman every day again. He would also be able, after 16 years, to adhere to copyright policy, which would be nice. SN54129 13:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke I concur. There have been too many issues that would have been more quickly and easily corrected had V not granted themselves autopatrolled. Time to put the training wheels back on. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke but doesn't go far enough. Revoking autopatrol, with a statement in the close of this discussion that Victuallers should not re-grant it themself, will help with the issues Fram mentions in their post of 7:51 on 26 September, which makes a good case that Victuallers' articles need to be examined at NPP. But questions of admin conduct have been raised, and revoking autopatrolled has no bearing on that. There's disagreement here over the redirect deletions, but I believe it's important to maintain the policy of keeping speedy deletion for uncontroversial deletions. From the perspective of an admin, who automatically sees the deleted edits in a history, it may seem that deleting a redirect that was once an article with a short history is inconsequential, but it's not completely uncontroversial, as this discussion indicates. And a distinction should be made between deletion to make way for mainspacing of an article that's been through examination at AfC (by a separate editor who's been vetted for the filemover right; and often, perhaps usually, the redirect being deleted originally related to a previously deleted article, or a mainspace article that was draftified), and an administrator deleting a redirect to move their own new article over it. Why? That's not a housekeeping edit. Either expand the redirect to create the new article (which is what I would do) and watchlist it, or if the new article itself has a significant and overlapping history, do a history merge. @Victuallers: Can you please explain what you meant by At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it.? I don't see anyone here objecting to your creating new articles (and I personally don't care at all if you choose to do one a day, or believe that that precludes making them adequately referenced, accurate, copyvio-free, and otherwise ready for mainspace), and I don't see any criticism here leveled at anyone with whom you collaborate. Accordingly, when I first read it, that sentence read to me like a strange assumption of bad faith. And have I missed your responding to the issue of your deletions in order to replace existing redirects with your own articles? Under the principle of admin accountability, I was hoping that when you responded here, you would address that issue; and I don't see a remark insinuating that people's objection is to your creating articles as being a satisfactory response. What am I missing or misinterpreting? I do see you apologizing (in your response to Scorpions1325) for undeleting the copyvio, but again, what do you mean by I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously? Who deleted it is plainly visible in the log; if I remember correctly (it's been a long time since I had the admin goggles) you would have seen it as a line in the article history; and things are deleted by named admins, not by anons. If you meant "in response to tagging by a drive-by IP", it doesn't matter who tagged something for speedy deletion unless one wants to take it up with them, or even whether it was tagged first; the really important thing is the criterion/speedy deletion category, and the second most important which admin actioned it, in case there's a need to discuss whether the criterion was applicable. Again, could you please clarify how you missed that the text was deleted as copyvio? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• @Yngvadottir: In response to your first ping I meant "The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views." The contention is that the articles need to be patrolled... but they are. They may not be seen by patrollers but they are seen, read and improved by well respected editors whose names can be found in the edit histories of "the articles" (that it is suggested need to be auto-patrolled). When you said "in response to tagging by a drive-by IP" thats exactly what I meant. Your comments are helpful in outlining my mistake. Which is what I meant, when I said it was a mistake. Can I add that your presumption that I might change my own rights appears to me as bad faith. Victuallers (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke and no self-granting, given the issues raised above, this is essentially a warning to tighten up the quality of editing. starship.paint (RUN) 15:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke without comment on anything else. I'm not sure I agree with all of Grams diffs, but there is enough there and still there after given the section below for concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

These diffs above pleased to see we don't have quantity, but is each one of them evidence?

1. here "using unreliable sources" (really?) Katherine Davidson's gravestone "records that she was one of the first three deaconesses and her work with the guild and Scotland's fisher girls." I made reference to a photograph of the stone and made attribution as per cc licensing rules. "A photograph of a gravestone" is a useful reference. If the image had been freely licensed then it would have been in the article! The photo was in line with making a judgement about whether a source is good enough for the role it is being used for. We don't stop blogs being referenced on Wikipedia because we allow editors to make a judgement about whether they are reliable enough and add value. Fram deleted the adequate reference and the text that was referenced is now uncited. No edit war, but I don't believe this was an improvement and another editor might have left it as it was. Is this quoting unreliable sources, or is there some miscasting?
2. [7] Another edit debate was over whether Winifred Brown "was the first or the only woman to win the King's Cup air race (in 1930)". The text said she was first woman (in 1930) or "She was the only woman to win the King's Cup air race (in 1930)". There was no "original research". I have no knowledge or opinions about 1930 aviators and the suggestion that I might be floating original research is fanciful. Fram did correct the text with a ref. and that was a useful improvement. Characterising this as WP:OR is however hyperbole.
3. (see diff above) Esther_d'Hervart was publised and it wasn't a good article. It was a start. The article was improved by Fram from a start article ... to a start article. Well done. If he hadn't then I or someone else would have done so.. and we will, and do improve articles, see below. Encyclopedia Brittanica succeeded because it published near perfect articles. This is not how Wikipedia works.
4. Jane Baldwin (see diff above) was published at 12:19, 5 July 2023‎. 11 minutes later a date was corrected. Well done.
5. (see diff above) Winifred Brown was written on 17th July last year and as a new article it was added to the Women in Red editathon page where new articles are reviwed. After it was first published by myself it was editted by @Tagishsimon, FeanorStar7, Paradise Chronicle, PeterWD, Afernand74 and Fram: in the first week. It was reviewed by at least by Ipigott, Paradise Chronicle and RFD. The start article became a B and 12,000 people viewed it in the first year. One of the editors and reviewers decided to bring that article as an example of my editting to here. Do the others agree? If I am being accused of valuing quantity above quality then I think we need to look behind the quality of a diff's characterisation rather that the quantity of them. There are other examples including one where another editor had to repair the damage Victuallers (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Above and in your response to me, They may not be seen by patrollers but they are seen, read and improved by well respected editors whose names can be found in the edit histories of "the articles", you appear to be relying on fellow editors to clean up for you. The autopatrolled right is specifically for editors whose articles almost never require such clean-up. NPP isn't just for new editors or editors whose content has been problematic in the past; it's a general check. And of course it doesn't interfere with anyone else performing gnome fixes on your new articles, or otherwise improving them. Nor does it imply any negative assumptions about the notability of the topics, or you and editors you often collaborate with. It's the default initial check, no more no less. And while I'm here, I'll ask again more bluntly: why have you been deleting redirects when you create a new article, and do you intend to stop doing so, since there is not agreement here that such deletions are uncontroversial and/or desirable? There is an accountability issue here, and I'm personally more concerned with that than with the flaws in your articles, since those can be fixed by any editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Competence is required

Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [8]. I provided verification [9] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [10] [11] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [12]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [13] [14], 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 [15]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant "one more time", see context from previous comments. Vacosea (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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 [16]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually the warning [17] came after the talk section [18] [19]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175233034
  • From: In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home.
  • To: In early 2023, Lee reportedly moved out of her previous home.

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)

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)

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:

• https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/256329/Husband's-'affair'-triggered-Coco's-downward-spiral
  • “The couple started to live separately on October 15, 2022” - you said they had separated for 2 years?
  • “A month after Lee filed the divorce application Rockowitz issued a response through his lawyer admitting his affair in 2017, but not the continuation of the affair his wife mentioned.” - He only admitted having cheated on Lee once.”

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)

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:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1158777818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1165129803

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1176765896

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)

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [20], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [21][22], 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? [23] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [24] 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)

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)

@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)

"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)

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)

“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)

What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [25]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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″.
  • https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I can't read your mind from edit summaries only or a warning template [26] if you skip discussion on the talk page [27], even though you were active on Coco Lee and other articles and talk pages, including ones I was also editing [28]. 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 [29], was reverted [30], and your cite check template [31]. "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)

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)

I see some potential behavior issues that resemble forum shopping [32] (not because they posted there per se but their focus on linking to this ANI) and canvassing [33] (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 [34] [35]. Excessive text and highlighting [36][37] dance around the fact of their baseless personal attack [38] and what has been described as [39]. Vacosea (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [40] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [41]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [42]. 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)

This should be my first edit on August 23 [43]. The number of citations Dustfreeworld kept could make short sentences. Multiple empty section templates had been added since August 2 [44]. 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)

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)

Which one was false? Vacosea (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd just point out that the IP user went to the talk page as instructed and started a discussion. They posted on SCB's talk page ... and this was the reply they got (note the edit summary) [45]. Given that we're only a few weeks away from this, and SCB previously received two blocks in 2022 (for 1 and 2 weeks) for the same thing (indeed, the one week block was for personal attacks in edit-summaries), I wonder how long we're going to let this go for? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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

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

User:Bgsu98

Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [47]. User:Bgsu98 has been reported to this noticeboard on numerous occasions but nothing is ever done, no warnings are ever given. The way this account continues to get away with ransacking articles and edit summaries that border on harassment.2A00:23EE:19E0:8088:F103:6825:D453:5EC9 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• 1. Arbomhard is being rude and overbearing in asserting his own expert status on the subject of Nostratic languages against User:Warrenmck.
• 2. While Arbomhard is an expert on Nostratic languages, mainstream historical linguistics considers the Nostratic hypothesis to be a fringe theory that should be described in detail in Wikipedia as a fringe theory.
• 3. Arbomhard, like any active academic, has a conflict of interest in promoting his own scholarship and hypotheses.

For these reasons, User:Arbomhard should be formally cautioned.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Deb's Application of WP:A7 at Chuck Tollefson

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.

With lessons learned, etc., this matter seems to be resolved, with no further action needed. If I missed anything or if anyone otherwise disagrees, feel free to re-open. El_C 02:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Deb notified here

• Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chuck Tollefson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deb, one of our longest running editors and admins, recently unilaterally deleted an untagged Chuck Tollefson with the following justification: A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). This version was the one that was deleted. BeanieFan11 requested undeletion on Deb's talk page here, noting that the article made two credible claims of significant or importance: this person played in the NFL for three seasons and was part of an NFL Championship team. Deb responded by draftifying the article and responding to BeanieFan11 by saying Articles must explain what makes the person notable and this one didn't - no mention of championships or anything else. I've put it in draft for you to work on. (diff) I stumbled upon all of this from WP:PACKERS's assessment log. Noting that the article clearly didn't meet WP:A7, I moved the article back into the mainspace and added a source. Noting back to Deb's talk at User talk:Deb#Chuck Tollefson, I commented to Deb here and here that this was a bad A7 deletion. Deb's response was a bit shocking. She doubled down on the deletion, saying "No refs" was not the speedy deletion criterion, which was A7 - requiring a credible claim of importance. Without refs, it's not credible, and I've spent a long time looking for the notability criteria for American footballers - if you know of any, please let me know where they are. (diff) This obviously runs blatantly against what WP:A7 says, which is The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When I pointed this out to Deb, her response was evasive and avoided the point. I asked again and here just for acknowledgement that the deletion was not valid under A7 and Deb would not acquiesce.

Look, I have made bad deletions before. All admins have, and when we do we typically undelete and apologize. But honestly I am shocked by how bad Deb is interpreting WP:A7 and how much they are doubling down on that bad interpretation. I don't have time to dive into logs, but a quick glance of Deb's talk page shows a lot of deletion activity. I want to make sure that they are interpreting and applying our deletion policy appropriately, both to avoid harming the project but more importantly not biting new users. Deb encouraged me to bring this to a larger audience, and WP:AN/I seems like the most appropriate place. Would some uninvolved admins provide their input on this discussion? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I am a bit surprised that Gonzofan2007 hasn't mentioned that immediately after BeanieFan11 pointed out the problem to me, I realised I had been hasty in my response and I went to his talk page where I apologised and explained further. S/he seemed prepared to make improvements to the article, which by then I had already undeleted and put into draft. I recognised later that I should have put it somewhere else. Deb (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Deb, I honestly didn't know. I'm glad you did. But again, this is here because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:A7. Again, your comment on BeanieFan11's talk page reiterates this misunderstanding: When I checked, it did mention a championship, but without any references. It can be difficult for non-US contributors to understand the ins and outs of US sports, so his significance needs to be more clearly stated. Again, you are misinterpreting policy. It was a 15 year old article about a professional American football player who won a Championship. There was no way this was eligible for A7, even a cursory read of the article makes that easily known. Also, if you so clearly lack any understanding of American football, then you shouldn't be unilaterally deleting untagged articles in that area. I have zero understanding of cricket and what makes a cricketer notable. And thus, I have never deleted an article for A7 on a cricketer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • In the mean time, I have significantly expanded Chuck Tollefson. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I think "won a world championship" is a pretty easily understandable assertion of notability regardless of the sport. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd add that I thought moving to draft was only supposed to be done for new articles (<6 months)? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would agree that that's not a good use of A7, which is more for the types of articles like "Mark Johnson plays in his town's garage band" and that's all of the content. Or if it's gibberish or nonsense or something. Any actual indication of notability, sourced or not, disqualifies A7 from applying. Silverseren^C 00:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Pedantry. [G]ibberish or nonsense is G1, not A7. Folly Mox (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. In Deb's apology on BeanieFan11's talk page (diff linked above), Deb conceded that it was a wrong application of A7, and the explanation was that It can be difficult for non-US contributors to understand the ins and outs of US sports, so his significance needs to be more clearly stated. However, significance was in fact clearly stated. And I don't think that one needs to have an interest in American football (I don't) to notice that the text indicates significance (I would not think that it fails to make a claim of significance despite my lack of interest in American football). So this all comes down to testing one's initial impression that a claim of significance is missing a little bit harder, by doing a Google search or two, or something like that.—Alalch E. 11:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Is any action required here? If I'm reading it right, the article has been undeleted and expanded, Deb apologised before this thread was started, and everything is moving in he right direction. Are we good to close this? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with that. Thanks to the OP for raising this issue but there is nothing in here to disturb either admincond or adminacct. I particularly draw attention to the sentence from the first of those: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. As GirthSummit notes, this seems an incorrect use of A7 which was apologised for and rectified before this thread opened. Special thanks to Cullen328 for expanding the article, and lets move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

User:UA0Volodymyr

• UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 ([48]), falsely claiming that its previous removal was vandalism. I re-removed it, as did another editor ([49]), but the user keeps restoring it (latest revert earlier today [50]). Today they attempted to get the page protected, in a bad-faith attempt to prevent their harmful changes from being removed ([51]).

Additionally, they have now begun to stalk my other edits, undoing them indiscriminately. Today, they have gone on another revert-spree: [52], [53], [54].

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)

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)

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)

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)

'reducing Autism' as edit symmary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0

• 2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• She's So High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 has been changing Tal Bachman's identification on "She's So High" from a singer-songwriter to a "one-hit wonder". This term is not mentioned anywhere in "She's So High" nor on Bachman's bio page, and I have not seen another occurrence where an artist is described as a "one-hit wonder" in the opening sentence of an article. The user is reverting me, claiming I am introducing "original research". I believe mentioning a person's career path is a WP:SKYBLUE case unless the term is debatable or has challengeable connotations, such as "one-hit wonder", which, once again, is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong but "singer-songwriter" does sound BLUESKY, or if someone is challenging it then it shouldn't be hard to reference if true. The same of course applies to "one-hit wonder". Have you though of engaging the editor on the talk page? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

They haven't responded to any warnings I've given them, and it's not my burden to source someone else's claims. Even so, I don't understand how "one-hit wonder" can accurately describe a person. Some people don't know what a one-hit wonder is, but almost everyone knows what a singer is. I don't think we need to establish the fact Bachman is a one-hit wonder in the opening sentence, especially when we consider the fact that he isn't a one-hit wonder in Canada, where he had another top-40 hit (see number 31), at least not in my eyes. Where do we draw the line with what constitutes a one-hit wonder? Seems subjective to identify someone as that so early in the article. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

One-hit wonder is a widely-understood term, and, if it is poorly understood by the reader, there is an extremely helpful link to an article on the phenomenon on wikipedia. I can't imagine how it could be made more clear. Additionally, the idea that One-Hit Wonder can't accurately describe a person is frankly bizarre. If that person is a musician, and their musical act had one real hit, it applies to them. If it can't apply to a person, then it's a completely meaningless phrase.

A fairer argument is that he's not a one-hit wonder in Canada, but I'd say the colloquial meaning of the term still applies. Arguing that no, he also had modest success with a single other song which received essentially zero international attention is I think hairsplitting.

I think that I responded quite nicely to your 'warnings' by explaining my thinking in reverting your bizarre edits. 2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that describes him as a one-hit wonder? NebY (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

These are all great questions for the talk page, which hasn't been editted since May 2020. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RobertsullivanIII

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

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

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

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

User:Meters repeatedly harassing with baseless WP:PA allegations, refuses to explain

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2&oldid=1178012449

This user is continuing to harass me on my talk page, despite being unable to explain which comment violated WP:PA last time he posted on my page (the section immediately preceding). Meters has engaged in a campaign of ad hominem and harassment against me, seemingly in response to my issues with an obscure article about unmarked graves at Canadian residential schools. I need administrative assistance as I do not know the best way to handle abusive editors. Can I block these people from interacting with me somehow? 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I don't have control over the IP of my mobile device (and don't have a Wi-Fi connection at home), but I am the same user listed at the IPV6 above terminating in E8E2. 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe Meters is possibly mistaking the abusive posts by @Pbritti as my own? And I think maybe the conduct in this talk page section might need a look too... It seems there is a concerted effort to flame bait here or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#Why_are_Church_Arsons_listed_under_%22Reactions%22?

Regards 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Last thing, per Meters' comments on my talk page, I will not leave a notice or ping them here. I am unable to do so, they've locked their talk page and expressly asked me not to contact them again (despite continuing to place baseless WP:PA warnings on my talk page). 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is 206.45.2.52 block-evading and trolling. Also, they failed to notify Meters of the discussion. I'll do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked 6 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Prepared a long response, but range block seems to have eliminated the need. Meters (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll hang on to a copy of my ec for awhile in case anyone has any questions. Most of the edit history does not show up on the range-blocked OP's 2605:b100:111d:e1d3::/64 The editor was originally on a different range at 2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but specifies above that they are the same user. Meters (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This block range doesn't affect the OP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like it does - it will affect all IP addresses starting with 2605:b100:111d:e1d3. Am I missing something? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not sure whether it will be effective, assuming they're the same person on 2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2. The block would need to cover at least the /44 range to catch both of those addresses. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating an SPI to document this case, making it easier to deal with further socks and reduce the time suckage. One of the earlier IPs was clear about returning with socks [55] [56] [57] and it seems as if they meant it. Meters (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

DrHunsuayHuaken

As described under #Cambodia–Thailand culture war above, DrHunsuayHuaken (talk · contribs) (and 2001:44C8:42B9:4E4E:6D92:C4D:9A00:BCAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is one such bad-faith editor persistently disruptively editing to push a WP:FRINGE POV based on the denialism of the existence of the Khmer Empire, which is unaccepted by reliable sources. Reported to AIV but declined by User:HJ Mitchell, who suggested raising the issue here instead.

Their username is also a violation of policy on profanities in usernames, as it's Thai wordplay translating approximately to "c*ckwad Hun Sen". --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account for a week, and the /64 IP range for a month. Any possibility of assuming good faith evaporated whwn I found that the editor had repeatedly changed the title of a cited source to give the impression that the source supported their version, whereas in fact it supports the version they were edit-warring to remove. If the problem resumes I will be willing to consider the possibility of1 an indefinite block. I have not been able to confirm what you have said about the username, Paul_012, but if that is true it would be further reason to incline towards an indefinite block. JBW (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Regarding the name, it's indirect and so rather hard to conclusively demonstrate to those unfamiliar with the language. Boing! said Zebedee is the only (former) admin I know who's familiar with Thailand and currently somewhat active, but I'm not sure if they're fluent enough with the language to help. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Afraid not, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

User:GeekWriter

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

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

Having failed to remove sourced content from the Sons of Confederate Veterans article, or to discuss the disputed content, User:GeekWriter has blanked the entire thing as 'propaganda'. [58] WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The content you removed [59] all looks to be properly sourced, and you replaced secondary sources with primary ones. In general Wikipedia is more interested in what secondary sources say about a subject, than what a subject says about themselves. Either way discussing the matter on the articles talk page is more appropriate than blanking the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

"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) 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) This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT (which would help explain its uselessness). --JBL (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) This, too. Not encouraging. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) 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) 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)

Nichole Ouellette accusing me of vandalism at Talk:Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade

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

This editor has done multiple edits that break multiple [[MOS:|MOS]] guidelines (such as on this page, this one, this one, this one), and when I reverted one of them, they started crying vandalism. I sent them a message, but I feel like them crying vandalism (and there's also copyright issues, so it's not just that) is egregious enough that it warrants the drama boards. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nichole, there has been no vandalism here, but a disagreement about the content of the article. Please discuss it at Talk:Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade without any accusations against anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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).

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)

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 [60]). 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)

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)

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)

Confirmed, @SparklyNights is right in that I am not this person. Thank you! 138.51.42.131 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Basher Six

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATMN was stirred up again by this profile in the Observer [61] Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Brandmeister

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

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

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

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

My initial thought was for a final warning, however they have already received topic bans twice in the past ([62] and [63]). Because of this, I am in favour of a TBAN for Brandmeister on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, broadly construed. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I am concerned about Brandmeister's participation in this topic. Brandmeister had previously mis-attributed the words of a UNHCR source that stated it "could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing" to make it appear UNHCR did not consider the flight to be ethnic cleansing.[64] 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.[65] 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.[66] 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,[67] to attack Ocampo's views.[68] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

This user also attacked my talk page. User is Special:Contribs/176.103.89.45. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please help get rid of it from my talk page history? It's obscene. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it from public view. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I went ahead and revdel'd the lot of them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Camal2015

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 [69] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Əhməd Qurbanov and User:EloquentEditor

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 [70] [71] despite me letting them know of WP:GS/AA and its restrictions twice. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justinw303 - disruptive editing and egregious personal attacks

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)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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

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"), [72] User has blocks on certain pages for similar disruption, [73] this as well. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ping @Ohnoitsjamie: who had already p-blocked that range. El_C 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Talk:Yaroslav Hunka

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

User:TheFriendlyFas2

@TheFriendlyFas2

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

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

Relevant examples:

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

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

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

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

It looks like there are similar edits done more recently; specifically [74][75][76][77]. While they are from five months ago, when combined with the diffs provided by OP they do make it seem like there's a long-term POV-pushing issue here. Hatman31 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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". 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)

YaleianKing

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 [78]

Khalaj people: Removed sourced information and added unsourced info multiple times, starting from August 2022 till now [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]

SUMKA: Altered sourced info [88] [89] [90] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removal of RS at Mosin–Nagant

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. Tessaract2^Hi! 01:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

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