Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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