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. 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

Carleboo editing only in user space

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

---

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

Since 11/30/17 and 9/11/20, Carleboo was not being here to contribute and build the encyclopedia because I noticed that this user edits only in its own userpage. Carleboo's userpage turns out to be looking like a fake article because it talks about "Simpkins". And Simpkins is not actually a real band. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The page has been deleted under U5. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, but I reported this user before its user page was deleted. Also, Carleboo did not contribute to any other Wikipedia pages but its own user page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Carleboo has been registered since 2017 and has made zero contributions, instead, the user has used their own user page as a webhost. I strongly believe an indef block should be implemented seeing that there is no benefit in keeping the user around. Jerm (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The contributions were removed after this user's page was deleted because its page looked like a fake article. Also, if the page you have edited is deleted, the contributions get removed from the deleted page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I already know that. Carleboo made no contributions outside of their user page. I was just making a suggestion rather than a proposal to have the user blocked, but now I'm realizing Carleboo won't cause any trouble seeing how there's no editing from the user. I see no more issues concerning Carleboo. Can someone go ahead and close this as resolved? Jerm (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The userpage was a translation of the article sv:Simpkins on Swedish Wikipedia, which Carleboo has edited extensively. Carleboo is an SPA on sv wiki, editing only the Simpkins article. Presumably the translation on their English userpage, though misplaced, was meant as a first step in publishing the article on en.wiki. This might could be a poor idea, as even the Swedish version is completely unreferenced. But the Swedish version is not our problem, and I agree with Jerm that there's not much reason to block. Please close. Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

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

Infringement of caution against attacks and of topic-ban by XIIIfromTokyo

Reports and answers

Accusation of "xenophobic behaviour"

If understand well the story, XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing another user of anti-Semitism and homophobia and made legal threat against him and, as a consequence, has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants" by Wikipedia English administrators. He had only one edit in 2020 on Wikipedia English but is now telling me "happy ?", that I "try to start a discussion" that it is not "very mature" and that administrators on Wikipedia English have a "xenophobic behaviour" because he received remarks from them about his level of English (but he wrote in the same edit "I openned").

Context: there is a Sockpuppet investigation created by a one-purpose account on me (because I did not remove sources in an article, I would be the same user that put these relevant sources and that has been banned for sockpuppets use). I am not sure why, but XIIIfromTOKYO is using the comment section to give me links about a user on Wikipedia French with whom he had a content dispute and talking about his thousands of edits on Wikipedia French.

--Delfield (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI the whole message is here. Feel free to read it first, and to see if Delfield's presentation is honest or not.

WP:NPA is clear about that : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex (...) ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor [are never acceptable]". Targeting a non-native speaker on his few grammatical errors in order to avoid talking about the main topic, and/or in order to exclude him from the discussions is xenophobic. Period. I didn't claim "that administrators on Wikipedia English have a "xenophobic behaviour"", but, form my experience, some of them clearly need to be educated on that issue. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

Back in 2015 FR.Wiki had to face Droas82, an SPA targeting two rivals colleges in France : Sciences Po, and University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas. The first one was always belittled, and the second one always praised. I noticed the the same person, using a different account, Launebee was now targeting EN.Wiki in the very same way. It was very easy to see that it was the same person : same targets, same way to cherrypick, use unreliable sources and/or misuse sources. On top of that, Droas82 was created at 14:29, 1 December 2015, and Launebee was created at 15:16, 1 December 2015. From the start, that person intended to target both FR.Wiki and EN.Wiki, and to avoid being easily tracked. It shows that this person has a very good knowledge about how wiki works, and how to work around its weaknesses.

So, for 6 months I tried to warn EN.Wiki about these sockpuppets. I was topic baned because of that. In 2018 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee finaly came to the conclusion that, indeed, there was a large mise-use of suckpuppet by Launebee. This user didn't stop after being caught, and these days sockpuppet investigation has been initiated against Delfield. This request at AN is just a counterfire to avoid answering at the sockpuppet investigation.

Feel free to have a deeper look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee and the connected articles : Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas...

I have been an active user for more than 10 years, and as of today have more than 110'000 edits. You have a crosswiki povpushing/sockpuppet issue. The person behind it knows Wiki weaknesses, and how to exploit them. This problem won't go away if you don't look at it. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This answered question is perhaps useful to the discussion on whether Wikipedia administrators have a xenophobic behavior problem when they say XIIIfromTokyo have a language problem. --Delfield (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Aggressivity

XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him".

I opened a Suckpuppets investigation request too.

--Delfield (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: As the quote was mine, I have edited Delfield's previous message and provided the full version of my quote. Delfield cut it in a misleading way, and was originally only "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him".

Delfield attacked me on my editcount, and them on a grammatical mistake. I have remained factual.

Delfield, you are not allowed to change my messages, or to cut them in a way that could alter their meanings. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

XIIIfromTokyo is now, in the same edit, changing the text I wrote and signed and telling me that I should not do this exact thing he just did ("change his messages"). I put my original text back. The edit summary is quite aggressive too in my opinion. --Delfield (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic-ban infringement

XIIIfromTokyo edited an article on a French agency rating French academic institutions. It was part of his feud with the other user he was topic-banned with (we see that in the talk page). --Delfield (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize, the links the administrators would want to look at: [1][[2][[3][[4][[5][6]. --Delfield (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Renatoaferreira21

User's sole activity is creating articles bordering on G1, see Siren Ambulance Japan and Police Siren Japan. I request an admin evaluate WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. Not quite a vandalism-only account, but getting close. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from the AfD. I wanted to look into the subject matter but the article was G1. Regarding this ANI I can only see one article created by the editor. Also WP:DONTBITE the account is new - and the editor likely needs guidance. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: if you believe you can solve this with guidance, I suggest you proceed swiftly. Since this ANI started Renatoaferreira21 created three similar articles (Paldey, Machine Noise, Loud Noise3 Loop.ogg) with similar content that was speedy deleted for similar reasons. Renatoaferreira21 did not respond here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing from IP range

Following on from this discussion a week or so ago, the disruptive editor has returned yet again using multiple IPs in the 2606:A000:4508:A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the range. As has been the case for roughly two months now, this user continues to engage in two types of disruptive editing...adding spurious sister city pairings to various city pages and incorrectly adding or removing listings of networks for various kids shows. The IP range is already blocked from editing Raleigh, North Carolina where some of the disruptive editing occurred, but given that the behavior has encompassed quite a few pages, I'd like to request a broader block. The user has also used 98.122.148.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to make similar edits, although the last such edit was 10 days ago. --WildCowboy (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. The 98.122 IP hasn't edit recently. If it does, I can block it for evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --WildCowboy (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: or any other admin: The 98.122.148.179 IP has been used again to engage in the same disruptive editing on New Bern, North Carolina and Verona. Can we get a block on that one too? Thanks. --WildCowboy (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated! --WildCowboy (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editior

So this user name 76.66.141.232 has putting up random things for no reason such as random people on a movie page and putting up a random movie he or she didn't appear in. He's been doing for it non-stop. He's on Level 3 right now. So please I need you to block user 76.66.141.232 or else he or she might do it again. And also I don't even know how to block people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.31.94 (talk) 02:11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! A couple of things: First of all, don't worry that you don't know how to block other users. This is a function that only administrators can perform. :-) Second, I note that this user has only been warned twice for their edits. This doesn't amount to me as sufficient in most cases where applying a block is justified. Third, I spot-checked their latest contributions, and while the edits are unreferenced, I don't see any obvious red flags. What "random things" are you referring to exactly? Can you provide any diff links with explanations so that we know what you're referring to specifically? On top of this, the IP user hasn't edited in about 24 hours. Blocking the user would be inappropriate in this case and as of the time of this writing, unless a pattern of high amounts of vandalism or abuse, or that are highly severe can be pointed out. If you could provide some additional information, it would be helpful. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I checked the last few edits that user made and it's true, that user made at least two edits that make no sense. I checked IMDB as well (full cast & crew) and saw no mention of these names that were inserted in the articles. [7] [8] Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op - Ah, then we need to revert those edits and warn the user. If they're adding illegitimate content, then I agree that this is a problem. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I just made a small excursion to the thread above the one I posted; thought I'd help out. But I have other to-do lists to take care of. I have no time to check every single edit the user did. And if the user is disruptive, there may be no point in reverting all their edits until they're blocked. Then you have a finite list to "fix", rather than chasing a forever lengthening list. Normal Op (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I just went through all the contributions, since 27 August (They were barely even trying with "Dark Night"[9]-just using the same names) every single one is pretty blatantly improbable even before comparing them with IMDB,...random "MIT students" in an apparently imaginary castlist for a fantasy series [10]; again, same actors, using variations on their real life names. Trent Reznor composes for a medical documentary,[11] and again, some of those same actors appear as "presenters". They have all been reverted, but it does seem a big waste of time for everyone. Curdle (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just a point to ponder for the OP. You reported "unsourced vandalism". How does one go about sourcing vandalism? Just curious. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So User 76.66.141.232 is still putting up random people thats makes no sense again. He still hasn't stopped it yet. Please block him or else he will keep doing it. Here's a list of it that he vandalized. [12]

IP adding unsourced additions to NFL articles

IP User talk:2600:1700:7714:2200:515E:68C4:DBB4:6113 has only made large, unsourced additions to NFL player articles while also not adhering to basic formatting. The IP has completely ignored all four warnings as well as an additional message. Recommending a short block so the IP acknowledges warnings about unsourced additions to BLPs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Please could someone take a look at Gadelhak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohamed Gad-el-Hak. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia and only here to promote themselves. Their resume references the Wikipedia article. I couldn't do a copyvio check on it for some reason, but glancing at it some sections look similar. No attempt made to declare a COI, and seems to have ignored notices on their talk page over several years. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here, just wanted to point out that Kmmossi (talk · contribs) may be a sock of Gadelhak (talk · contribs). Also, a cursory look at the contributions and talk page for this user shows a pretty blatant COI and self-promotion issue. Topic ban, perhaps? MrAureliusR_Talk! 20:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Very obvious case. I have blocked Gadelhak indefinitely from editing the page Mohamed Gad-el-Hak. I'll take a look at the potential sock. Bishonen | tålk 17:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

So I've looked... Kmmossi does look a lot like a sock- or meatpuppet. But they've only made one edit, and been warned for it, so we might as well let them marinate a little further, now that Gadelhak is blocked. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

Disruptive editor, who's wiping pages and doing undiscussed page moves

Over the past few months, user ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs) has single-handedly wiped music genres articles and replaced them with redirects without any discussions. He's incorrectly calling fine sources an unreliable (including some printed books, see #9), while often not offering sources for his edits, and not providing any significant reasons for such movings and merges as well.

Deleted articles with fine sources:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_beat&type=revision&diff=971611716&oldid=971573515&diffmode=source

1+) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_beat&type=revision&diff=973084994&oldid=971659757&diffmode=source

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Livetronica&type=revision&diff=971616063&oldid=926011657&diffmode=source

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_electronica&type=revision&diff=971616651&oldid=916011526&diffmode=source

3+) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_electronica&type=revision&diff=976626063&oldid=971656955&diffmode=source

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Jersey_house&type=revision&diff=973091287&oldid=970747861&diffmode=source

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown-eyed_soul&type=revision&diff=978647124&oldid=978635585&diffmode=source

6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue-eyed_soul&type=revision&diff=978646834&oldid=978638738&diffmode=source

7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychedelic_funk&type=revision&diff=978663058&oldid=965988184&diffmode=source

Articles with poor sources:

8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italo_dance&type=revision&diff=973113123&oldid=961819495&diffmode=source

9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dubtronica&type=revision&diff=971615554&oldid=862197374&diffmode=source

Broke page history, while trying to move it: 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folktronica&type=revision&diff=976626086&oldid=976150903&diffmode=source

Copied huge parts from existing article into the other article: 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronica&type=revision&diff=971630048&oldid=970506142&diffmode=source

Most of such pages were repeatedly restored both by me and by other users. He ignores requests for making discussion for such moves\merges, both in the comments on the reverts and asks on his personal Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidest (talk • contribs)

It doesn't look like you've tried giving him feedback on his talk page. It's good to try that before seeking admin intervention. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to talk with him via revert comments (August 15 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_beat&action=history), but just faced threats of being reported. While other users left messages regarding "cut-and-paste moves" on his talk page. The one from September 4 he seems to have ignored, because he was doing the same after week after and got the same message on September 16. Therefore, as I understand it, he doesn't seem to be friendly enough to perceive and react to feedback. Solidest (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Still, you need to try, before expecting admin intervention. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote to him today listing all the things. Solidest (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Shannon Faulkner

Please rev/delete the defamatory edits, and block the IP from Citadel. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Umm..help?

Several users have been attempting to whitewash Paul Rico, and I just got an email from one of them labelled "CONFIDENTIAL" and threatening "action through appropriate channels". Pretty sure that means they want to sue me, like there's any grounds to. Little help here? I'm afraid to even notify them about this discussion, as, groundless or not, I can't afford rent, let alone a lawyer. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sumanuil, legal threats are grounds for blocking until the threat is retracted (per WP:LEGAL) although it's a little unclear from your description what the nature of the threat is. Regardless, intimidating you over email is not ok. If you don't feel comfortable listing additional details here you can follow up in an email, although I personally will be calling it a night soon and may not be able to follow up in a timely fashion, so if another admin can chime in here they may be a better person to follow up with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

By "follow up in an email", do you mean legal@wikimedia.org? - Sumanuil (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sumanuil, my first thought was for you to email an admin, but contacting legal@wikimedia.org is a good idea if the threats are not clearly attached to specific editors or if you're genuinely worried for your safety. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worried about my physical safety. A frivolous lawsuit is more of a psychological worry. I'll email legal if I have to, but if an admin could contact me in private to discuss this, I would appreciate it. - Sumanuil (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess you know to never reply to an email like that. The internet is littered with trolls and POV-pushers and it is very unlikely that the email you describe will result in anything. I wouldn't bother emailing legal (not until someone sends a plausible legal letter signed with the name and address of a lawyer findable in Google). Again, do not reply because any reply gives the troll your email address and allows them to harass you forever. You can forward a harassing email to an admin or the Arbitration Committee (see User:Arbitration Committee). Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Sumanuil:, just checking that you've followed this up, either by emailing an admin or Arbcom (the two more logical routes, as I don't think WMF legal is the right choice here). If you wish, please feel free to email me, as I should have a fairly quick response time for some time. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Sumanuil: Seconding my help as well if you need it still. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:: Should I just forward it to you or @RickinBaltimore:, then? - Sumanuil (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: yep, that's the best way to go Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: please do, we can both look at it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz continually harassing on my talk page

This began with an edit I made at Canada women's national soccer team to correct the name of a transgender athlete in the Current Roster section who wished to be known by the name Quinn rather than by their WP:DEADNAME. I was then reverted. I provided multiple sources as well as the WP:DEADNAME policy to support the change to their correct name rather than the athlete's former name. I was reverted again until the 3 revert rule and we stopped. Prior to this I posted on the user's talk page to not add incorrect information (the former name that the player no longer goes by). The user responded by posting an accusation of vandalism for posting on their talk page and threatening me with a block despite not being an admin. I will admit my initial edit summaries were a bit aggressive, but I recognized this and stopped and began to respond more calmly. The user also requested me to not post on his talk page and removed my comment from their page. I respected this and did not post on their talk page again. However, when I made the same request for them not to post on my talk page either and to drop the subject since we were not going to agree and having already hit the 3 revert rule, the user continued to post on my page at least another 6-8 times. They can remove me from their talk page, but me apparently removing their post from mine constituted vandalism. Furthermore, they basically acknowledged that my initial edit was correct by saying they supported naming the athlete by their new preferred name. However, the user still continued to harass me on my talk page saying I was harming wikipedia by changing the athlete's name to their preferred name rather than using their deadname. Trying to quell the discussion, I added a source from the official Canadian Soccer Association website where they show the player by the monosyllabic name next to the edit on the team page. The user then responded on my talk page (again after I had requested multiple times for them to drop the issue with me and not post on my page a couple times) that I was making a "mockery of wikipedia" for adding this source for the name while they also searched up my IP to find out where I live and mentioned this information on my talk page, which is a clear example of Stalking and an invasion of privacy. While I admit I am not fully innocent due to my initial aggressive comments, their refusal to accept my request to drop the situation and not post on my talk page (when I accepted their request to not do the same) and especially the stalking and invasion of privacy of my location to me seems to be a major concern. I tried to quell the situation by engaging in some discussion on my talk page, despite my multiple requests to end the situation, but it did not work. While I can handle disagreements, the looking up of my location to me is an extreme departure from a normal disagreement. Then I made one final request to stop posting on my page and yet again they posted. To argue that their view is correct they are citing a now deleted webpage from 6 months ago that uses the incorrect name is more correct than a current webpage from the same website that lists the correct name. The user has now made 16 total edits on my talk page in a matter of hours, including 10 posts after I first asked them to stop, not even really arguing the original edit anymore. 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussing is not harassing. I am trying to explain that while the subject now has a dead name, that is not reflected in the source on the article. The archive is not deleted. There's a difference between the subject's current preferred name and the subject's name at the time of the event. I was planning to add a note tomorrow that the subject's preferred name has changed since the event and leaving the recognized name and reference in-place, but I don't want to continue to change the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Please stop vandalizing my page when it is clearly your own vendetta is what the editor thinks constitutes a talk page ban. There was no vandalism on the talk page, and I really and trying to get anon to discuss the issue. Any help would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, could we please close the discussion and move the article at Talk:Rebecca Quinn (soccer)#Requested move 12 September 2020? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say 10 posts on my talk page after I asked you to stop is harassment not discussion. Discussion would have been going to the Canadian women's talk page and pinging me there. Instead, you continually posted on my page when you were asked not to. Comments like "you're making a mockery of wikipedia", I can write on your talk page but you can't write on mine, "you won't be welcome here [wikipedia]", and looking up where I live are not "Discussion" to me. You also said for me to take it here if I had an issue, I eventually had an issue 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that I could have continued the conversation there, as you could have done.

In context, it was your insistence on loose references for the subject's name that I interpret as unwelcome and yes, you're making a mockery of Wikipedia as it's WP:PILLAR is verifiability, and by changing the name just slightly could cause confusion with an editor who wants to find the name, albeit minor confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Loose references? The Canadian Soccer Association official page for the player which lists all of their matches for the team or the other reference that showed her personal Instagram? The wikilink went directly to the player's wiki page. I fail to see how a deleted webpage is more verifiable than any of those, especially when the link was broken until you updated it to add the archive copy. It's not like I was updating a roster from 5 years ago. I was updating the Current roster. The current roster should use the current name. 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The heading on that section does state that it is the current roster, but the copy reads, "The following 22 players were named to the roster for the 2020 Tournoi de France" and there is a reference to the archived version of the roster (which I updated when I saw it was dead). Since the person who was named to the roster in February no longer has the same name today, there are ways to address this, and this is what I was trying to tell you. We could leave it as sourced (which is my preference). We could add a note (which I was planning to do over the next few days). We encounter this frequently: situations where a subject's name changes after an event, and it's quite unusual to change the name, even when the subject prefers it. I have seen that to be the case with album recordings, actors in film and TV shows, and other more rare instances. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There's some problematic behavior here. (1) 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF, a content dispute over a person's name is not vandalism; see WP:VANDNOT. (2) Walter Görlitz, the talk page message at (1), while misguided, was not vandalism (see WP:VANDNOT), and certainly did not warrant a level 4im warning (see Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Multi-level templates for vandalism. (3) Both of you, carrying on a discussion through edit summaries while undoing the other user's talk page message is usually unproductive.[13][14] (4) 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF, giving a warning about edit warring is not vandalism. (5) Walter Görlitz, giving a user a second welcome message, especially when you are involved in a dispute with that user, is usually going to be considered unwelcome. And lastly, there is absolutely no discussion at Talk:Canada women's national soccer team, and I think if the conversation had taken place there, instead of in edit summaries and on your user talk pages, this might have been more productive. Any reflections on any of this? --Bsherr (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As I admitted earlier, I recognize that I am partially to blame as well. The reason I decided to bring this here was when Walter looked up my IP to find where I was posting from. That was where I felt a line had been crossed and went beyond what a normal disagreement would be. 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The lookup is normal when working with anons. When you edit without an account, there's an edit notice that states that your IP address will be publicly visible if you make edits. I was not trying to out you but simply mix-up from calling you "anon". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous#IP editing. Editing while unregistered is less anonymous than editing from a registered account. Looking up your IP, while not very friendly and not very helpful in resolving a dispute, is not prohibited. --Bsherr (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The second welcome message was not intentional. I was not aware that it was an editor who 1) I had already welcomed and 2) had blanked their own talk page. In retrospect, after the first blanking of the discussion on their talk page, I should have continued on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope. The conversation on the article talk page should have been started after this edit, by either of you, per WP:BRD, and fifteen minutes before any of this back and forth on your user talk pages ever got started. --Bsherr (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been my experience with anons, that article talk page discussions are not sufficiently visible. Had this been a registered editor, I would have done so, especially since there seemed to be support for the preferred name at the subject's article. You'll notice neither anon has engaged in the move discussion on the subject's talk page. With that in mind, once I saw that I was dealing with an engaged editor, I should have moved there, definitely after the blanking because I felt that the editor was here only to be an advocate for the subject, which is laudable, and not here to follow policy or guidelines. Again, any chance we can close the move discussion on the subject's talk page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You might try {{Please see}} in the future. Regarding the move discussion, I see some disagreement over the target, and see the seven-day period has not elapsed, so I don't think a close would be appropriate just yet. --Bsherr (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen {{ping}} but not Please see. I have noted that and will use it going forward. As you can see from the edit summary on my talk page, my preference is to discuss things on article talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My two cents, from this interaction and this interaction WG is pretty agressive on minor points, refuses to yield and drives low grade edit wars. --evrik ^(talk) 03:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please cross-check visibility of WP:DRN

Hello admins,

I am not sure if this is the right place, if not shift to right place.

I doubt Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page is in some technical problem. Probably except for one all other ongoing list is being shown as closed or they are really closed? Bookku (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh... what? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

:: WP:DRN looks okay to me...? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There definitely was an issue as far as I could see, now fixed. there was a missing {{DRN archive bottom}} on the top entry in this revision which, at least for me, was collapsing the entirety of the page, not just that discussion. It surprises me that it apparently was displaying okay for others! ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignore my comment, I must have been looking at a cached version! -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mazca, to me it looks okay now. Bookku (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Difficult edits at Democratic Union Party (Syria)

At Democratic Union Party (Syria) there are two editors who defend the inclusion of several sources that are not on topic and also try to conceal the source Harun Yahya (pen name of Adnan Oktar) as a source for the page, who is a well known Turkish conspiracy theorist. They claim that I remove the PKK PYD relation by my edit, which I don't.

The involved editors in question are

1: Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم

2: Thepharoah17

3: Paradise Chronicle

The only admin mentioned in the dispute.

El C

They claim an Admin was involved in the wording of the relation between the PKK and the PYD and therefore they revert me. I split the phrase in two, as the PKK-KCK-PYD relation is mainly important to Turkey. The rest of the globe puts more emphasis on the fact that on the achievements of the PYD after the defeat of ISIL. I don't remove the PKK-KCK-PYD relation, I just move the parts to the relevant places and update and clarify the sources.

Most of the 9 sources don't even mention the KCK, so they force their inclusion by edit war and are claiming Admin support. They say I remove the relation between the PYD and the PKK, which I actually don't. I just spilt and move the phrase according to their relevance and the relevance of the sources. According to the talk page Ibn Amr also agrees on the KCK part, but only on the talk page, his edits are an edit war. It is hard for me to believe that an Admin agreed to the use and concealment of Harun Yahya as a source (I am pretty sure they didn't, they weren't involved anymore, as I pointed out who Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is) and the use of other sources that don't even mention the KCK for a phrase that focuses on the KCK. This is a minor dispute within a larger dispute in which an Admin (El C) has encouraged us to come to the ANI. I try to make the Admin work less. So here I am with a minor one, the other larger one is prepared at the sand box, but I give it an other try.

Here is my first improvement of the page from the 1 September 2020 (onwards I only mention the month, the edits are all in 2020)

diff In which I removed some of the sources which didn't mention the KCK and split and moved the phrase in two. I also clarified the sources like adding the author/publisher of an article to the source. The edit was reverted on the 1 September by Ibn Amr with the edit summary "he sentence you removed is very well sourced (10 or more) and took us (...) weeks to reach consensus on it. See Talk page, use it and seek consensus BEFORE removing this sentence"

diff

I then used the Talk page repeatedly on the 2 and 3 September,

diff

diff

diff

but there where no answers about Harun Yahya by anyone. ThePharoah17 and today also Ibn Amr re-included Harun Yahya and the sources not mentioning the KCK after having claimed Admin support for the current version. The Harun Yahya source is difficult to find as at first sight, he appears as Bill Rehkopf. In my opinion Harun Yahya is not a good source for a controversial phrase which I also stated at the talk page. Also sources that do not mention the KCK should be used to source a phrase about the KCK. El C also mentioned multiple high quality sources should be used. Here the diff

Both, the KCK part of the phrase as well as the PYD-PKK connection would still be sourced with 3 sources. But as there is no founder of the PYD mentioned by name in any source but it is claimed that it was the PKK who founded it, as to me it is better to move this to the history part instead of the lead. For the KCK part I had the permission by Ibn Amr, they just don't live up to it in their edits. And a source with no name of a founder is no high quality source. (Turkish sources would very probably deliver the names of the PKK-members amongst the PYD founders, but they don't and it would also not be a quality source) Nor is Harun Yahya. And after my edit I did on the 16 September

here the diff,

the sources would have been clarified and not just a link as it is currently sometimes the case. The others prefer the current version with the unrelated sources.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You're in the wrong forum - this a content issue. See WP:DR, and if it's a RS issue, see WP:RSN ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave

All Burma Shave notices should be signed. We will need to properly credit them in the upcoming, best-seller compilation, "A Close Shave: BS on WP". :-) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Think of it as anonymous graffiti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Burma Boys (talk • contribs)

Florida5656 Is SPA for Soumita Saha

All of the actions taken by

• Florida5656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been to promote

• Soumita Saha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was deleted after discussion by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumita Saha. These actions included re-creating the article in article space, where it has been deleted by User:Deb as G4 and salted, and re-creating the article in draft space as Draft:Soumita Saha, where it either has been deleted or is waiting for deletion. The actions also included inserting a Keep in the closed AFD. That was probably a good-faith error, maybe the only good-faith thing done by the account. A block or partial block is in order. If the title has not yet been salted in draft space, that is also in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What do we think about User:Acrobat34, which appears to be another SPA for the same article? Deb (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. When I first made this report, I didn't check Acrobat34's history and so didn't know whether they were an innocent good-faith editor or a meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Only a CU can tell whether they are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, but it doesn't really matter, since they both seem to be not here constructively either way. Blocking both is probably the only way to control the misuse. A partial block will just result in changing the spelling of the title to game the name. Block them both and delete and salt the draft. But thank you for leaving the draft up for temporary view by non-admins so that we could see what is going on. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(nac) There ain't half a lot of struck keep !votes in that AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Going to make a sock report now. Deb (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk has decided there's not enough evidence of socking. So I'll just delete the draft and salt it. Deb (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and fair enough. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blueandwhite87

Blueandwhite87 (talk · contribs)

This editor has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. They have, as far as I can see, never responded. I was inclined to block, but thought to raise here first. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 19:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor was blocked twice before for adding unsourced content; the second time (July 2018) the blocking editor unblocked per this edit where the editor said they'd add a source. Since then, they've been warned six times on their talk page about making unsourced edits. At the same time, the user has made zero edits to article talk space (except for the automated edits that are done when a page is moved) and a grand total of 2 edits to user talkspace, one of which was in response to getting blocked. This was despite getting a huge number of notes from other editors on their talk page during the same time period (including a bunch of notes asking the editor to use edit summaries, which the editor apparently ignored). Therefore, it doesn't seem that this editor is willing to engage with the concerns of other editors unless they are blocked. Giving the situation, I think that a block would be appropriate as it may be the only way to get their attention. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, I hadn't even looked at the block log. Further evidence of the long term disruption, and the fact that they can communicate, they just choose not to... GiantSnowman 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Roy C

Could an admin with experience of legal issues take a look at this edit, which concerns a dispute between the recently deceased article subject and one Aaron Fuchs. I've moved, from the article to the talk page, the paragraph that was added into the article by the IP. Does anything need to be done in relation to the offending, but seemingly sourced, paragraph? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also worth a WP:DOLT look, if it is a BLP issue only coming from an interview Nosebagbear (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

MewMeowth's "gestapo" remarks and other abusive/harassing comments

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

Can appropriate administrative action be taken re this user for recent flagrant violations of the civility, no personal attacks, and harassment policies?

After making a menacing post on my user talk page with the title "Gestapo," various battleground manifesto-type statements, and sarcastic lines like "big hugs" (diff), I asked this user to observe our civility policies. Directly after, MewMeowth made a second user talk page post with this line: "It implies you're using scare tactics resembling those of the Gestapo in WW2. I hope this clears up any confusion. Big hugs."

I think I've developed a fairly thick skin on this project, but this kind of personally abusive, unprovoked remark is not acceptable, and drives off editors. I would like MewMeowth to (1) clearly acknowledge that his/her behavior violates our civility/personal attacks/harassment policy; and (2) commit to not engaging in this behavior again. If he/she is unwilling to do so, then I would request prompt admin action to enforce our policies.

(Side note: A look at this user's history reveals that this kind of thing is not necessarily an isolated incident. Edit-warring on various Argentina-related articles, battleground behavior in edit summaries, and Random removal of scholarly articles are all motifs here.)

--Neutrality^talk 23:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Won't do. If anything, the user who is engaging in abusive behaviour is you, and as administrator you should know better. You left a notice stating I have shown interest in pseudo-science, which is absolutely not true. It could be argued you were using this notice as a scare tactic as retaliation for your edit war on McEnany's article. I will absolutely not back down from my recent edits while acknowledging that like any other editor my edits are not perfect and I'm editing to the best of my abilities and knowledge of Wikipedia policies. My comment on your talk page was an exercise in civility, something which you clearly have not shown so far. Implying that my edits are vandalic, that is outrageous. And harassing is exactly what you're doing going through my edit history and nitpicking edits that are absolutely unrelated to your original claim. Are you implying my account is an SPA just because I have an interest in certain topics (clearly outlined on my user page)? Laughable. Your case is so weak that you went as far as complaining about the term 'big hugs.' I don't see the issue in sending virtual hugs to other editors. Could it be that you're grasping at straws here? Big hugs, MewMeowth (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Given MewMeowth's stated view that likening of another user to "the gestapo" (twice) is "an exercise in civility" (?!), and his statement that "I will absolutely not back down," I ask for significant sanctions. A total unwillingness (or inability) to identify or retract a flagrantly inappropriate remark, combined with this battlesground attitude, is incompatible with participation in a collaborative project. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for 72 hours for this reprehensible harassment, and am open to a discussion of additional sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a temporary block administrative action has already been taken. I'm not completely third party as this user has recently made changes to the material I wrote on the Kayleigh McEnany article, which seems to be from which this whole incident arose. As another administrator, I concur that this editor's behavior has much room for improvement. Besides the talk page abuse and acerbic edit messages, their editing style itself seems worrisome and in the Kayleigh McEnany case alone I notice problems related to giving WP:FALSEBALANCE and appeals to policy to justify removal as if it's a cut-n-dry application of the policy even when it's not. Editor is clearly passionate and has a wide-range of interests so hopefully they the block gives them time to reflect rather than get angry. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Long-term persistent disruptive tendentious editing

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

---

Serial Number 54129 has been persistently, tendentiously, disruptively stonewalling his preferred version of the article List of My Hero Academia characters starting in January and became at least once a month since May. After his most recent disruptive editing, an RFC started, and while I would not call it a consensus quite yet, is currently pointing to the content being acceptable, isn’t getting the hint that at least 4 other users on the talk page (lullabying, North8000, David Tornheim, and Tutelary), 2 who have reverted the mass removals (me and Exukvera) and at least 3 IPs think that the succinct descriptions are acceptable and that the series itself is a good primary source (and thus verifies the content, contrary to Serial Number’s claim of it breakinrg WP:V), and in the past has accused those he disagrees with of bad faith. Under a suggestion from Robert McClenon in August, and another one from David Tornheim in September, I believe that Serial Number 54139’s edits and refusal to properly discuss are disruptive enough for ANI, and I listed out and acknowledge my own faults in the past below. I was going to wait until after there was disruptive editing without discussion during the RFC instead of before, as well as due to advice for me to slow down due to my previous BATTLEGROUND attitude. However, since I feel like Serial Number has gotten away with uncivil behavior, stonewalling, breaking BRD while claiming to be above it, and dishonestly misciting policies and other peoples’ statements to make himself appear right, I feel like this behavior is completely unacceptable and needs some form of disciplinary action as soon as possible, or else the disruptive editing might continue and I’ll be forced to edit war to combat it. Prior to the RFC, me and DESiegel discussed that the descriptions can be implicitly sourced to the material itself without being referenced, and Serial Number still reverted, with another edit summary claiming that I was “bulshitting innocent admins”, which I believe breaks WP:AGF. After a lengthy discussion in January, and leaving the page alone for 4 months, he started disruptively editing again in May, and almost every month since. Knowing Serial Number 54129, he would likely going to try and boomerang this if he was active while denying that the behavior I will be linking below is either disruptive or uncivil, and make the exact same repeated arguments without any examples that basic character descriptions are original research and that I’m clearly in the wrong. I obviously don’t want this to boomerang, but I do acknowledge that I screwed up in handling this user in the past, but unlike me, I feel like Serial Number 54129 has come clean about his past incivility, and I also feel like he refuses to acknowledge how disruptive and against what multiple people agree with his edits are. While he has only been doing the same mass removals once or twice a month, the pattern is clearly disruptive and prevents actual progress of the page, and I suspect it only happens once or twice a month so he can evade disciplinary action. Well no more. I believe a topic ban is necessary against Serial Number 54129 for not only to prevent more disruptive editing and to force him to discuss if he wants the page to go back to his version, and also because of previous uncivil behavior about his righteousness.

Since at least January 2020, he has removed entireties of character descriptions such as in this edit in May, and, to give a few more examples, was persistently reverted to the same version in July, in early August, in late August, and again 2 days after that claiming that basic character descriptions break WP:V, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, despite multiple users stating that the content does not break any of those policies and that the manga/anime itself works fine as a primary source, and despite attempts to remove actual cruft/unverifiable content, thus making Serial Number 54129’s edits WP:TENDENTIOUS from what I understand of the word. In fact, it took almost 2 months to notice and remove obvious vandalism to the page because I was so busy dealing with mass removal of basic descriptions, and, according to WP:DISRUPT, Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Also, according to WP:STONEWALL, Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.

He has called me incorrect for disagreeing with his claim that the content breaks policies when other users have backed my claims up that they do not break said policies (seen above) He has refused to take part in any discussion on the content dispute since early August (with said August comment including calling me a derogatory name and stalking my location, which I believe are both breaches of WP:NPA and of my privacy), even resorting to reverting to the same version during a discussion, and has refused to give examples of what he believes breaks those policies. For reference, another mass removal done by Drmies adequately explained what was considered interpretive, and those interpretive statements and other cruft have since been removed. While I do not agree with Drmies reverting to Serial Number 54129’s extremely flawed version at all, he at least gave an example of what specifically sounded interpretive (key word sounded, as everything on the page is directly taken from the series, but I agree that some statements were unable to sound like it was directly sourced from the material), allowing for me to do a constructive removal of actual cruft and original research (and not Serial Number 54129’s extremely broad definition) without removing character descriptions as well. Serial Number 54129, on the other hand, has repeatedly refused to give specific examples of what is unacceptable, even when asked this what he thought was specifically unacceptable, making his repeated argumentative behavior go into WP:WABBITSEASON territory.

He has called me a “crufter” while stalking my IP location and taking an uncivil tone of voice when I specifically made it clear that I was against whatever fancruft was present at the time (which I believe is a breach of WP:NPA, and also shows that he likely did not read my statement at all), and has implied that I am not worth listening to. About stalking my IP location, I know this isn’t necessarily the board for breaches of privacy, but I want to keep everything in this one report, and I understand that my IP address was publicly visible, but I still feel uncomfortable about him stalking my location. I had attempted to explain that there was a difference between too much detail, no detail at all, and just in between, and the only thing he said that wasn’t a repeated argument was a personal attack in the form of a derogatory name that I specifically explained before he called me a “crufter” that I wasn’t what that. In the statement of me being a “crufter”, he claimed that I complained about him to ANI in May, which is only partially true; I asked about what to do about this situation on the Teahouse, not expecting any action at the time, and then Serial Number moved that discussion over to ANI. When requesting for the page to be protected despite the content dispute being in good faith, He claims that only one user has been undoing his edits and in the face of WP:OWN. Both claims are false. Nobody has claimed to own the article, and several other edits by other users that are not me have readded the info back in. In fact, after looking through what links to this page, I found out that another IP opposed the mass removal of content when it was done unexplained in early August (when the page was semi-protected for “one IP re-adding the info back in”), so if Serial Number 54129 brings up any argument that I’m the only one who opposes his edits to this page, that argument is clearly false. In my opinion, Serial Number needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK, as he is still disruptively editing against the wishes of at least 5 people, and has not gotten the point that his monthly bold edits to this page are unwanted.

He also twisted parts of neutral statements that supported his side and leaving out parts that supported my side for his own agenda to use against me, twisted mistakes in my writing to use for his own agenda, claimed that claims of him “ghosting” were false when he clearly hasn’t given actual input on the article talk page since January (unless there’s something about the word “ghosting” that I don’t understand), accused me of “bulshitting innocent admins” from an agreement pre-RFC that the series itself works as an unreferenced primary source, reverted the content again claiming that his edits go above BRD despite a new discussion in the same section still going on at the time, with his edits claiming that the content does not follow WP:V despite the discussion on the talk page saying otherwise, and warned another user of “unconstructive editing on his talk page” when we were both warned by another user for edit warring. He did eventually remove his “warning” to Geraldo Waldo Luis, but I am still concerned on how he perceived a warning from an unrelated user about 3RR as unconstructive, or even if he assumed that I gave him the warning.

To be clear, I know that nobody’s edits have broken 3RR, as the reversions have been spread out to be roughly each month, but Serial Number 54129’s edits are clearly disruptive, and I think a topic ban for him may unfortunately be necessary to prevent more disruptive editing, or at the very least force him to discuss what he specifically believes is unacceptable instead of disruptively pushing his version. In fact, I’m almost suspicious that he’s only doing this once a month specifically to avoid breaking 3RR, despite clearly reverting to the exact same version in each of his edits to the page. What I’m seeing is a user who would rather lie, twist neutral statements in his favor, accuse others of bad faith and unconstructive editing, disruptively edit in a manner that would avoid breaking 3RR but still clearly show the same pattern, call those he disagrees with derogatory names, stonewall, stalk locations, insist on his righteousness, and claim disagreement is incorrect when multiple users back the disagreement, than discuss on the article talk page, act civilly, drop the stick, give specific examples of what he believes breaks policies, or listen to other users’ input, in order to get his preferred version of a page. While it is clear that his intentions are not malicious, as breaking certain policies is a legitimate concern, his methods clearly disrupt an otherwise stable version of the page from detecting vandalism, he is willing to accuse me of WP:IDHT when he himself is not listening to me or anybody else either, and has repeated the same arguments of the content breaking WP:OR or WP:V with no elaboration or specific examples of why he thinks it breaks those policies (WP:WABBITSEASON), despite dissent from multiple users (WP:STONEWALL and WP:DROPTHESTICK), and in a way that halts regular progress of the page (WP:DISRUPT).

I also want to make it clear that in the past, I have not been perfect in handling this situation; in August, I prematurely reported this to Arbcom, and have also been guilty of making a DRN thread more about the opposing user than the content and interpreting neutral statements for my agenda to use against him (which Serial Number 54129 did point out, but noticeably did not mention that he also misrepresented neutral statements for his own agenda), well as falsely accusing him of trolling and edit warring. In e DRN thread, I pinged him at least 5 times, and Serial Number 54129 threatened to report me here for harassment, which, looking back, is a valid reason, and I probably should not have pinged him so many times. I have taken a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that has been rightfully called out by other users, and in the Teahouse thread that Serial Number 54129 turned into an ANI one in May, I called his edits vandalism, when in hindsight, they aren’t. In the past, I had trouble distinguishing between the terms “vandalism”, “edit warring”, and “disruptive editing”, and now I know that Serial Number 54129’s edits are clearly disruptive, but not either edit warring or vandalism, as edit warring has to be done within 24 hour periods of one another, and vandalism is strictly defined as purely bad faith. I was provoked by his disruptive editing and uncivil accusatory comments, which led me to prematurely report him to multiple other threads in August, and that may have further provoked him to keep disruptively editing. I fully regret stooping to Serial Number 54129’s level of disruption during that time. Rather than going to the Teahouse or DRN or Arbcom, which are all the wrong places for his situation, I should have come straight to here, and reported this situation here myself instead of Serial Number reporting himself only to deny it 2 months afterwards.

I understand that Serial Number 54129’s accusations of bad faith, uncivil behavior, stalking my IP location, calling me derogatory names, as well as my mistakes in Arbcom and DRN, all happened well into the past. However, unlike myself, I do not feel as if Serial Number 54129 has admitted to his uncivil behavior, I am worried that his concerning behavior will happen again, and I still think the level of disruption, stonewalling, and insistence to push his version without discussion are definitely not acceptable no matter what the circumstance is. To quote Eggishorn’s advice on my talk page, When your edits are questioned, it is much more productive to try to address the concerns addressed by other editors and not to try to enforce your version, and Serial Number 54129 has repeatedly enforced his version of the article without addressing concerns from other users that his claims that the content breaks Wikipedia policies are false. This content dispute is already being discussed on the article talk page, but Serial Number 54129 has repeatedly ignored the talk page and keeps reverting to his version despite disagreement from multiple users and a discussion he has repeatedly refused to contribute to, and in the past has taken a very uncivil and IDHT attitude about his righteousness, which is why I think a topic ban is unfortunately needed against him. If not a topic ban, then possibly a two-way interaction ban for both of us, due to our previous uncivil behavior towards each other. I would like to mention that I have already muted all notifications from him due to his uncivil, disruptive, persistent, stonewalling, dishonest, accusatory, stalker-type, etc. attitude, but I do have the page he is disruptively editing without discussion in my watchlist in case this happens again.

I have not given him an official warning, because I know he is going to consider my edits unconstructive and claim that there is nothing wrong with his. give him feedback in January before I made an account telling him that his edits to the page were wrong, after his first mass removal, and I feel as if that provoked him to keep reverting to the same versions 8 months later. In fact, he closed the discussion on his talk page when I kept asking him about the removal of several main characters on the list, showing a clear lack of desire to discuss, as well as demanding that I thank him for edits that I clearly disagree with. After he made that comment, he reverted to the same version simply saying “no thanks, see discussion on my talk”], and has repeatedly described the content as fanfiction, original research, and synthesis, despite multiple explanations that the content he is removing fits into none of those categories, and kept doing it even after having it explained. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No ones reading that, please edit it down or provide a tl;dr. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 04:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, serial hasn't edited in a few weeks anyhow. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 04:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

tl;dr: Serial Number 54129 had been disruptively removing character descriptions from List of My Hero Academia characters almost once a month since May despite a lengthy discussion of January and discussions with other users, refuses to discuss, assumes bad faith from me and that I’m not worth listening to, and at points demanded to be thanked for edits I clearly disagree with, claimed that his edits were above BRD, called me a crufter despite me making i clear I was against what little cruft was in the article at the time, and stalked my IP address location. In his mass removals, he has refused to explain what exactly was considered original research, even when asked. For comparison, another editor who did a similar mass removal did give examples of original research, allowing for constructive removal of it. There’s more, but I feel like it’s much more clear if you read the multi-paragraph top comment. I have had a lot of problems with this editor’s behavior, and I don’t think this tl;dr adequately explains my problems. I know serial hasn’t edit in a few weeks, but I’m worried that once he comes back, he’ll be back to the same disruptive editing. He took a break in August, after I restored the content, and one of his first edits back was reverting my edit. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unnamed anon, we are not giving out any awards for longest and most impenetrable ANI posts. Quite the contrary. Summarize the dispute in 100 words or less. Be concise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• Upon further consideration: I am very concerned about Unnamed anon's editing here and think that their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality needs some admin attention. As Unnamed mentions in their wall of text above, I have previously tried to counsel Unnamed at their talk page after a string of incidents that included complaints about SN54129 at venues from the Teahouse to AE. The WP:FORUMSHOPPING and urgency of their complaints over a garden-variety content dispute on a list of fictional characters clearly required some intervention. I hoped some informal counseling would be helpful in disentangling the situation. I had thought that Unnamed had reached a realization about this 3 weeks ago: I agree with your statement that me and Serial have both been too defensive about our side of the argument, been too ready to assume bad faith, and that we focused more on the editors’ actions rather than the content.

WP:NOTTHEM aside, it was a way forward but rather than move on they have recently returned to this dispute despite the absence of SN54129. They went back and retroactively removed SN's comments on their talk page calling it "hypocrisy". They did the same on Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters calling it a "personal attack and breach of privacy". Now this here, when under Unnamed's own chronology there has been no incident with SN54129 for weeks. The above "no action" closure is certainly correct as there is obviously no "urgent incident" in SN's editing but Unnamed has instead themself provided all the evidence needed of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Every venue that they have complained about SN in (and there have been many) has failed to sustain Unnamed's complaints. There is no rational justification to this complaint and the return to a non-issue after three weeks of quietude is highly concerning. They need at least a formal admin warning about expired equines and blunt objects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I’m open to criticism, as long as it’s constructive like yours and not hypocritical like Serial’s. In the wall of text, I did mention that I have had faults in my BATTLEGROUND attitude and have misinterpreted others’ viewpoints. I’m not denying that I’ve been faultless. I know that this has not been an issue for quite some time, but I am still concerned about many of Serial's disruptive behavior continuing. One of his first edits back after a break in August was reverting to the exact same version, claiming that I was “bulshitting innocent admins” because of an agreement with DESiegel that the material works as an unreferenced source. Time and time again, he has refused to give reasons for why he believes the content is unverifiable, despite multiple other users stating otherwise, and unlike how Drmies did when he did the same edits. Not only that, but calling me a derogatory name is certainly a personal attack, stalking an IP location unwanted, misciting clearly neutral statements for his own gain, believing that he is above BRD, telling me that I am “bulshitting innocent admins”, demanding I thank him for edits I clearly disagree with, and not seeing his own IDHT are all extremely concerning. I’m actually trying to maintain the page to have descriptions, but not have cruft, and he goes ahead and calls me a crufter and stalks my IP address instead of giving a non-repeated argument. None of his actions are okay by any means, regardless of the content, which is why I requested action against him. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I may have been hasty or overly generous in closing the thread, depending on how one looks at it. The history and talk page of List of My Hero Academia characters could certainly give flight to a boomerang. No objection from me if someone wants to undo/redo my close. Lev!vich 19:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Actually, closing the thread was the right thing to do. I should have waited for more disruptive editing, as I likely just provoked Serial to disruptively edit again. Looking back, removing Serial’s comment to my talk page was a little too harsh, but I stand by my removal of his comment on Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters. Not including the personal attack that I already mentioned, I feel very uncomfortable with Serial Number looking up where I live, and I consider that to be a serious breach of privacy. As for my edits the page itself, the only recent ones have been trying to strike a balance between the previous version and Serial's version in order to establish a status quo of having character descriptions, but not bloated ones. My BATTLEGROUND approach was because of DRN, not the page with the dispute. If this boomerangs into a warning towards me for assuming bad faith (and as long as no other disciplinary action against me is taken), that's fine. I just wanted to correct your venue of where my disruptive behavior is coming from. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

broken ill

I was visiting the so.wiki main page, and when I tried to get back to the en.wiki main page there was an error. I'm referring to the left column where it has the links for all the other languages. It looks like the English link is the only one broken, but I don't know how (or if) I can fix it. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT. Whilst I'd agree with you that the interface has a chronic, intractable problem, I think it may fail on the 'behavioural' part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass Kyiv disruption

As I guess everybody knows Kiev was renamed to Kyiv in a contentious RM a couple of days ago. Since then, we have been witnessing mass moves and replaces of instances of Kyiv with Kiev ewerywhere, by many users. Whereas some moves are probably justified others are clearly not. Examples of clear disruption include mass out-of-process category moves (example 1, example 2) and mindless replacements of all instances of Kiev with Kyiv (populating a redirect category, introducing a redundant piped link to itself - note that in the last example the action was performed by an administrator) - and this is only from my wacthlist, from which I have removed most of the Ukrainian topic articles earlier this year. To be honest, I am not sure what to do here, I do not have a list of people performing these actions, and I think even if they stop we have enough editors more than happy to continue, but may be someone has a good idea how this transition from Kiev to Kyiv can be made according to the policies. We are talking about thousands of articles, templates, and categories. Ironically, just before the move, somebody - I do not remember who it was - told me that they believe that Kyiv vs Kiev is about a single article and would not have any bearing on other articles. I responded that does not matter what is in the policies people will come to move everything overnight - and now we see it happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Or even this - piped link to a redirect introduced when an article exists.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Historical usage, by the same administrator. I think I am going to stop posting here. I do not think we, as community, are capable of solving this problem. We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blame the piped-link glitches on the visual editor, or file a bug report at the right technical forum. But I highly recommend a Wikibreak, anyway. —Michael Z. 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I only came here to find out what Kyiv meant, and I discover that it's foreign for Kiev. Good grief. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

For instance, somebody thought it was a good idea to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv. It's now back to where it was. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for the turn of historical usages such as Kievan Rus'.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And here we go: [15]--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Btw I blocked that user previously for disruptive Ukraine-related editing. May be it is time to continue since they obviously have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And Chicken Kiev was probably created in Saint Petersburg.--Mvqr (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How about "Chicken Petrograd"? That sounds appetizing! EEng 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When the doctors say I have 48 hours left, EEng, I will edit war to change it to "Chicken Leningrad", in your honor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I echo what Ymblanter said. The language disruption is spreading to traditional transliterations of Russian (or Ukranian) text. See here. It will beg the question of what to do with sources that use the traditional Kiev spelling. RfC likely needed. Anyway, I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that it's not just Kiev/Kyiv that is affected. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I raised this on talk a few days ago, expecting that would happen. On a smaller scale, similar happened when Chinese Communist Party was renamed and we end up with (eg) unnecessary CCPs across articles. It's a pain. RfC not needed, I think. Appropriate way to deal with it would be making a list of Kyiv related articles, having a short period for opposition and moving the ones that nobody opposed. Require a separate RM for the rest (like Chicken Kiev). Not sure how you'll address people unilaterally making changes. Maybe a temporary edit filter where page title contains Kiev/Kyiv, and the editor is not EC confirmed (if so, block move)? Can be done using action = move[16]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. There's no way around doing the work of updating the encyclopedia. And yeah, it's a large encyclopedia, so there's a lot of updating to be done. (Hey maybe we'll all remember this next time we discuss notability guidelines.) It's already being discussed at Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning up associated articles, and I've started a list of related articles and categories at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. Lev!vich 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am greatly surprised that anybody is surprised by mass disruption. What did you imagine was going to happen when the "Kiev" article changed to "Kyiv"? How long have you been on Wikipedia? Walrasiad (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not suprpised, this is precisely what I predicted, including doing so in writing. However, it is still massive disruption and need to dealt with. I have seen that some moves were reverted, some RfCs and RM opened, and some blocks given out, and we probably need more blocks for those who do not get it. What I am actually surprised at is that these users have zero interest in improving articles on Ukrainian topics on Wikipedia. I was single-handedly creating articles on urban localities in Ukraine, we still have several dozens to create, which will probably keep me busy for another couple of years. Here we have a bunch of people who pose as defenders of Ukrainian national idea, they are happy to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv and to replace Kiev with Kyiv in the filenames so that the files turn into redlinks, but they never edited any article of more than a hundred which I created on Ukrainian localities (those still on my watchlist) - except for those of course which are located in Kiev Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously lots of these examples are silly, but isn't it normal to move category trees (e.g. Category:Railway stations in Kiev) to match the name of the parent article? It seems unnecessary to insist on a discussion for each one. – Joe (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Categories always should go via CfD. There is a speedy process for them, which takes two days to process provided no objections have been raised, WP:CFDS, and some of these categories were indeed nominated there but for whatever reason met objections and were moved to a full CfD discussion. Moving categories without involving CfD is out of process move.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I can toss in my two-cents. I work primarily in historical articles, and did not follow (nor participate) in the modern Kiev/Kyiv article discussion (I know better than to wade into nationalist pissing contests). But the wave of disruptions has arisen in historical articles, imposing that spelling anachronistically and rendered many historical entities, events and figures unrecognizable (e.g. Kievan Rus, St. Anthony of Kiev, etc.) with "Kyivan" or "Kyiv". For many (if not most) historical articles, the "Kiev" form is far and away the most common name in English-language history books and general reference works. Wikipedia criteria for an article doesn't end because another article happens to change its name. It seems to me that at least for historical articles, we're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis, via RMs, with reliable sources from general English-language resources. I realize this can become tiresome. As a short-cut, perhaps a general rule can be introduced that considers Kiev -> Kyiv to be a name change, much like Constantinople -> Istanbul in 1923, and similarly adopt a boundary date when that change goes into effect (e.g. 1995), so that historical articles that refer to "Kiev" before that date don't get anachronistically affected. Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps pushing spelling variant with deceptive edit note: "Fixed typo"

2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:E471:60B7:FBA8:818A/64 keeps pushing British spelling and date formats, despite of numerous reverts and guidances:

• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:C0B8:823A:8DF0:A37
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:69D4:518B:5446:F24D
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:459C:EA7E:9A4E:DEEA
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:102C:2C2C:A44D:5060
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:A557:AB6B:76D8:DDAC
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:F415:417B:2690:9DD5
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:751C:5531:9D0:7C2A
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:1C5C:D436:7E26:E51E
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:3956:E7B2:61CF:35BA
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:55D:5E0C:896F:F206
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:8C6A:DDB:44F7:EA3 blocked for short term (ineffective, address never used again)
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:58C3:BC87:3DE1:70A6
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:9E3:35C8:ABF9:E278
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:C472:D975:29DA:2DBB
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:31AF:4EBD:A03:16E

(I don't know what would be the appropriate IP range.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotheina (talk • contribs)

Looks like 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/65 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and I don't see any collateral on that range. We could try blocking for a month? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the range for 48 hours with a note to read WP:ENGVAR before proceeding; hopefully that gets their attention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I meant 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you used that anyway - well done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Question: would User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:0:0:0:0/64 be seen by anyone? If not what is its purpose? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've always assumed that anyone in that range would see it, but maybe not? WP:ENGVAR is in the block reason, so hopefully they'll at least see that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to communicate with IPv6 editors sometimes. If their IP address changes very often, it's almost impossible. There's no way to communicate with an entire IP range. Unless they actively go looking for messages on random pages, they'll never see anything put anywhere except their current IP talk page. The WMF has some major changes planned for the future, so I guess we'll see how those work out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When – during the second Kamala Harris administration? EEng 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I'm guessing, it's related to meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, which is being pushed despite near-universal objection from the community. SQL^{Query me!} 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I was merely referring to the glacial rate at which WMF projects proceed. EEng 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate but related, it's also worth remembering that even if it is a static IP, communicating with an editor without an account using the mobile website is (AFAIK still) difficult. Sure their talk page may stay the same, but unless they're experienced enough to know to check it, messages are going to go unheeded simply because they don't know they have them. Does this apply to the iOS app too? If so, even if the IP wasn't changing it's not surprising they would have no idea barring that block. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Perma Block the entire range - The editor has proven it's nothing more then an annoyance to the project. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is a /64 that's almost certain to be one user, so a longer block to prevent this is absolutely going to be reasonable if it continues - but I definitely support the idea of giving them this shorter block to get their attention just in case they're just misguided, given the acknowledged issue with communicating with IPv6 users. ~ mazca ^talk 19:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Vegetassj44

Vegetassj44 has produced multiple stubs[17] of bishops by machine translating (mainly) the lead of the equivalent Polish articles. No attribution is being given. This is giving poor translations such as Krzysztof Antoni Szembek of the Szembek coat of arms. The editor has been advised of the correct way of translating[18] but continues to produce poorly translated, unattributed articles. --John B123 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am doing a better job right now, I am not using translator any more. Vegetassj44 (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Erewhon Robinson

Erewhon Robinson seems to be some kind of bot, adding articles with no content to them. I can't CSD 10 articles/second, need help. Can't report to AIV, not vandalism. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 04:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Draft:Daniel Officer's World is pure vandalism. But I cleaned up everything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: If you look more closely, Draft:Daniel Officer's World is indeed pure vandalism. They intentionally cheat and lie by adding fake URLs to its website, fake IMDb page and of course a fake publisher (PBS Kids). The fact is that Daniel Officer's World is a YouTube channel by Erewhon Robinson. In other words, the article is also pure spam. WP:VANDAL clearly states that cheating and gaming the system is a form of vandalism.—J. M. (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it's mostly a copy-paste of WordWorld but with some phrases changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

KathleenKathleen12345

KathleenKathleen12345 (talk · contribs), having just come off a block for edit-warring on New Westminster Police Department, has gone straight back to making the edits that got them blocked to begin with. For what it's worth, there is a consensus the section she's removing should be cut down to some extent, but not outright removed. I also suspect - but can't ask for an SPI as a year has passed - that she's a sockpuppet of NWPD media (talk · contribs), whose raison d'etre was removing that section wholesale. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably one more reversion away from issuing a NOTHERE block. Reviewing their talk page and edits the amount of disruption being caused is phenomenal. I'm in agreement that the controversy section is possibly UNDUE but they clearly have no interest in achieving anything close to consensus. Glen (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week for continuing to edit war. Agree that the user is one more reversion or disruptive edit away from an indef. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: A better solution in this case might be to use a partial block for that page or for the main encyclopedia while allowing access to article-talk and other discussion pages. As it stands, this editor has improved the encyclopedia by bringing an "undue weight" situation to our attention, albeit in a disruptive manner. An established editor has already corrected the "undue weight" issue after a talk-page discussion consensus was that this was the right thing to do. I for one welcome her continued civil input by way of talk-page discussions. In any case, I hope when the current week-long block expires she "plays by the rules" making the entire discussion of "what to do if she doesn't" irrelevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, NWPD media was soft blocked, so even if they are the same person they have not violated WP:ILLEGIT, so a a sock puppetry block wouldn't be appropriate. One thing to note is that there are no time limits at SPI. If you have evidence to suggest that any account (regardless of age, time since last block etc.) has violated the sockpuppetry policy, filing a report at SPI is both appropriate and a good thing. (the one exception is if you suspect an admin. If this is the case, contact privately a checkuser) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

After looking at the talk page, I realized that the block message was for a hard block. I double checked if I could read (by checking the block summary again), but I was correct (and can read). It seems like the user is soft blocked in the block entry (account creation is enabled and autoblock is disabled, plus the block summary is for a soft block), but their block talk page message was for a spamublock (so a hard block).

NJA, can you please comment whether you meant to softblock or hardblock here? Thanks in advance. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Caseyph and QAnon

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

---

In Special:Diff/979151198, Caseyph (talk · contribs · count) removed 1,347 characters from the QAnon article with an edit summary that does not adequately explain the changes. After I reverted the edit and posted a warning on User talk:Caseyph, Caseyph insisted in User talk:Newslinger § WTF? that they did not make the edit despite the existence of the diff. Caseyph also stated that they do not believe that anyone else has access to their account.

There are two possibilities here: either Caseyph's account is compromised, or Caseyph is not telling the truth. I am inclined to believe the latter, because of the edit summary in Special:Diff/979151198 ("collusion" is red herring used by Russia to coverup the real crime of "conspiracy" is an actual crime. Using the term "collusion" is propaganda.). The edit summary is similar in nature to Caseyph's previous edits of the QAnon article:

1. Special:Diff/978021571: Changed collusion to conspiracy with the edit summary "collusion" is red herring. "conspiracy" is an actual crime., marked as a minor edit
2. Special:Diff/978072908: Changed collusion to conspiracy, undoing another editor's reversion, marked as a minor edit
3. Special:Diff/978077227: Changed collusion to conspiracy, undoing another editor's reversion, marked as a minor edit
4. Special:Diff/978080285: Changed collude to conspire with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit
5. Special:Diff/978271809: Changed collusion to conspiracy and collude to conspire, undoing another editor's reversion, marked as a minor edit

If Caseyph made the edit in Special:Diff/979151198, and then denied having made the edit, this would be a case of disruptive editing. Otherwise, Caseyph's account is compromised and needs to be secured. Please feel free to propose suggestions for recourse. — Newslinger talk 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This action is consistent with Caseyph having edited an old revision and (intentionally or not) wiping out the later changes. No comment on Caseyph's other edits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Either the user is lying, their account is compromised, or they're a POV-pushing edit warrior who's incompetently implementing sweeping reversions of large amounts of content over their attempts to change one word, and then denying that they had ever done so, even in the face of diffs that are being directly provided to them. Either way, this user has a lot of problems to work through if they want to continue editing here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• And talk page access revoked after this. I think we're done here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Dwccb10: serious CIR issues

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

---

Dwccb10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user seems to have serious WP:CIR issues. In particular, they have three times created List of Subnational Country Alliances which was three times speedy deleted. Their user talk page is full of warnings, which include warnings for removal content from pages and for restoring BLP violations. After I have warned the user, they developed an unfortunate habit of refactoring comments of other users at their talk page (so that what it is there now does not have a section header which I have given to it - even though it was a standartised one, but the text is still signed by me). The first time I noticed it it was too late to revert (intermediate changes); the next one [19] I reverted and warmed the user again; after the third one [20]I blocked and tried to explain them as simply as I could why this is not appropriate. Today, they reverted again [21] with the edit summary "do not undo". In principle, I can block them indef per WP:CIR, since I do not believe they have any useful contribution, but technically speaking they are edit-warring with myself at their user page, and I would like to ask another administrator to have a look. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment; indefinitely blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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

---

Osama siraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is posting legal threats. The threat is in better grammar at his user talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not much of a one for blocking for legal threats, but these really are legal threats ("tommorow I go to the court filed the case"). Blocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

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

Racial epithet and persistent (10+ years) vandalism

Hi. Please see this edit summary (warning: racial epithet, the N word). This page (and a few other Star Wars related ones, and my own talk page), for over a decade, have been graced by this drive-by IP-hoppoing jackass (though same IP the last two incidents). The page has wavered in and out of semi-protection. I'm sure there is a super-precise series of noticeboards and proper templates to report racist language, IP vandalism, request semi-protection ... but today, I am just exhausted and don't have the time for it. Please take care of this. --EEMIV (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I revision-deleted the edit, and I am afraid this is pretty much it, blocking does not make sense, blocking range is probably an overkill, and we can not protect the talk page from this infrequent disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't imagine it's hugely useful, but I've blocked 97.113.169.123 for a couple of weeks. The misspelling of Lando Calrissian brought out the beast in me. And it's supposed to be static, after all. Bishonen | tålk 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

This ES (N-word warning!) by 97.113.23.19 and its routine repetition by User:Sinebot could use revdelling. December 2019, but even so. Narky Blert (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

? It looks revdel'd to me. I thought Ymblanter did it a while back — is it still coming up for you? Reload the page, maybe? Bishonen | tålk 17:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

(ec, I was gossipping with my shopper) Also this pair by 97.113.178.168 and Sinebot, same reason. March 2019. Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the Dec 2019 one has now gone - thankfully. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

And this pair (also March 2019). There's nothing else as bad which remains visible all the way back to 2006; only pottymouth stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This straggler (which I'd already posted) still needs attention, and that should be the lot - on this article, anyway. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I apparently miscalculated the versions during the first attempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. --EEMIV (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All done, I think. Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion posted at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#The N-word in edit summaries. Narky Blert (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)