Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 185.69.144.244 (talk) at 10:27, 22 September 2020 (An absolutely DISGUSTING revert that only serves to prove my point regarding the HORRIDITY of those who frequent this site, and in particular this board). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[1][2] (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This editor continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. Is nobody else concerned at this? GiantSnowman 17:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am! Robby.is.on (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Hello Ymblanter! So you say that WP "are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet". What about beeing a Russian Propaganda outlet for at least 25 years? You are russian, doens't matter what you write on your page. When I registered in WP - you were russian, and now you changed your origin to be from Netherlands. It is a ridicoulous lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

    And this is a brilliant illustration of my point. Well, who cares about WP:CONSENSUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And may be I am old-fashioned, but "what you say is blatant lie" for me is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am waiting for the turn of historical usages such as Kievan Rus'.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we go: [3]--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    And Chicken Kiev was probably created in Saint Petersburg.--Mvqr (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "Chicken Petrograd"? That sounds appetizing! EEng 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    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) [reply]
    From Russian jokes#Rabinovich: Rabinovich is arrested on the street in Leningrad. After an hour of being beaten, a KGB agent comes and asks him, "Where were you born?" / He spits out, "Saint Petersburg!" / The KBG agent beats him for ten more minutes and asks him, "Where were you raised?" / "Petrograd!" / The KGB agent beats him for fifteen more minutes and asks him, "Where do you live?" / "Leningrad!" / After a half hour more beating, the KGB agent asks, "And where would you like to die?" / "Saint Petersburg!" Lev!vich 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    While we're on the subject... Many will have heard the joke about anti-tiger dust: Sitting on a train, Man #1 finds himself opposites Man #2, who has his hat in his lap, crown down and brim up. Man #2 keeps dipping his hand into the hat, withdrawing it, and then flicking his fingers in various directions. Seeing #1 is puzzled, #2 explains: "It's anti-tiger dust, to keep tigers away." Man #1: "But there are no tigers for thousands of miles from here!" Man #2: "That's how well it works!"
    OK, so a friend who knows Russian culture well told me that in Russia they tell the same joke, except that the punchline is that #2 leans close and whispers conspiratorially, "Well that's good, because it doesn't work!" Speaks volumes. EEng 08:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)    [reply]
    PAGE MOVEDGLOBAL SEARCH-AND-REPLACEDON'T CONSIDER CONTEXTEGG ON YOUR FACEMyanmar-Shave Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    eeeeexcellent GeneralNotability (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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[4]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      A more recent example is the renaming of Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018. It would be grossly anachronistic to refer to anyone from there who is more than 2 years old as having been born in Eswatini. Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now we see that the IP who started the RM was in fact a logged out user topic-banned from Ukraine who was avoiding sanctions. It does not invalidate the RM of course but adds a flavor to the whole thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, I am sysop in Ukrainian Wiki. I browsed through diffs Ymblanter provided us, and there are no users active in Uk.Wiki I've noticed. So it seems people coming from news mainly, not from another wiki. If this is of any help. --Brunei (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. There are definitely users active in the Ukrainian Wikipedia: I noticed hat Vitaliyf261 was blocked for disruption here yesterday, because he apparently decided that now everything related to Ukraine must be transliterated from Ukrainian, and AndriiDr who yesterday in this edit not only replace Kiev with Kyiv, buty also Odessa with Odesa, for which currently there is no community consensus. I did not even try to look up all edits related to Kiev -> Kyiv, I only operate with those which are on my wactchlist or were brought to my attention, but it is indeed possible that only a small part of this disruption is coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes, and Piznajko, who most likely started the RM while being topic-banned from Ukrainian topics, and today was CU blocked indef, is an active editor of the Ukrainian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems like there is some canvassing going on by another IP [5]. Could this IP be the same as the blocked user mentioned by @Ymblanter: above? Walrasiad (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My guess this is another one. The goal of the blocked user was always to rename Kiev to Kyiv in all contexts; the goal of this IP is pure trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    When – during the second Kamala Harris administration? EEng 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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. SQLQuery me! 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely referring to the glacial rate at which WMF projects proceed. EEng 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Nil Einne, so don't use it. I've been almost exclusively editing from a phone for over 4 years,  and only used the mobile website once, only long enough to figure out it's pointless.  John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @John from Idegon: don't see how that helps us dealing with the thousands of editors who do use it unless you convince the WMF to shut it off. The whole point of this thread is how we can communicate with editors who are potentially unfamiliar with Wikipedia, who may not even know talk pages exist and this includes some who only ever seem to use the mobile site or in this case the mobile app, at least on whatever device the IPs are attached to. (Potentially these editors could also edit using a desktop or laptop computer, or a tablet, but these may have different IPs due to using a different network connection or SIM card.) As I already mentioned editors familiar with the limitations of the mobile site could easily regularly check their talk pages so the primary problem is always going to be those who are aren't familiar. I suspect they may be more likely to use both. (As much as anything because of they probably use and edit more often so even with an equal chance of them using it for any given edit or read, it becomes more likely.) I personally rarely edit with my phone finding both the mobile site and the desktop site too annoying to use without a mouse and preferably a keyboard too, but when I do (without these), I find both sites useful depending on the situation. But it's a moot point for me, because I also never edit with IPs so that limitation with the mobile site is irrelevant. Also since I use both I will eventually find out I have new messages even if I was using IPs. Again none of this helps us with our problems communicating with editors who do use IPs and do use the mobile site. Potentially the app too (like the OP) although no one has commenting on that so I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have access to a recent iOS device, but after some testing the Android app at least seems to suffer from the same flaw i.e. absolutely no indication of new messages, or even that you have a talk page, if editing without an account. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for the iOS app. So someone editing from an IP and exclusively using the app would have no idea they have new messages, no matter how little their IP changes, unless they know to check. An interesting point is that the app doesn't seem to support viewing the history, it instead opens it as a link. It does support talk pages but the view talk at the bottom treats it as a link albeit a Wikipedia one meaning you can either open it in your browser or in the app. Anyway if you open stuff in the browser, you could see signs of new messages. But only if your browser is defaulting to desktop. If it defaults to the mobile site as I believe is the default for phone browsers, then you'll have no indication. And yes I confirmed that AFAICT, there's still no indication of new messages for editors not logged in, on the mobile site. I mostly tested on my desktop computer and browser using the mobile site but there was also some testing on Firefox on Android and some on Chrome. The desktop site is still the same with the orange box of doom, although I forgot that caching means you may not always see the new messages box for a while. Of course once you edit you should see it. But an IP editor just browsing, including an editor who browses on the desktop site sometimes but only ever edits with the mobile site or Android and probably iOS app may take a while to find out they have new messages unless they specifically check. And getting back to the main point, an editor without an account who only ever uses the mobile site or Android and probably iOS app at least on the device which has the IP with the new messages, will have no idea unless they specifically check. Editor's personal opinions of the mobile site or Android app or iOS app or whatever seem beside the point except if you believe you can convince the WMF to stop these. A personal dislike or non use of them doesn't change the fact some people do use them, sometimes apparently exclusively and sometimes without accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It's more because a behavioural connexion can be made here (NWPD's only edits were to copyedit the article and remove the offending section wholesale, the latter of which are the only edits Kathleen has been making to the article; the rest of it appears to be astroturfing/Karening for the section's removal), so an SPI is otherwise superfluous except to look for sleepers (which I don't think there are), and NWPD media was blocked a year ago - well outside the range of CU data, thus making a technical match impossible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 02:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. Filing a report may still get the concern of sockpuppetry dealt with quicker, as clear cut cases are generally dealt with quickly from my experience. Per the comment by NJA below they haven't violated WP:ILLEGIT if they are connected. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I’m sorry, which user am I checking? I wasn’t involved with KathleenKathleen12345 (talk · contribs) thus far. Thanks, Thanks Dreamy Jazz for the mention. The block for NWPD media is a soft block, though I could have went for a hard block due to the editing. In any event the block log correctly represents my intention, and I would treat it as a soft block for the purposes of contemplating sanctions around sock editing. N.J.A. | talk 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) N.J.A. | talk 10:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ? 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).[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    Yep, the Dec 2019 one has now gone - thankfully. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
     Done, I apparently miscalculated the versions during the first attempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all. --EEMIV (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All done, I think. Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion posted at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#The N-word in edit summaries. Narky Blert (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Partially blocked IP 112.200.44.30 keeps adding unsourced content

    Anon user 112.200.44.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has been partially blocked on September 12, 2020 for adding unsourced content, seems to have returned to adding content without references. Affected pages need to be investigated and reverted if necessary. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have investigated into all of the IP's edits and have reverted problematic edits where necessary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Justdoinsomeedtits on The Devil All the Time (film)

    Justdoinsomeedtits appears to believe they own the The Devil All the Time (film) article. The lede initially said "The film received mixed to positive reviews from critics, who praised the performances (particularly those of Holland and Pattinson) but criticized its grim tone and violence." but they removed it with an edit summary which said "Please point to a source criticizing the film for having a grim tone or being violent".

    I did exactly that which they quickly reverted claiming "If you think the reviews criticize the movie for being violent or for being grim, you seem to have misread them".

    I added the references back with lengthy quotes illustrating that they criticized the tone and violence and they reverted it again claiming "Please refrain from removing valid, sourced information from an article in favor of inaccurate, improperly sourced material that better suits your personal opinion. Further such behavior will result in a report."

    I noted that the sources were literally quoted and they reverted again and slapped templates on my talk page saying I needed to " moderate yourself so as not to offend."

    TL:DR Justdoinsomeedtits asked for sources when they were provided they edit warred because they want to control the way the film is portrayed. Helper202 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a reading comprehension issue. The movie is violent and has a grim tone - it is not being criticized for "being violent" or "having a grim tone", nor are its violence or its grim tone the object of criticism in any of the reviews cited by Helper202 (aside from calling its grimness "exciting but a little wearying" - hardly a point that can be used as a summation of its negative reviews in their entirety). What the source reviews in fact take issue with are a "lack [of] depth", being "unflinchingly centered on white faces", and being "repetitive" and "simplistic". All of these are actual criticisms - "it is violent" or "it has a grim tone" are not, at least as far as the cited reviews are concerned.
    As far as "ownership", I see no difference between Helper202's behavior and mine, with the exception that my edits constitute criticisms directly quoted from cited reviews and Helper202's constitute a misreading of his cited material or perhaps an unfamiliarity with the meaning of "criticism". Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This sort of "critics said X"/"no, they didn't" is why any critical summary should be properly sourced. If you want to say that there's a critical consensus, you need to find a source that says there's a critical consensus. Otherwise, it's just synthesis based on cherry-picked sources (two random critics said X, so we're going to ignore what every other critic said and say that X is the critical consensus). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User IvanMisner

    Blatant vandal, switching the main image for the subject at Ivan Misner to an obviously digitally manipulated image. Claims to be the subject of the article [6]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hipal, I'm not sure it's vandalism, although that image does look rather odd. I've blocked as possible impersonation. GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather odd is an understatement. It is utterly bizarre. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While the image did go through Photoshop, it struck me as "another pose" probably taken at the same time as the image it replaced. The image it replaced has been nominated for deletion on the Commons here due to licensing issues. My guess is that the recently uploaded high resolution version has the same licensing issues. If this editor is in fact Misner, and he can demonstrate that he, not the photographer, owns the rights, then this photo will be allowed to stay on the Commons if and when it is challenged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe his head is really that huge. I don't know, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Can we get a fact check? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats by two IPs

    IPs 128.127.106.237 and 106.215.241.123 have both threatened to file an FIR (first information report?). diffs: [7], [8] Dylsss (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask for help please

    In the voice Fargo (season 3) I included in the main cast the actor who plays the partner of the protagonist and among the secondary characters a henchman who, apart from dying in the middle of the season, was certainly by mistake inserted in the main cast (when has ever seen a henchman in the main cast?) But unfortunately a user got me rolled back twice. I ask for help here please, because I never know how to deal with these bullies :( --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kasper2006: This is a WP:content dispute and the way to deal with it is to discuss the issue on the article talk page i.e. Talk:Fargo (season 3). You will need to explain with inserting your personal interpretation of who is the main cast based on the role they played and the amount of speaking they did, and your personal experience of what you've "seen" before in other main casts, instead of going by the credits; complies with our policies and guidelines especially WP:Original research and WP:Verifiability. Instead I would suggest you bring a reliable secondary source to the discussion which disputes the actor being part of the main cast. Also when you start a discussion here, there is a big box which tells you to notify any editor's you are discussing. Although you didn't name them, it's fairly obvious from the history that you are referring to User:Drovethrughosts. I see that you've made it to their talk page before but you did not notify them of this discussion. I will do so for you this time but please remember to do so in the future. This is especially important here given that you've accused the editor of being a "bullies", which appears to a personal attack by you and the only thing here at this time which has any chance of warranting administrative attention. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, excluding a Wikiproject article assessment, the talk page was last edited in 2017. Ironically that was in relation to the same issue. This is hardly ever a good sign for an ANI thread. Also, as always, if the article content dispute can't be resolved on the article talk page, there are several forms of WP:dispute resolution which can be tried, none of which should involve any of the ANs. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to explain that the fault lies with the Google translator, I trusted it translation of “questo tipo di prepotenze”. But obviously I didn't want to refer to the user with an adjective, but my not used to this type of war edits. In any case I apologize to the user and the administrators for being misunderstood. With the latter also for having the wrong place to raise the question. --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have received an email from a person that claims to write Wikipedia articles about people in exchange for money. As a long term editor of Wikipedia this worried me and I know it violates Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. I would like to report the editor, but all proof I have is said email and of course I do not want to accuse anybody wrongly. I will write an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org at the same time to report this behaviour and hopefully we can identify affected articles and either delete them or correct them (remove POV) if required. Please let me know how to proceed and whether to post affected articles/usernames here or not. Best regards --hroest 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment). You were right not to post any details here. Another possible place to forward that email is WP:ARBCOM (contact details in that article). That's what I did the last time I got one (except that the cheapskate wasn't even offering me any money), and they courteously replied that they'd identified the emailer as a WP:SOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have to take these things with a grain of salt. There have been instances recently in which people have gone to fairly great lengths (posting phony reviews on noticeboards and the like) to frame productive editors as paid shills. BD2412 T 17:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412, the mere thought of that existential sort of situation occurring made me cringe. Editors involved greatly in anti UPE/SPAM who have a target on their back need to be very careful. Unfortunately I fall into this category. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412, Celestina007, and Narky Blert: Thanks for your comments, I have forwarded the email to WP:ARBCOM. Hopefully some admin can look into this in more detail (I hope this gets taken seriously, since this destroys the culture and joy of editing). I dont think this is a case of an elaborate scheme to frame some editor and it clearly looks like an account that tries to keep a low profile and only edit very specific articles. --hroest 01:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: also pinging @Primefac and Beeblebrox: as they may be interested. --hroest 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent legal threats on S.U.C.C.E.S.S.

    FeelGooda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made a legal threat in their edit summary For the record, should a formal testimonial distributed by an law enforcement agency with witnesses documenting an assault by an assailant causing damage to the Canadian agency indicated on this page, including bodily harm to staff personnel or property with conscious intent whereby investigation indicates causation of such actions perpetuated from the information displayed on this Wikipedia page, the admin as a representative to Wikipedia abides by their previous action and content reversion, I believe they are referring to me, though I am not an admin. They have been making multiple pseudo-edits adding spaces and making threats and intimidating other editors in the edit summary under Defamationz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FakeVerify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. If an admin could take a look, that would be great, thanks. Dylsss (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wandering Green User

    Wandering Green User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since August 2019 and almost 100% of their edits have been creating templates, userboxes, and other miscellany in their userspace in blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Alongside that, they've uploaded numerous copyright violating images. By my count, I've found literally only two edits that were actually related to developing the encyclopedia: one adding a period and one adding a (probably unnecessary) image. This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and just wants to use the site as a free web host. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see lots of templated messages, but no indication that anyone has attempted to have a discussion. Did I miss it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nathan2055:I did see him helping another user by creating a user box.[9] People who are here to help people build an encyclopedia provide value. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent bot-like reverts of a specific user

    While I'm still looking into other Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution methods to deal with this, I feel it is necessary to record this incident here. Requesting assistance here, as the list of diffs is too big, and I do not know how to proceed.

    Apparently, users Miaumee and JayBeeEll had an argument in User_talk:Miaumee#Basic_issues_of_punctuation, which eventually led to JayBeeEll reverting numerous edits by Miaumee, in an almost bot-like fashion.

    At first glance, I'd say this is an infringement of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

    Most (if not all) of Miaumee's edits consist of:

    1. adding multiple references of kind <ref name=':01'> , having Mathworld or Mathvault as source; and
    2. making changes to the wording of the text.

    In Variance diff, these changes in wording seemed quite positive to me, hence why I reverted the revert.

    The multiple reversions can be checked in JayBeeEll's contributions, but I plan to collect of the disruptive edits here soon. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of all reverts are as follows:

    List of diffs
    1. Dimension (vector space)
    2. Adjugate matrix
    3. Determinant
    4. Permutation
    5. Combination
    6. Event (probability theory)
    7. Universe (mathematics)
    8. Intersection
    9. Counting quantification
    10. Uniqueness quantification
    11. Ǝ
    12. Universal quantification
    13. Logical equality
    14. Logical equivalence
    15. Logical biconditional
    16. Material nonimplication
    17. Logical NOR
    18. Sheffer stroke
    19. Exclusive or
    20. Boolean domain
    21. Factorial
    22. Absolute value
    23. Notation in probability and statistics
    24. Variance (I reverted the revert)
    25. Conditional variance
    26. Covariance
    27. Pooled variance
    28. Estimator
    29. Coefficient of variation
    30. Binomial distribution
    31. Bernoulli distribution
    32. Geometric distribution
    33. Discrete uniform distribution
    34. Uniform distribution (continuous)
    35. Central limit theorem
    36. Probability mass function
    37. Probability density function
    38. Chi-square distribution
    39. F-distribution
    40. Student t distribution
    41. Limit superior and limit inferior
    42. Infimum and supremum
    43. Derivative
    44. Notation for differentiation
    45. Leibniz notation
    46. Differential (infinitesimal)
    47. Differential operator
    48. Differential of a function
    49. Time derivative
    50. Directional derivative
    51. Gradient
    52. Laplace operator
    53. Generalizations of the derivative
    54. Partial derivative
    55. Differential calculus
    56. Glossary of calculus
    57. Multivariable calculus
    58. Calculus
    59. Integral
    60. Integral symbols
    61. Multiple integral
    62. Contour integration
    63. Volume integral
    64. Surface integral
    65. Mathematical analysis
    66. Real analysis
    67. Approximation
    68. Proportionality
    69. Less-than sign
    70. Greater-than sign
    71. Congruence relation
    72. Identity function
    73. Inclusion map
    74. Inequality (mathematics)
    75. Inequation
    76. Division (mathematics)
    77. Parallel (geometry)
    FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my edits are not making a point: their edits are bad, reverting them is an improvement (at least on net). Also, I find it a bit annoying that this couldn't wait until after I responded on my talk-page (note that I have not performed any reverts in several hours, despite there being another 50-100 of these edits that are the last edit to their respective page). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these appear to be references to either Wolfram MathWorld or Mathvault. Is there any intrinsic problem with these sites as sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think there is a problem, as I see them often here and there. Even if it were a "bad" source, I'm not sure if it would be OK to revert all edits, especially due to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Mathworld is widely used but mediocre; Mathvault (and Brilliant.org, which they also seem to use) is super low quality, and the way they add them is very spammy. David Eppstein has also been reverting on sight (though I do not mean to suggest he endorses specifically the systematic reverts I've made). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True. For what it's worth, I believe the edits are in good faith, but low quality. More, they are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. Many of the changes are innocuous, neither better nor worse than what was there before, but many more are disimprovements, making the grammar worse, making the mathematics less accurate, or introducing low-quality web sources to articles that are already more carefully sourced to higher-quality publications. In any case the only issue here that is behavioral rather than content is Miaumee's continued pattern of edits beyond their level of competence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The way Miaumee rephrases things (rather than adding useful content) can be seen as infringing MOS:STYLERET; though in some of these diffs (I did not see all) I think the rephrasing actually improved the text. Is there any guideline that supports not using these poor sources (Mathworld and Mathvault)? Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimeedian

    User:Wikimeedian, in this edit posted a highly offensive comment, allegedly as part of a barnstar award, which included the phrase: i liked it better 'back in the day when we would just make fun of the Jewish Nazi prisoners (sorry if part of this may have come off offensive). I have used revision deletion, at the email request of the user who was the recipient, but any admin can confirm the diff. This may have been intended as a joke of some sort, but I do not find it funny, and neither did the recipient. Both of us had distant relatives who were murdered during the Holocaust. I ask that the user be at least admonished, and warned that anything of the sort will result in a prompt block. Perhaps an immediate block is warranted, as Wikimeedian clearly knew this was offensive. I will formally notify Wikimeedian of this thread. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why you didn't just block them. Natureium (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I am generally very reluctant to unilaterally block without previous warnings. So I am asking for opinions here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this is not a new user. They've admitted it's a "fresh start" account and there are things about them that may be familiar to someone. They routinely remove things from their user talk, so it's necessary to look at the history. They demonstrate significant CIR problems in the very little article-space work they've done, so I'm guessing their previous stint here was short-lived. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who they are or used to be, but I'm not playing this game. Indeffed. For the record, I think we're being trolled - they say they're a fresh start or whatever (per AlanM1's link above) but their userpage is trying to make them out as a brand-new user (and yet has that "Methmetics" joke, whatever that's supposed to be). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, while I often disagree with GN in terms of warning/immediate block, in this case I also believe we are being trolled - too many warning signs all going off at once. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption by multiple related accounts at Christian Rowan

    Mostly promotional and/or political spin. At my request, two administrators assisted in bringing this to a more neutral version, but their work is being persistently undone. Page protection and perhaps a range block may be worth exploring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See blocked account 2001:8004:2770:CDAD:7162:DECB:4BE8:FA99 (talk · contribs). Since then, continued disruption by 131.242.101.250 (talk · contribs) and 131.242.101.248 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor keeps recreating article that has been repeatedly deleted.

    Saroha_Rajgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps recreating the same article over and over again. It has already been speedily deleted several times, and he has already been warned multiple times to stop recreating this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I now see that this speedy deletion was declined. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Russian brothers messing around pushing Kremlin agenda calling "Pentagon unreliable source" they have returned after page protection ended

    These two are constantly adding pro-Russian views and removing US State Dept. or Pentagon sources calling them unreliable. One of the users have returned after a page protection ended due to dispute and has made the same exact revert. User:F.Alexsandr and User:Mr.User200. They are hardcore editing russian missile systems and jet fighter articles to make them look superior by using Russian language sources they also remove US sources critical of them saying its probably "fake". These guys dont belong here. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user above argues in bad faith. It is one thing to use Pentagon or state department as a source, However the user above uses opinion articles on NewYourkTimes which cite US Africa Command as an undeniable source. Especially in such important and heavily reliant on sources topics like defence and losses of military equipment he continues to use single "sources" or rather opinion articles unsupported by photo, video, or documentary evidence, which support his point of view, not even trying to diversify them. I have proposed to him several times to move discussion to the talk page, but instead of doing this, this is the second time in a week when he uses Noticeboard to ask to restrict me from editing on Wikipedia. F.Alexsandr (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does not rely on image board logic of photo or video evidence. We have a thing called reliable and unreliable sources, namely the NYT etc. While RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. This is a rule, if you refuse this you are welcome to enjoy a temporary block. And if you continue that will become a permanent block. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. I have never used them and I dont know why you are telling me this. Just because NYT cited USAFRICOM who said that there are 14 russian jets in Lybia does not mean that this should be used in infobox as undeniable statemnt of fact. We know for shure there ARE russian jets in Lybia, but we dont know how many. I proposed to you to move the US claim to a separate section of the article, or to discuss possible settlement in a Talk page, but you have ignored me. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss it, I only responded to give administrator some context. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No you are just sweet talking meaningless words to buy you time so you can edit russian weapon systems to make them look superior. Only a unaware person would discuss anything with a russian troll. dont tell me another word because i am not talking to you. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't make a statement in a noticeboard discussion and then, in effect, "no-contact" them (you can of course say not to ping you etc). Are there diffs of them using depreciated sources as you claim? Currently it sounds rather content-dispute, and thus outside our remit. But obviously there are lots of conduct issues in this area, so I wanted to ask for more specific evidence for your claim and show a conduct basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like this is a content dispute, and additionally the IP needs a block for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's that time of the day again...

    ...for your daily reminder that I am NOT AT ALL PLEASED BY HOW HORRID YOU ALL ARE. It's important that you know this. 185.69.144.244 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=979713119"