Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 420: Line 420:
{{abottom}}
{{abottom}}
*There was nothing snarky about it. What would have helped would have been someone mentioning that there is now an Arbcom case request for desysopping Andrevan: [https://wiki.riteme.site/?oldid=845136161]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
*There was nothing snarky about it. What would have helped would have been someone mentioning that there is now an Arbcom case request for desysopping Andrevan: [https://wiki.riteme.site/?oldid=845136161]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
::Mea culpa, by the time I read to the end of this saga I forgot that at the very beginning it mentioned the Arbcom case. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


==Articles are being targeted by the same sock IPs==
==Articles are being targeted by the same sock IPs==

Revision as of 19:01, 9 June 2018

    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)

    User Elineotto

    User blocked for disruptive editing. Nothing from them since then. Please re-report if further measures become necessary in the future. Swarm ♠ 23:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User_talk:Elineotto#Disruptive_Editing

    User repeatedly wasting editors’ time by recreating a blatant spam article about a horse riding school. Has ignored all polite attempts to collaborate ad nauseam. Suggest reasonable 1-2 week article space block period to encourage the editor to answer talk page notifications - failing that an indef. Edaham (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I salted the one title and left them my standard G11 deletion notice.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I distinctly remember salting that page after deleting it. Pointed at the previous title and everything. Wonder what went wrong. —Cryptic 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a different iteration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    RHaworth salted another title. The persistence is admirable; the lack of communication not so much.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed at least one attempt at using alternate capitalization/spelling to circumvent that. The fact that the user utilized this method is stretching my ability to assume good faith. Edaham (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I laid on a final warning. Though with all those deletions . . . . Won;t be surprised if someone just blocks 'em.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an editor that persistent could be useful if they could be turned from the dark side and used their powers for good. I think a preliminary article-space block is the way to go. See if that gets the editor to liven up on the talk page. Edaham (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edaham, huh? There is no such tool as a namespace block. Either an editor is blocked, which still allows access to their own talk, they're blocked with TP access revoked, or they're not blocked. John from Idegon (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant. Thanks for the clarification. Blocked but not TP revoked. I've never been an admin, nor have I been blocked so the lingo is still coming slowly. Sometimes I think I know what I mean/am doing and then it turns out that I don't. Edaham (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, while there isn't such a thing right now, it is currently under development by the WMF. ansh666 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WikiEditCrunch

    Bad copy-paste move repaired, article redraftified, user blocked indef and is now attempting to negotiate an unblock on their talk page. Any interested users should move their commentary there. Swarm ♠ 17:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    So today User:WikiEditCrunch, in a move that was unwise on several levels, did this. It was copy/pasted from Draft:CAN Capital

    • That is plagiarizing someone else's work as there was no WP:ATTRIBUTION.
    • That was the work of a paid editor, that WikiEditCrunch added to mainspace with no disclosure, violating WP:PAID (the paid editor did disclose at the draft talk page)
    • It was obvious POINTY trolling/stalking, as I had commented extensively on the talk page to try to help the paid editor yesterday: Draft_talk:CAN_Capital#Note. If you look at WikiEditCrunch's contribs you can see that WikiEditCrunch left a comment at my talk page, and their next diff is creating the page.

    In general this person is here to promote companies/products: providing excessive detail about them, removing negative content, and stripping tags when the problems are not resolved.

    • stripping tags without addressing problems: diff, this and this (look at the history section and other bad content there). this stripping was obvious stalking. We have indeffed a paid editor and then their sock, who worked for that firm, and who left all caps messages at my talk page. (see here for the master, then here and here for the sock)
    • removing negative content: this, which was immediately reverted
    • excessive detail: this sort of thing, and this. This is what they were up to last fall when they were around. It wasn't good then, and it is not good now.

    In the little tiff over The Pictet Group, I gave them an edit war warning, and they, treating it like some kind of "badge of shame" rather a notice, gave one to me. Typical newbie, tendentious behavior. At the article they "resolved" the dispute with this embarassingly-bad-for-WP edit, changing "employs around 4200 people" to "employs around/more than 4200 people" (the "more than X" is very typical PR writing that I had changed to "around")

    I will not make a recommendation but am asking folks to look at this person's behavior and editing. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's pretty bad. Either WikiEditCrunch is violating WP:POINT presumably because they lost a dispute with Jytdog, or WikiEditCrunch has a skill deficiency that makes them unsuitable as an editor of encyclopedic articles. Copy/pasting a draft is fixable by deleting the copy, but it is hard to put a good spin on that action given the sequence of events. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty pathetic.I found a good draft somewhere and posted it.I was hoping to work on it soon. WikiEditCrunch 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prior to deeming it "pathetic", did you read the concerns raised? In detail? Are you able to respond to the points specifically as opposed to dismissing them wholesale? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time ([1]) I have witnessed WikiEditCrunch's competency in question. If they are unable to respond to the points raised here, I rarely say this but it is time to show them the doors. Alex Shih (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They've gone to ground. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note I've repaired the copy-paste move (which constitutes a copyvio), and I think the article can be re-draftified without the PROD even being required, but I'm not entirely familiar with the protocol governing that. Anyways, I concur that WikiEditCrunch should be blocked if they do not come up with a more satisfactory response very quickly. Stealing drafts like that is disruptive on many levels. Swarm ♠ 09:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that User:Swarm. I have redraftified it and restored the AfC reviewer's notes -- it is back at Draft:CAN Capital. The draft was in the AfC queue, and it should finish going through the AfC process. WikiEditCrunch is not an AfC reviewer - this was a fourth way that the copy/paste move was unwise. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have done any wrongdoing so be it.I apologize, but this is not the first time the other user has hounded me, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.Also rather than pointing fingers I would like to know how to resolve this issue.

    WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I have blocked the account of WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs) indefinitely after their blatant refusal to answer the concerns raised in this thread instead of continuing to accuse Jytdog of hounding; labeling a notification to this discussion as "spam" ([2]) made it clear to me that this editor is not capable nor intending to contribute constructively to the project, especially when taking the editing history of this account into consideration. Alex Shih (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

    An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

    The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh Talk 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic banned user commenting on topic ban violation on said topic

    My report here concerns whether a comment on the topic of edits on evolutionary biology fall under "race and intelligence, broadly construed". It is my interpretation that it most certainly does. Please see the edit in question:
    Relevant links:

    Thanks, Carl Fredrik talk 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In the context of Mathsci's topic ban, "race and intelligence" refers to the topics related to Race and intelligence (the article): the very controversial issue of whether or not there is a genetic link between human intelligence and race. While there are aspects of evolutionary biology (and evolutionary psychology) that relate to that debate, there's also a lot of evolutionary biology that does not. (That is to say—one cannot discuss Shakespeare without talking about language; one can discuss language without touching on Shakespeare.)
    The AN/I discussion you've linked to, and where Mathsci commented, seems to deal with a topic ban violation by another editor (User:Memills) who was banned from editing topics related to the "men's rights movement". Memills' topic ban violating involved edits to evolutionary psychology relating to rape and "coercive mating".
    I think you're going to have to connect the dots a little more explicitly for us, if we're to find a topic ban violation. As far as I can tell, we have
    • Mathsci is topic-banned from "race and intelligence", which involves aspects of evolutionary psychology.
    • The "Men's rights" topic area also involves aspects of evolutionary psychology.
    • Memills is topic-banned from "men's rights".
    • Mathsci commented (briefly) in an AN/I discussion that found Memills' violated his "men's rights" topic ban.
    • Mathsci therefore violated his topic ban because he commented on Memills' editing, which was in violation of a "men's rights" topic ban, which is related to the topic of evolutionary psychology, which is related to "race and intelligence", and therefore engages Mathsci's topic ban as well.
    That seems tenuous on its face. Is there a more direct connection that you're trying to draw? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edited to strike reference to Mathsci's topic ban because – as pointed out by Johnuniq below – the topic ban was lifted by ArbCom five months ago. I'm leaving the struck-out text in place, because I think it's still worth recording how and why the original report was deeply flawed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Have to agree. I can't see this gaining traction, because you'd have to read "broadly construed" as meaning very very broadly construed. There's a weak link between race and intelligence & MRA, but nothing here seems to be stepping over that link. Nanophosis (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify, the edits related to evolutionary psychology, not biology. Do with this what you wish, several of the edits related to cultural and social factors, see the history of evolutionary psychology. Carl Fredrik talk 00:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CFCF: At this point, I'm rather curious what led you to file this report in the first place. Even if the topic ban had been in force, it's a real stretch. Moreover, you filed it three days after the AN/I thread where the edit was made was closed. Some cursory searches don't bring up instances of you and Mathsci interacting on "race and intelligence" topics (or topic ban enforcement) in the past, though I certainly didn't dig exhaustively. Did something happen in the last couple of days to prompt your interest in enforcing this (lapsed) topic ban? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For me at least, that is not related Beyond My Ken, and I did not act on it. I filed the report because I saw an editor banned from editing on "race and intelligence" who defended another editor blocked previously for editing on "sex and intelligence" in 2015, who now edited evolutionary psychology, a topic I found intricately related and one which does cover the issue of race and intelligence in the article. Memills was specifically prohibited from editing on "sex and intelligence", which is what he was blocked for in 2015 — and I think those: "sex and intelligence" and "race and intelligence" fall under any interpretation of "broadly construed". Many of the edits by Memills are easily interpreted as covering also "race and intelligence".
    The reason this follows the AN/I report is because it was part of that report. I looked into the users editing history upon not understanding the comment and found something problematic. TenOfAllTrades Nothing has happened, I merely found what I perceived to be an infraction. Carl Fredrik talk 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reading more from the link Beyond My Ken gave — I see no reason to pursue this further. I am still under the impression that there is a clear violation here, but that it is minor. Please consider closing the matter without action for now, it feels unlikely to result in anything productive when Mathsci is unable to defend himself. I was not seeking a block, more clarification if this was correct, but now seems a poor time to do so. Carl Fredrik talk 07:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFCF: Fine, but it looks like you missed reading my above post which shows that Mathsci is not topic banned. In the future, please consult WP:RESTRICT before jumping to conclusions. Also, consensus here is that your reaction was over-the-top even if a topic ban were in place. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, CFCF, I would hope you take three things away from this discussion. First, the consensus appears to be that you're overreaching, even with respect to a "broadly interpreted" restriction. Please bear that in mind going forward.
    Second, Mathsci is not under a topic ban in this area. Please don't continue to try to police his behavior with respect to a ban that is no longer in force. (It would help if you acknowledged that you are now aware of this, since as of your last edit you still seem to be under the impression that there is a ban left to enforce.)
    Finally, if you just want to have a discussion about something you consider a de minimus violation of a ban without asking for a block or other administrative action, it would be very helpful to explicitly say so. The default assumption, when one brings a report of a (putative) topic ban violation to AN/I, is that one is presenting an incident report and seeking an administrative action. Another venue, perhaps WP:AN, might also be a better choice if one is simply looking for a clearer understanding of a topic ban's scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JackintheBox

    Reported user blocked. User is currently trying to negotiate unblock on their talk page. Admin eyes there are welcome. Swarm ♠ 23:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I just got off being blocked for 31 hours mostly for hating on Lights Down Low (MAX song) and started reverting all of the reverts of my (mostly) helpful edits from this user and he keeps on reverting them like a bot no matter what i tell him or how many times i revert him and he doesn't even bother looking at the edit itself or my description. Is anyone willing to help me with this troublesome user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.66.109 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the update into your continued disruption immediately after your block, especially the edit summaries in the edits you made as soon as your block was up. Blocked for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @RickinBaltimore: And thank you. —JackintheBox • TALK 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a revert from Widr that says the IP was correct and cautioning against uncautious reverts.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, JackintheBox was actually quite clearly wrong with those reverts on Unforgettable (French Montana song) today. The IP's edits were even supported by the reference. The edits on Zapotec civilization were arguably right by the IP user as well as they're putting in c. in front of the date for circa instead of the actually definitive BC date for which we don't have an exact year. Canterbury Tail talk 17:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the obviously wrong precision, and the claim that the May citation backed up June data, are hoaxes. When people remove hoaxes, we thank them: we don't block them. And when people add hoaxes, we block them with firm reminders that further hoaxing will lead to longer blocks. IP unblocked; account blocked. Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why exactly did the IP deserve to be unblocked? Even setting aside those edit summaries, I see 4 reversions on Unforgettable (French Montana song) within a single hour. Grandpallama (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because JackintheBox's reversions of their edits are considered vandalism and disruptive editing? Canterbury Tail talk 13:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's one thing if you make a typo or you misunderstand something, but if you repeatedly add false information to articles (in this case, you claim that a May 2018 source provides information about something in June 2018), you're vandalising the article. We praise vandal-fighters; we don't block them, and if they get blocked by mistake or misunderstanding, we unblock them. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems JackintheBox decided they didn't like the IP editors edits and made a determination to revert all of their edits blindly. That's not on. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I see JackintheBox's reverts more as overeager mistakes than vandalism. I do think they need to be more careful, but I do not see their actions as meaning to purposefully harm the project. Their block appears a bit over the top as well; was it determined that they would continue with their reverts after being shown the error of their ways? Tiderolls 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the IP just came off a block for completely vandalizing an article, I think characterizing him/her as a "vandal-fighter" is amazingly disingenuous, and their edit summaries are appalling and completely in line with edit-warring. Everything written in response to my inquiry explained the reasoning behind blocking JackintheBox, but it in no way justified the unblocking of the IP, who probably shouldn't be doing any editing for a while, again, either; that seems like an over-hasty and ill-considered unblocking to me. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    JackintheBox 's reverts were ill-considered. The IP's reverts were correct in this instance. And it's entirely possible that the current editor using the IP is not the problematic one from before. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the initial complaint, the IP editor confirms he/she is the same person. And again, JackintheBox's edits justify blocking JackintheBox, but treating the IP's edits as virtuous when the summaries tell JackintheBox to "fuck off" and call JackintheBox an "asshole" is, as I said, amazingly disingenuous. The fact that JackintheBox was wrong doesn't immediately invalidate bad behavior by the IP. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Roland Baines hoax returns

    See Roland Baines. Roland Atwood Baines, RJCola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DFCola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), PWCola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#Removal of Speedy template.

    Appears to be back as ImTireOfHogies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MrCouncilofTrent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), FilbertWilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and JohnnyBoyMullins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also PWBookshelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I just checkuser blocked a whack of the accounts:
    Let me know if I missed anything.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked but WilsonDirtbike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sleepers attached to that account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And FWdeCoffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And PWTea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    PLEASE could sonmeone take this up? There are more socks coming thick and fast, and I am getting rather dispirited that I get personal attacks from them and they can merrily carry on vandalising and creating yet more socks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP accusing everyone of bias, malfeasance, skullduggery. Will not drop stick

    1. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this addition to an article, and was reverted twice by SounderBruce, and again by SarekOfVulcan. SarekOfVulcan posted a {{Uw-biog2}} warning.
    2. The IP then kicked off this discussion. IP 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 accused them "a serious violation of WP:BRD", and of "tag teaming". Sarek pointed out the reasons for removing the edit, and Mjroots and myself gave additional explanations. Primarily WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:BLP1E, and the fact that the addition was not cited at all.
    3. In spite of the detailed reasoning given, the IP claimed no justifications for the reverts were given. The IP accused me of "threatening" them. Sarek suggested they read WP:IDHT. The IP denied the reasoning given by the three others, and I replied with an even longer and more detailed attempt to explain. The IP denied all of this reasoning again, and accusing everyone of bias.
    4. No other editor has expressed support for the IP's position.
    5. Rather than waste any more time beating this dead horse, I marked the discussion closed and posted on their talk page that they should proably drop it, or else follow one of the suggested actions at WP:Dispute resolution. They accused me of trying to "intimidate" them. The IP then opened a new discussion on the article talk page, denying consensus is against them, accusing all of NPOV violations, accusing them of not explaining their reverts, accusing them of edit warring, and trying "to hide behind their tricks".
    6. Meanwhile over at Talk:Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, where I haven't followed closely, 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 has cast numerous aspersions and was warned repeatedly to stop making personal attacks.

    So there. It's your basic WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:IDHT. Probably a temporary or indef block is in order. Reason has not worked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • So then what do admins have to do. Are we supposed to block a user for using article talk pages? That's what they are supposed to do. So long as they aren't currently being disruptive to article text, I'm disinclined to do anything at all. Unless and until this becomes a problem for readers, let him say his piece. If consensus doesn't agree with him, and if he also doesn't edit against consensus, then I feel no need for admins to intervene at all. --Jayron32 03:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, all those polices about behavior towards other editors, aren't a thing any more? All that matters is what happens in the article namespace? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one do not enjoy being insulted by users like this, and would consider the user's behavior to be disruptive even if confined to a talk page, considering he chose to call me out by name based on a POV-motivated misunderstanding of how the editing process works. I have been editing for almost a decade and don't appreciate this being permitted without consequences. So far the user has also shown a disregard towards policy even when warned multiple times. It might be time for the "stick" now to get the point across.Legitimus (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting choice of word ... "malfeasance". I was accused of that exact same thing a little over a year ago. I wish I could find the exact diff with that word in it, but not able to readily. Might have been redacted somewhere, as much of this IP-hopper's edits were. But there was This talk page threat. A big thing on RFPP Texas Revolution. A bunch of other edits hither and yon. Bottom line, it was a SPI. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I could extensively address the many misrepresentations by Dennis Bratland which he made above, and elsewhere, but I am quite doubtful that he will be appropriately punished for what he did, and continues to do. Tell me why I should bother. I haven't been actually requested to participate. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go with Psl85 again

    Range blocked. Swarm ♠ 17:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Psl85 is back at again, once again evading his block logged out through this IP geolocated to Sweden. Some hours later after I reported him, he added this enclosed HTML comment on the top of the section telling that you do not sign your comments with 4 tildes ([5]). I removed the comment and moved Psl85's remaining comments to other users section, which basically states he'll continue to revert vandalism ([6]), without even answering the question why he have evaded the block in the first place. Just to show that this user is clearly trolling and that he should promptly be blocked (and the whole range as well, I only listed the range since it has been blocked before by Bbb23). theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, no, no, please do not block the ip range, and I want to continue to revert vandalism, and I want to not sock again, and I DO NOT trolling, only the IP address currently editing from and not the whole range, please only block current IP I editing from? 46.227.72.88 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Psl85, you know perfectly well that you aren't allowed to edit while your account is blocked. By editing from an IP address, you are evading your block. I'm going to go block the range now. --Yamla (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lobbying for article on Pavle Stanimirović, with persistent addition of poorly written and unsourced content

    Blocked by Swarm Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At AIV, I requested this account be blocked a week ago. The disruption persisted, so I'm bringing this here. See [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]. And I'm being selective--I'm not sure that the account has ever provided a source for their edits, despite numerous warnings. I'm also wondering about this relationship, with an account by the self-professed Mr. Stanimirović [20]; [21]. So there's COI all over this, too. At some point, a combination of disruptive attributes, including competence issues here, reaches a tipping point. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Protected, re-report if needed. Swarm ♠ 01:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The pages 2018 Indian Premier League, Template:2018 IPL match 58 and Template:2018 IPL match 59 are repeatedly disrupted by edits from related IPs. The edits are completely against the conventions and principles of the project and hence various members have overturned the edits but to no avail as the disruption still persists. I request for an appropriate page protection and some relevant action against these IPs causing disruptive edits. Thank you. Cricket246 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I went and semi'd these based on the reversion of this post here by an IP. Feel free to reverse or change if I erred.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mr KEBAB and User:Kbb2

    All good. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

    I wasn't sure weather to raise this concern or not, but I thought I point out that Mr Kebab is currently banned and kbb2 is also Mr Kebab who says he editing on kbb2 because he forgot his password! Sounds a bit too convenient to me to say you lost your password to a banned account. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Govvy: See [22]. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kbb2: Well I didn't know about that, I can only go by what I see and having two accounts like that looked suspicious to me and that fact that your first account was banned raise a red-flag to me, that's why I posted here. Govvy (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT

    @Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

    A sample of some of his recent changes: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

    The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [33][34][35][36]and most recently[37]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

    The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

    - Nick Thorne talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarwanam Theatre Group

    Some ip addresses are adding false fact in the article Sarwanam Theatre Group multiple times, so please request you to protect the article from the edits through ip address. Nirjal stha (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like IP CD63 got in before me :) Curdle (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleaned it up using material from an old revision and done some revision deletion. All done; will watch-list for a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:25DE:7B4A:164F:567F (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evolution2k8

    Not a serious complaint worthy of sanctions. Let's close before this user gets tempted to break his mainspace record. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Evolution2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned since 2014 about the proper use of endash when editing but he persists. He also seems to have never used his talk page, completely ignoring WP:Communication is required. It is becoming rather disruptive. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, 65,000 edits and none off main space. Nevertheless, this is what gnomes are for. If there is nothing more serious I don't think it merits any action. In fact this report seems frivolous, and since endashes can take much much longer to write it seems quite suited for automated fixing. I for example have made 29 edits to Categories, because I neither understand them or appreciate them — I don't think this is really a problem. Much like how those who care about categories can work on them — those who care about endashes can fix them, so as long as Evolution2k8 isn't reversing the fixes this seems WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik talk 16:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been times where he reverses the fixes. I will have to look back and see if I can find any diffs of this happening. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this diff. And countless others. Though I will admit this was a while back. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is more pointless than pointy? If there is anything currently going on with them reverting, maybe. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    65,000 edits to articles and none to any other name space is truly amazing. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thin ice cracks within the week

    Realphi was just unblocked Monday after 6 unblock requests, and said:

    • I now understand that I should not indulge in Edit Wars
    He currently has warnings for edit warring on 2 different pages today

    Dlohcierekim gave the following conditions:

    • Please always use edit summaries
    He has made 20 edits to Skandha (disambiguation). 5/20 have edit summaries. Similar record on Religion.

    I don't think he's technically violated 3RR, but he clearly doesn't care about avoiding the reasons he was blocked. Natureium (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would wonder if a topic ban from religion would give us a chance to tell if this is a problem with the editor in general or just with this topic. That they apparently have continued in the behavior that lead to their block could suggest the problem lies with them, but as all of their edits so far fall into the topic of religion we don't really have anything to confirm that it's not the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody Hell. Reblocked for a week. Feel free to unblock or change length of block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to unblock unless they provide a good indication that they'll try only editing some other topic long enough to show that their general ability is not the problem (just the specific ability to handle religious pages), or a formal topic ban passes here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock was a last chance. It will take very strong persuasion for me to not make this an indef block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he made any positive contributions? I'm not feeling like going through 800 contribs because it would certainly be well buried, but judging from his talk page, I would assume the answer is no. Natureium (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated changes/edit war without any consensus

    Just another waste of time, courtesy of MiddayExpress. Carry on! Swarm ♠ 09:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This relates to Somaliland, a self-declared state internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia. Editor User:EELagoon changes locations in articles from Somaliland to Somalia. For example, Borama is a city in Somaliland (although there have been attempts to change that article by others too in the past), and he has changed Borama Airport from Somaliland to Somalia. I have explained on the talk page that Borama Airport is not the place to dispute this as a debate on the recognition of Somaliland is a much bigger issue. He has ignored my advice not sought any higher-level consensus. Upon looking at his talk page, I see a history of edit-warring on this issue in many articles. I considered turing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Somaliland but that appears to be inactive. MB 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I merely reverted the content to cite the sources. You weren't interested to any discussion on the talk page so due to a lack of activity I reverted the content. The Borama article has also been changed from Somaliland to Somalia, which is what it's internationally recognised as. EELagoon (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Borama has not been changed; the first sentence and the infobox say it is in Somaliland. MB 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the first edit I made to Borama. As you can see it has been changed. EELagoon (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the latest edit as it stands now. EELagoon (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above response is hard to comprehend. The edit linked above (Somaliland -> Somalia) was reverted, and the second link showing the current version of the article confirms it currently says Somaliland. This further reinforces my point - if consensus at Borama is that Somaliland is correct, then the same must apply to Borama Airport. MB 22:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Somaliland is also not a member of WP:Africa. Borama Airport and all articles with Somaliland are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Somalia. EELagoon (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that editor has been warned here that they would be blocked if they changed Somaliland to Somalia again on any article without reaching consensus on a talk page. MB 19:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that it says "... if they revert again on any article related to Somalia or Somaliland without first making a good-faith effort on the talk page to reach consensus for their proposed change." Here's the discussion and here's me contacting you on your talk page. EELagoon (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know what I don't see? Consensus. Stop reverting it. You don't have consensus. Going to the talk page once does not count as a good faith effort to reach consensus. You are edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked to an initial discussion, not the entire thread that shows you did not reach consensus, did not request other opinions or seek other avenues of resolution. You don't seem to understand that arguing about this on this article is pointless when the issue is much bigger. MB
    This isn't a discussion of Somaliland v. Somalia but edits being true to the references which they aren't in your edits. I already talked about that in the talk page but you did not reply. The first one has even manipulated. You don't want to discuss the content on the page which I was told I was supposed to do with other editors. EELagoon (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. USE THE TALK PAGE TO GET CONSENSUS BEFORE MAKING YOUR EDIT. IF YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH PEOPLE THEN LOOK TO PROJECT PAGES OR START AN RFC. You do NOT get to just make your edits if you don't like the arguments someone else is making. Period. --Tarage (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually very straightforward. On 20 May you were told that you would be blocked if you changed 'Somalia' to 'Somaliland' (or vice versa) in the text or infobox of an article unless this has been proposed first on Talk and a reasonable time has passed. You proposed it on Talk and did not gain consensus. You then changed the article anyway. I could block you at this point, but since "consensus" was not part of the original instruction, I will make it clear now - you will not change "Somaliland" to "Somalia" without a talkpage discussion that gains consensus for such a change, otherwise you will be blocked. I hope this is clear. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How could you block me now? I was told to propose it in the discussion page, as you say I had and reasonable time passed. What do you regard as reasonable time? EELagoon (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't blocked you now, because the original remedy didn't mention getting consensus (it probably should have done, even though it's completely obvious that you should gain consensus for any contentious change). This remedy does. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you said you "could" block me so I'm asking you under which pretext are you able to block me now since I did as I was bid and what constitutes reasonable time? EELagoon (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Black Kite needs to be looking very hard for a pretext, when a regular reason (like POV warring, disruptive editing, etc.) will do. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I could block you simply for edit-warring, most recently on Adal Sultanate and Borama Airport, especially as you reverted yet again on the latter article after this report had been opened (in fact, if I'd noticed that before I posted the above comment, I would indeed have blocked you). Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why what Black Kite has written is so hard to understand. It should be implicit that one gains consensus in a discussion for an edit that is contentious rather than just posting and making the edit., but I guess if you want to adopt a loophole mentality, clarity must be brought forth. You have now been told what you should have understood. I think that's clear enough. And I find this searching for loopholes and argumentativeness disruptive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the reversal of Adal Sultanate constitute a ban? It's a good faith reversal cause entire sections which are sourced are being removed? I'm actually very interested in knowing what constitutes 'reasonable time', you haven't answered that so I'm really confused about that because I opened up the proposal on the talk page and what I considered reasonable time passed before I reverted the Borama Airport article. EELagoon (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna ask you a real simple question here. What do you think 'getting consensus' means here on Wikipedia? --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are derailing my questions. The fact that my edits on Adal Sultanate is considered edit warring and thus blockable is worrying for me. EELagoon (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT a derailment. Answer my question. What does 'getting consensus' mean to you? --Tarage (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the editor has a problem understanding the english language. I have repeatedly asked him/her to read the references but to no avail. Saturnet (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am concerned if they don't answer the question they should be blocked for CIR issues. We've wasted enough time on this. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for clarification on a different matter. The Adal Sultanate page has been protected due to disruptive editing. I'm trying to understand how my actions on there warrant the threat of a block. EELagoon (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be misunderstanding. My question DIRECTLY relates to your actions. As I have said numerous times, you have to get CONSENSUS before you make edits like that. Going to the talk page and deciding that everyone is wrong and then making the edit anyway IS EDIT WARRING. Since this concept seems to be impossible for you to grasp, I do think you need to be blocked for CIR issues. If you can answer my question I'd be willing to relent on this, but until you do, you are nothing but a waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check the edit history merely reverted it to the "stable version", isn't that exactly the point here, if you want to make bold changes you have to seek consensus? That's why I'm very confused. You should definitely help me. EELagoon (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't reverting back to a 'stable' version, you were reverting back to YOUR version. The version you did not have consensus for. If you make bold changes and get reverted, then you MUST get not only seek but GET consensus. Quite honestly, if this is confusing you this much, perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And then the asshat got blocked as a sock. Whatever. Nothing of value was lost. --Tarage (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is real simple. Everyone in Somalia agrees thst the airport in Somaliland is in that state. Where there is some disagreement is if Somaliland is part of Somalia or not. So keep things simple and use Somaliland as the location: which everyone agrees too. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. Similar to Kosovo; everyone agrees on what Kosovo's boundaries are, so as long as coordinates can be established for something, its location in Kosovo or out of Kosovo isn't disputable. What's disputable is whether to consider it an independent state or part of Serbia. Same here: either something's in the independent state of Somaliland, or it's in the part of Somalia called Somaliland, but a location with coordinates in this region is definitely in a place called "Somaliland". Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor who is combative against US/North American editors back again

    I was talking to an IP editor when I was informed by CJinoz about this incident. The facts of the matter are very similar. See this section of my talk page and recent diffs here, here and here. Aspening (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Aspening for posting here, I have also reported at SPI ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  22:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to add, but the IP this time is 199.101.61.24. Aspening (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It just gets weirder. A new editor Kbeovmbg (talk · contribs) pops out of the blue with a comment on the original IP's talk page Listen YAH, I know your zealous but harness that into being a Wiki fembot and drive off the real bad guys from the site: THE GG ers . signed KEVIN GORMAN (the Gormfriends back and he's better than ever) [39]. The only other edit that user has made is creating this page User:Kbeovmbg/KevinGormansRFACriteria where, if I'm not mistaken, they are impersonating a former administrator who is now deceased? Can anyone make sense of this? ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  02:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No I'm not against U.S. North American editors, my name is Andrew Darbenyan, and I am a Kenyan-Armenian who moved to North America in May of this year. I'm not sure who you are referring to but I am not against U.S. and North American editors. Thanks. 199.101.61.24 (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I took a look at the IP's contributinos, and appart from Kim Esty, we have nothing in common. I reverted the edit claiming that she is Canadian because I found a source at Discogs saying she is from Lymington. I'm a long time fan of Eurodance music, and happened upon the article from curiosity. Looks to me like this guy is interested in nationality, while I am more interested in culture of the music. Hope that helps. 199.101.61.24 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @EEng: Cards84664 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cards84664: You rang? EEng 03:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. These edits appeared so sporadic and bizarre I was convinced you were involved in some way. Cards84664 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but WTF? EEng 03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This sock from the above section may provide context to the sporadic and bizarre joke I am trying to convey. Cards84664 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You speak in riddles, but don't worry, I'm not stressed about it. EEng 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reblocked for a month, for what are obvious reasons. Swarm ♠ 02:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @331dot: To be clear, this is a WP:DUCK situation. I assure you there is no misunderstanding. User is exhibiting the exact same strange fixation on an outspoken grudge against Americans, which has already led to at least two previous blocks, goes into unnecessary personal detail about their life and cultural background, and as soon as they’re confronted about their obvious bias against and fixation on Americans, they flip and claim they have no problem with Americans. It’s literally identical, with the only difference being the personal details themselves, they’re obviously trying to deceive in this regard. Not to mention the IP geolocates to the same address, which they claim is due to them living in an apartment building. LOL. Hell of a coincidence. Swarm ♠ 09:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @331dot: No, seriously though, we KNOW. There’s no need to humor their act any further. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please keep an eye on this IP Address: 2001:8003:613A:4100:68C3:40FE:FDB:B26C

    Stale. Swarm ♠ 02:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, can someone please keep an eye on this IP Address: 2001:8003:613A:4100:68C3:40FE:FDB:B26C (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:613A:4100:68C3:40FE:FDB:B26C) it vandalized a page I very much care about https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Proserpine,_Queensland I am unable to leave them a message as they are not a registered user. I would consider blocking them since the only edits they have made so far is to vandalize and not contribute in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greditdesu (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Legal threat posted on my talk page

    Handled. Thanks 331! Swarm ♠ 02:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See this diff. User Liana Rush posted a legal threat on my talk page after I reverted an edit they made deleting sourced information on the article Paul Miller (Canadian politician). Admin attention is needed, but in the meantime should I revert the threat? Aspening (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, their edit history shows multiple large deletions from that page that have been quickly reverted by patrols. They are claiming that information in the article is defamatory and saying they "have contacted wiki to have it deleted." Aspening (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user and will remove the threat. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    May I request eyes on Z75SG61Ilunqpdb please?

    I'm a bit lost on this one. Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk · contribs) has only been editing since April but has already amasseda swathe of contributions. Some are helpful, but then there are others, like this citespam which alerted me to their behaviour in the first place. Their version of "discussing" has meant dumping even more links at the talk page and not responding to my explanation of why I had reverted their edits, I then tried to restore a stable version with the common name at the time the title was held and with an appropriate reference [40] and again was reverted [41]. The issue isn't confined to that page, see the dump of links at Bettie Page and Ted Kennedy. I've tried a belated welcome on their talk page, I've tried pointing them towards various policies & guidelines, but they don't seem to take the hint. I also pointed out that their username is confusing which devolved into this discussion. I'm not sure how to interpret this but I'm certainly not hiding my change of username, it's clearly listed on my user page. As I said on their talk page, I don't think me trying to discuss with them further will be helpful so I would appreciate some fresh eyes on it. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have some concerns about this user's attitude and ability to communicate effectively. The mass introduction of citespam in articles and on talk pages is outright disruptive, IMO. I have invited them to respond to these issues here. Swarm ♠ 02:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review needed

    This discussion was closed. The closure can be reverted if something very important needs to be added, or if it was out of process. Snarky commentary, however justified, does not qualify. The bad block was removed; let's move on. Vanamonde (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unblocked by NeilN. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Andrevan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

    I can’t believe I am posting this. As some of you may know Andrevan is currently the subject of a just-accepted arbitration case, and was recently topic banned from editing articles about Donald Trump, and briefly blocked for violating that ban. So now, while an investigation into their suitability to retain advanced permissions is underway, this happened:

    Dewythiel made a number of edits to the article Freedom Caucus on June 6th and 7th regarding whether or not they are a “far right” organization.
    • Each of their edits were reverted by other users, both sides were pretty clearly edit warring but as Dewythiel has no ally they were making more actual edits/reverts
    • On the 7th, they received a standard DS notice and on the 8th an editwarring warning[42]
    • They made no edits at all since receiving the DS notice on the 7th
    • On the 8th, Andrevan reverts their last edit [43] (thus involving themselves editorially in the dispute) one minute after issuing a block for edit warring
    • The account they blocked was a new user, who likely never heard of DS before yesterday, and Andrevan failed to use a standard block template that would let them know how to appeal.

    I find this disgraceful and would undo it myself but I suppose the Arbcom case makes me involved ina dispute with Andrevan so I’d like an uninvolved admin to have a a look. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the user for standard WP:3RR violation. 4 reverts is a bright line violation. Andrevan@ 01:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Dewythiel was reverting to enforce this consensus Talk:Freedom_Caucus#RFC:_far-right and are exempt from blocking. Bad block. – Lionel(talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you fucking kidding me? I'm really getting tired of this double jeopardy bullshit. I was also warned, made no edits, then blocked exactly like this. It comes as absolutely no surprise that this is Andrevan's block. I suggest that this be overturned. Bright line or not, you don't warn an editor then DAYS LATER block them for the SAME THING. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is a policy which has very few exceptions, it is not the same as discretionary 1RR or DS. A new user who makes 4 reverts may be blocked for 24 hours. Andrevan@ 01:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen some oblivious admins but you take the cake. Did you take time to notice that you yourself were reverted? --Tarage (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My revert was procedural and not editorial. I did not even look at the content. 3RR is a bright line for a reason. Andrevan@ 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you know what? This might be it. This might be worth removing your bit for. Congratulations, you played yourself. --Tarage (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And one of those exceptions is "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." – Lionel(talk) 01:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block as well as a violation of Andrevan's three month topic ban, an arbitration enforcement sanction forbidding him to "edit any page related to Donald Trump, broadly construed". [44]. Freedom Caucus is politics, but also has 20 instances of the use of Donald Trump's name within the content. Incredible. Is this an example of wiki-editor suicide by administrator? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block and vio of topic ban – Lionel(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block and support topic ban block - AHAHAHAHA fucking HILARIOUS. Yes. Please, block them. I honestly can't believe that not only was this a bad block but a topic ban violation as well! Superb way to start the weekend. --Tarage (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very bad block a series of consecutive edits involving reverts only count once for 3RR purposes, so there was not a bright-line 3RR violation. Also the edits were over 24 hours old, and the new user had been warned. Whether or not this new user who immediately jumped into making controversial edits on American Politics topics will turn out to be a constructive editor is not relevant. I'm not convinced that it's a topic-ban violation, but it was a very bad idea. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lionelt: "Enforcing consensus" isn't a 3RR exemption. @Beeblebrox: Standard block templates are not required or even encouraged by WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It is wrong to imply sort of wrongdoing for that reason. Information on appealing blocks is clearly provided by the system notice. That said, @Andrevan: WP:3RR is clear. A "series of consecutive edits" counts as one revert. This editor hit the 3RR limit, but didn't breach the brightline. Therefore your block for a 'standard 3RR violation' is objectively wrong. As it seems this was straightforward policy misunderstanding, I'll go ahead and unblock. Swarm ♠ 01:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already taken care of by NeilN. Thanks! Swarm ♠ 01:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What a mess. Dewythiel unblocked - they didn't violate WP:3RR. Andrevan blocked for violating topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 01:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    We're about to find out. If this isn't enough I don't know what is... --Tarage (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I sense the token "retired for good" template, before the Arbcom circus rolls into town. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently Trump Derangement Syndrome is contagious and fatal. --2600:8800:1300:16E:5852:24F4:4BDD:31B8 (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They were making poor decisions at least as far back as 2014, when nobody seriously believed Trump would ever be president. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • There was nothing snarky about it. What would have helped would have been someone mentioning that there is now an Arbcom case request for desysopping Andrevan: [45]. EEng 18:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea culpa, by the time I read to the end of this saga I forgot that at the very beginning it mentioned the Arbcom case. EEng 19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles are being targeted by the same sock IPs

    The following have ongoing socking issues and in every case the IP spams the page with various excessive links. I have provided the article link and history for reference:

    Is there a way to deal with all of these IP socks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you filed a report at WP:SPI? Aspening (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn't for the different subject matter which doesn't appear to show an overlap, I'd say the behaviour seems like a peculiarly similar case to #May I request eyes on Z75SG61Ilunqpdb please? above. And from what I can see, all since my earlier ANI report, and after the time the above user stopped editing. @Swarm: do you notice a similarity? Or am I drawing too long a bow? (feel free to tell me I'm nuts) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    POV issues with IP editor

    Despite being warned multiple times, 27.4.34.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring and introducing non-NPOV content to Muhammad of Ghor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and has deleted references, blanked sections, and changed links. See 1, 2, 3, 4. They have made similar edits to other articles as well. Aspening (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=845148740"