User talk:Sergecross73

Vandalism part 34

Serge's 34th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is one citation for the change I made: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starset/comments/1cixg4m/metalcore_starset_album/. There are multiple more citations. It is not vandalism. Do you have expertise in this band or music or why was this reversed? There was no justification. 173.59.8.222 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reddit posts are not usable sources on Wikipedia per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, based on the editing patterns, I'm wondering if @125.160.112.170 might actually be blocked editor @JustYourImaginaryGuy. Not sure how to report this; I noticed you dealt with the latter editor before. RegalZ8790 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've blocked. Feel free to report incidents like this to me, and if I agree, I'll issue blocks or page protection as needed. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I figured this was okay, just wanted confirmation. Anyway, he's at it again, now with @125.160.115.29... RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Back for another round as @125.160.113.185. What can be done with an individual who has no intentions of respecting Wikipedia and its community? RegalZ8790 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone else hit him with a WP:RANGEBLOCK. Hopefully that helps. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, This user keeps reverting my changes saying they are vandalism. This IP traces back to the subject of the edits who has been using wikipedia to promote his own name, articles, and videos. He doesn't cite his work, he simply pastes it into other articles.

He has done this on the USNVGT page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_vs_Snakeand several others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/35.135.179.48

Surely this is against the terms. Thank you for looking into this. datagod (talk) 🍁 22:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding/restoring info without a source is definitely against policy. I don't know enough about these subjects to know who is correct in some of the disputes, nor am I following the accusations of self-promotion, but I'll warn them about the sourcing issues. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• KikanshaThomas1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be a WP:CIR case. Almost all of their edits in the past month, let alone nearly all edits in general, have been reverted. Typically adds unsourced or completely untrue information to articles, such as listing Takahiro Sakurai as Masahiro Sakurai's child with no evidence other than last name. Their most recent edit was editing the user page of a person who was blocked four months ago. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm suspecting that they actually are that blocked user User:Taqi Inalessa Sany, as they refer to themselves as Taqi. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked. I agree, I'm pretty sure it's block evasion, but even the disruptive editing alone is enough for a block. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Colmedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Two AIV ANI posts were made about this single purpose editor who WP:OWNs Mac Tonight and Talk:Mac Tonight. He has an editor group listed at User:HectorHawk9, and is a publisher on that subject.[1] He uses WP:ASPERSIONS and edit wars, to dominate anybody who deletes his mountains of WP:FANCRUFT or who tries to assert any Wikipedia policy. He explicitly combats the idea that an encyclopedia is WP:NOT a fan site or a WP:TRIVIA weblog. It's all on the talk page for the user account and the article. — Smuckola(talk) 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  They've only made like 1 edit in 3 weeks, and there's very little in the way of talk page discussions within the last month. And as far as I can tell, nothing really came of the AIV/ANI discussions? And it doesn't particularly look like anyone's doing very much to explain to them what they're doing wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are obviously a lot of discussions there as I said, and on several other users' talk pages that he hounded them at, and they quit apparently because this guy's bullying obliterated the community's collective efforts so he declared his war a victory. Everybody tried to explain everything in plain sight, right there, as I said. Anyway, I engaged even harder because admins failed to do anything, and I guess it worked for now FYI. Yeah the main response at ANI was a quite typical flood from the peanut gallery, barking about how Wikipedia actually has no rules whatsoever. — Smuckola(talk) 00:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm short on time (I slept in and gotta run to work crap crap crap) but can you look into Ariaslaga a little for me? Most definitely a WP:NOTHERE case. Panini! • 🥪 13:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you took any amount of time to address this on what basically amounts to an unpaid hobby rather than ensure you aren’t late to your paid job, you clearly have your priorities straight. Ariaslaga (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend defending yourself in a much more constructive manner very quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked. Returning customer. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Figured it was warranted but didn't have time to look into it yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  And I'll assure you that I wasn't late, but I needed at least some time to drink coffee and watch my morning show before going to work. If I don't have that it ruins my day lol. Thanks ferret! Panini! • 🥪 01:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• We Preform, We Rewrite the Norm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be WP:CIR. Restoring articles that were redirects in abysmal quality. Recently restored Count Bleck just by copy-pasting the text from the Mario Wiki. Responded to a talk page warning with "amogus". --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @ThomasO1989 Evading two blocks. CU confirmed and tagged. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Would you mind deleting this revision they added since it's a copy-vio? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Saturnpilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a wordless, single-purpose, WP:MEATBOT editor. His only edits are all bare URLs about airports, including mass destruction of existing citation formatting, and ignoring years of warnings. I placed some of the worst examples at the bottom of Years' Warnings Mountain, aka his Talk page. Sadly I assume the only possible response could be elicited by a block. Thank you so much for any kind attention. — Smuckola(talk) 00:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Most of their talk page seems to be about using bare urls. That's not a blockable offense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is also incorrect, I have never blocked an editor for using bare urls before. I wouldn't, because it's not a blockable offense. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hey Serge, just chiming in about this since I’m the guy leaving most of the warnings on Saturnpilot (talk · contribs)’s page. Most of the warnings were for Bare URL’s, which yes isn’t a policy so it isn’t blockable. Since they do source their edits, I do believe they are editing in good faith. The main issue is the lack of communication and failure to acknowledge their warnings. They have, and still occasionally edit with unsourced content. Most recently I warned them of an unsourced edit in June: [2]. If you go through their talk page, you’ll see they have a history of editing unsourced. Several of their edits also fail to meet WP:RS, such as this one which is WP:UGC (Twitter link): [3]. After a few months, the user will usually clean up their talk page by deleting my warnings, seen here: [4], here: [5], and here, as examples: [6]. Thing is, WP:OWNTALK states that deleting a talk page usually means you’ve read the messages, but the user continues their editing patterns. They don’t use edit summaries, either, and I believe the user hasn’t used one in years (user has been on Wikipedia since 2013 and has less than 3% of their edits with summaries: [7]). With all that said, I believe the failure to communicate, failure to respond to talk page messages, and failure to use edit summaries and communicate with anyone else is a WP:CIR issue, especially for an editor that has consistently edited Wikipedia for over a decade at this point. WP:CIR states “the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus” which they repeatedly have failed to do, and “the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles” as many of their edits still don’t use reliable sources. All in all, I’m not sure if this is enough for any action to be taken, and again I do believe they are editing in good faith, but I did want to further explain about the user than what was posted above. Sorry for any inconvenience! VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• 86.43.181.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adding unsourced developer credits to many different articles, sometimes undoing reverts of their edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• 86.44.23.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Looks like the above user, a block evader. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, already had my suspicions. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi! Can you help block 2601:840:4681:6E8A:7957:5652:EC80:E62C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Likely a sockpuppet account of Meena Kurian (talk · contribs), which was banned for vandalizing Planet Zoo and various real-life zoo articles. OceanHok (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, when I read this I only had a brief amount of time, and simply protected the main page. I meant to circle back. That said, it looks like they've stopped, so we're probably good until/if they start up again. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• 2A01:827:35D3:E701:711E:4928:AF3E:67AA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adding unsourced "alternate" names to articles on the Mario cartoon series. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• 72.82.231.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A few of us have been dealing with this anonymous IP. They started out a few months ago making a number of bizarre/sloppy edits, such as at Songs for the Mama That Tried (where the infobox title was changed, a song was removed from the track listing, etc.), or at Hey Jude/Hey Bing! (where a sourced quotation was rewritten, etc.). Then they settled into a pattern of making the same bot-like edit of changing "Side one" and "Side two" to "Side One" and "Side Two" on dozens of album pages, even though that's not how the MOS lays it out. Many of these have been reverted/fixed, but not all of them. Both Justin (Koavf) and myself have approached them in good faith on their talk page and have received no response. I thought this should be brought to your attention. Thanks!—The Keymaster (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I gave them a final warning. Let me know if they persist, and I can block/protect pages as needed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, Serge. Unfortunately, this guy went right back to his old behavior after his temporary block expired.— The Keymaster (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked again. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 11:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• 47.223.111.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Looks like we've got another one. This IP continually makes unsourced genre changes (and the same minor spacing changes) to album pages, despite them being reverted. Also harassed Binksternet about it on his talk page and outed himself in that thread by posting under two different IPs. Multiple talk page warnings issued to both IPs. See here and here.—The Keymaster (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  This editor seems to have resumed some of their problematic behavior after the block expired, with at least a few of their recent edits having been reverted. Looks like Binksternet left another warning, to which they didn't reply (again).— The Keymaster (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• 108.41.169.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hi Serge, I've gone back and forth several times the past few months with this IP over unsourced content. Recently in this edit: [8] they called me a fascist (?), P.O.S., and used inappropriate language for reverting unsourced content which I'm thinking breaks WP:PA. Based on similar edit summaries and editing activity over the past few months, I'm thinking similar IPs that are the same user also include 71.190.73.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 96.250.238.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC))

  Blocked 108 for NPA/CIVIL violations. I agree that it's probably the other IPs too, but they're so stale they're not worth taking action on. It is enough to show a patter of issues though. I protected Westchester County Airport since its clear that one is a recurring target. If further disruption occurs at other pages, let me know and I can review and potentially add protection there too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate it. Also, anyway we can get page protection from IPs on Salt Lake City International Airport? If you check the edit history there has been an IP user (hopping around multiple IPs, most recently 168.179.186.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) that keeps changing a name in the destination table. I know you probably aren’t too familiar with airport articles, but the way the IP is editing it is not how the entry is listed on any other article. I attempted to bring it up on the talk page and project talk page, but it didn’t seem to go anywhere. The IP won’t respond to talk page messages and leaves no edit summaries. At this point I feel like it’s disruptive editing and the page could use protection. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• OrangeRye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hi again, Serge. Been having issues with this user for a while now, particularly at Rhode Island T. F. Green International Airport. They constantly add unsourced content and revert me every time I remove it. I've left them several warnings on their talk page to no avail. They never leave a reliable source and seems like trying to warn them or talk to them isn't working at this point. Been happening for several months at this point. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC))

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Okay this one is a little tricky. There have been some on and off users claiming to be Ben Rector's management team (or Ben Rector himself in some instances) making non-constructive edits to the article. The edits are pretty much exclusively removing large blocks of content relating to details outside of his career (specifically regarding his early life, family matters and religion). Meanwhile they've been rearranging and rewriting their career and release timeline to read more promotional (see here). Edit summaries are misleading. It's getting very hard to clean up the mess because they slip a lot of it in there, and in between my other edits, so I can't simply rollback anymore without losing progress.

These editors are definitely related, sharing similar usernames and making next to exactly the same changes. What do you recommend be done with the group of users? Should the article be protected based on this string of non-constructive edits? Panini! • 🥪 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• 66.60.99.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hi again Serge, an IP user has been constantly editing Salt Lake City International Airport for the past few months. The edits have been coming from a few IPs, including 168.179.186.109 (talk · contribs), 168.179.186.83 (talk · contribs), and 165.239.42.184 (talk · contribs). I’ve reverted every edit for disruptive editing and have left talk page messages on some of the IP users, but nothing has changed and the editor never uses edit summaries. Brought a discussion to the article’s talk page that didn’t really go anywhere. I am not the only user to revert the IP’s changes. Just wondering if we’d be able to get the page protected against IP users since it isn’t stopping. Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC))

  Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Jun Senoue could use protection. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like Izno's block may have stopped the disruption, so I only did a short page protection. Let me know if it restarts again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Celestial1621 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You just reverted and warned this person's unsourced edits on Wii U, but they're continuing elsewhere on Mixels. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked. (I was technically waiting to give them the benefit of the doubt in that maybe they were making previous edits while I was warning them...but they went and made yet another unsourced edit after that, so there's no way they didn't see it...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• 181.176.119.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistently making unsourced genre changes even after receiving a talk page warning. Left guide (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Can you also consider blocking MihaiVulturul23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Their talk page shows a very long history of warnings for unsourced genre changes and additions, and they just did it again; enough is enough. Left guide (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like someone beat me to the punch and indeffed him no less. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I reported the editor to ANI because their behavior escalated to a personal attack and legal threat. Left guide (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 168.179.186.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hey Serge, really could use some advice on what to do here. A month ago, you protected Salt Lake City International Airport for a month after I mentioned disruptive editing from a few IP addresses, including 168.179.186.109 (talk · contribs), 168.179.186.83 (talk · contribs), and 165.239.42.184 (talk · contribs). When someone asked you why you protected it, you replied that you were hoping it would encourage talking between the users. Now that the month has passed, nothing has been solved. The IP is back, once again using no edit summaries, and won’t stop their behavior. I’ve left warnings on the previous IPs, and new messages on 168.179.186.29 (talk · contribs) and 168.179.186.102 (talk · contribs) to try to start a conversation but it has gone no where. As a I previously mentioned, I also started a conversation on the article’s Talk Page that also didn’t go anywhere. This is the only page they edit and I’m not sure what to do, especially since it seems impossible to communicate with them. Any advice or action we can take? Thank you! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC))

Hi Serge, I'm not sure if this merits a warning, but User:Iacowriter has been making edits without edit summaries, and his talk page is filled with warnings from other users as well. Timur9008 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually wanted to talk to my mentor about that. I’m getting tired of it because I’m trying to be accurate. I didn’t know edit summaries were mandatory. I apologize for that. Iacowriter (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Serge this keeps repeating (the incorect figures) [9]. I don't want to keep reverting. Timur9008 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD Discussions

I wanted to discuss this with you given that the recent discussion at Celestial is at least the third time now you've accused me of bad faith in controversial AfD nominations. I want to at least make clear where I'm coming from, because I'm very concerned you think my edits are coming from a negative place when that really isn't the case at all.

I've mostly started editing through fictional character articles, which have very strict notability standards compared to most other subjects on the site. As a result, I tend to have a bit of a stricter view when it comes to notability as a whole. Regardless of the former fact, I'm still trying my best to work within the guidelines as specified per subject. It's why I was working with NSONGS during the Celestial debate, for example. Additionally, my shape of how standards work has been shifting per discussion, too. For instance, Shulk's old discussion definitely helped with showing how much coverage a subject needed for me, and Koopa Troopa's has been beneficial for showing me value beyond Reception. Whenever I get into these kinds of controversial discussions, I try to at least take away what went wrong with it from it, and incorporate this further into my editing style.

I bring this up mostly because I worry you think I'm making hasty nominations, and then don't take anything away from them. Yes, I make a lot of AfD's focused on sourcing and how they're showing notability, but that's because I want to ensure quality articles. I've made sure to take in points from past discussions to ensure I don't make other unfounded nominations, and make sure to account for these facts when I do consider if I should nominate a subject or not. I may have stricter standards, but that doesn't mean I'm doing so solely on a biased principal, or because of some other similarly bad faith idea. I genuinely just want to ensure quality standards are applied consistently, and if I make a misstep along the way, I try to make sure I don't do it again.

I'm not saying I'm a perfect editor. Zx pointed out to me recently that my argumentation style has several flaws in it, and that's been something I've been trying to work on, as an example. But no matter the case, I really just want to make sure that I don't come across as an editor who's being obtrusive for the sake of it, and rather as one arguing for quality and cleanliness. I understand how I'm viewing what I'm doing and how you're viewing it can be radically different: I've made my side known here, and I'd really like to see if you have any observations you've made or advice you can give that can help improve my editing style, so that way we can avoid any further confusion in later discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight. I recognize that you're a good editor who has done some great content creation. Definitely a net positive to the website. But I do not agree with a number of the AFD nominations you've made. I do not believe they've been good judgement calls. If I recall correctly, I've also objected your sentiments that reviews are required to establish notability, when they're not. To me, it sometimes feels like you blur the standards of "barely meeting the GNG" and "meeting GA standards". It's great when we aspire to great GA content, but it's not great to hold GA-like standards for notability requirements. I know you've already refuted this commentary, and I'm not trying to rehash it, just give you the input you've requested for how it looks from over here, to me. I just don't agree with where you draw the line sometimes.

It is good to hear that you've learned from some of the ones I've more vigorously objected to though, as that hadn't particularly been clear to me in our past interactions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 If it's not too much, could you give me an example of one you've disagreed with outside of the ones I've mentioned, if you remember any? I want to make sure I fully understand what you're saying, and I feel like another example would help. I think I get what you're saying, in that I'm holding the standards higher than I should, but I want to make sure I'm not misconstruing something about your comments by accident. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Shulk, Koopa, and Celestial are the ones I know off the top of my head. I'll have to dig and see if there were more. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 gotcha. Regardless, thank you for the advice. I'll try my best to incorporate it into my nomination philosophy going forward. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Issue with ANI discussion being archived

Hi, just contacting you since you had some participation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#Ongoing issues with CfD nominations, the subject of the discussion seems to have gone totally radio silent after their initial response, presumably to allow it to be archived and forgotten. I am wondering what the procedure is now, because something still has to be decided by an admin about what to do but nobody seemingly cared. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If it fizzles out and gets archived, and there aren't any dissenting opinions, I'll leave him a stern warning about Wikipedia being a collaborative project, the need for discussion, etc, and keep an eye on him. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's already archived. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editor issue

I'm also having another issue with User:AHI-3000. They are being incredibly stubborn and refusing to compromise or seek consensus for their edits claiming that it's too small for them to bother debating. Even after there was consensus to do one thing, they keep edit warring and reverting it and ignore the attempts of multiple users to debate civilly. This has been going on for quite some time, anyway, but they delete most stuff from their talkpage before it can be resolved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Warned. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)