Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Vandals

Extended content

You might wanna check out User_talk:Aidan68945 for abuse. About five blatant vandalisms this month. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism only account. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Superjake50 is basically vandalism-only, with lies and 3RR. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. There's a long history of these "Jake" accounts where all they do is add fake release dates and talk about hoax Blues Clues and Winx Club games. Very bizarre. Please let me know if you find any others. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Falongen — Hey bro I don't know if this is within your topical scope, but this is a new account with a list of WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, almost all immediately reverted, amongst a very narrow scope of highly political subjects. It is a major POV editor, and I'm not sure if those tons and tons of redirects are all valid or if it's just another method of POV. Many of them were instated by unilaterally blanking a lot of valid pages. Many edits are simplistic jibberish or nonsensical rearrangements, and others are detailed POV-pushings. I scanned each one, and very very few are valid, only those containing a few words. Possible sockpuppet? Normally I'd just manually submit video game related abuses to you, since I know your topical familiarity makes you able to quickly address them. This one, I wasn't sure how to file so I hope you don't mind. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my specialties are video games and music, but you can always run other stuff by me. With this guy, it looks like the bad ones are being caught and undone, while the others, I'm not sure if they're really necessary, but they seem largely harmless overall. If you look at his talk page history, he is racking up some warnings, he just keeps on deleting them. Since it doesn't look too serious, and it's outside my normal area, I think I'll leave this one up to others this time. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok but to who? Shall I file a report at ARV? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I had just meant it in more of a "an admin will catch him someday if he does enough bad things" type way. Not entirely sure where to report it to. I'm not sure if it counts as "vandalism" or not. Vandalism, by definition, is a "bad-faith action". Some of his edit make me think that he could be a misguided good faith editor rather than a vandal, but I'm not sure. There's always ANI, but that place really can be like rolling the dice sometimes. Sometimes you get great help, other times you just get a bunch of sassy responses, its harsh. Personally, I guess I'd just keep an eye on him, and let me know if he gets worse... Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your universally-held assessment of ANI, yes, you have the *real* reason why I stay in contact with stuff like this.
Falongen's account definitely isn't a vandalism-only one; it looks like most of his/her edits are good-faith redirects. (Ayyyyy, I'm back.) Tezero (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight, Tezero. FYI, I ended up blocking that IP who kept making disruptive comments. (Accusations of propaganda, pro/anti countries, etc) Then proceeded to block him from several other IPs. The block is probably up by now, but let me know if he starts up with unnecessary comments again. I didn't notify you last week because it looked like you were on your break for a while. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: No offense, Tezero, but that's just a cursory contradiction, not insight.  :) Good-faith redirects are not done by unilaterally blanking pages with no reason or discussion, nor targeting them with stuff that changes the meaning. And it's continued quite a bit. I found out why some of his writing wasn't so insanely horrible -- because it's plagiarized. This is a blatantly WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:POV assault, plus breaking the law. Another user has joined in with the User_talk:Falongen warnings.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll admit that I only looked at about the first page of his edits. What you said is more serious. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: He has quite the warpath, having blanked out his Talk page's accruing warnings several times (since restored by someone else). One unilateral redirection was so extreme that Cluebot fixed it! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Gave him a final warning. (Though, for the record, he is technically able to blank his own talk page. It's considered bad form on an informal level, but it is allowed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey there Serge. I have a followup question as part of my interests as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Does policy allow the blanking of one's Talk page, even when it's obviously for the purpose of trying to subvert CVU's accountability tracking? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll agree that it's rarely a good sign if they do it, but it is technically allowable. It says so somewhere, I think someplace at WP:TALKPAGE. So technically, they're allowed to do it. That being said, you can stil use their pages "view history" to prove that they've been warned prior/have ignored warnings, so it's not like they truly delete it from existence. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a vandalism-only account too. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:46.11.39.149 Vandalism only.

Blocked the last two. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
User_talk:50.179.168.189 it's like a perpetual tradition of storm vandalism. Amazing.
True, but since I'm not allowed to block IPs for long amounts of time (because they can change/be redistributed to other people) and this one is relatively inactive (hasn't edited in 2 weeks), I don't think I'm going to block this one. Good to keep an eye on though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it seem like this is a long long long term IP address assignment somehow? Exactly the same topical type of vandalism for ever and ever? lol I just saw an IP get blocked for six months. And there's no mandate for IP editing (especially when it's the primary enabler of their abuse); they can make an account.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I know. You're not wrong, i just usually don't bother if their that inactive. If he makes one more bogus edit, he's blocked for a while. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
User_talk:66.169.151.85 We have another winner! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like he didn't do anything after your final warning. I'll block him if he has any more bad edits at all. Let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your wish is granted! Two more. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And again. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Doesn't look like anything good tends to result from the IP... Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocked. Let me know if he comes back. Editors that overtly bad aren't generally opposed to sick puppetry either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No doubt! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked earlier, forgot to say something. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • User_talk:66.169.151.85 as stated above, had done two more vandalisms. This kid here has been divebombing Cliff Burton with admittedly copyright infringing photos all night, which have been taken down with warnings. He's filling out the upload forms that state that it's a free image whose copyright he owns, with a description saying that he ripped it off and knows that it's wrong. Something is seriously wrong with him and he can't be stopped. :-( Thanks brother. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't block the first one. They're not very active, and some of them, like the Castlevania one, while not great, could be still seen as good faith. Blocked the later 2 though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, it's acceptable to upload fair-use photos of dead people if free alternatives aren't available. Tezero (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked, but not sure how much it'll really affect things. He's not all that active, and there weren't enough bad edits to make it very long really. Let me know if he persists though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI like I said, almost all of that IP's edits were vandalism, for the last year or so, in case that affects your outcome. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, either a spam account or probably a COPYVIO or something too. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Pretty terrible edit...but it was just one. I don't think its block-worthy (yet). A warning is probably good for now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked both. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Is there a Shannon Sixx at all? Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I kinda doubt it, considering that "Sixx" is a fictional last name for Mister Frank Carlton Serafino Feranna, Jr. ;-) I say that mockingly in that context, but the latter sure is a "boss" name nonetheless. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism pt2

Extended content

Put new ones under here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Terrible edits, definitely, but also common newbie problems too. I'm going to wait and block only if he keeps at it. He's been properly warned at this point at least. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed this before too. Page protected. Might be good to start a talk page discussion. I agree with you, but I feel like there could be a good-faith argument in favor of high fantasy. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'll look into things shortly. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's all good, bro! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I agree, this one is being disruptive again, and has made bad edits since your final warning, so I blocked him for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other outstanding ones at the moment? I thought there was, but I can't find it. I thought that Falonen guy was causing trouble again...? Or maybe that's just something I happened to observe on my own? Or I'm confusing editors? Sorry, I've been in a few heated discussions lately and I'm trying to catch up on all the smaller requests... Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you are often busy! Yes User_talk:Falongen has been offending on exactly what you warned them against, and deleted my most recent warning from their talk page (which I reverted back onto the talk page). — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 74.103.250.78 has quite a history of vandalism warnings, deliberately blowing them off and deleting the warnings. Then contributing to the junk about the alleged and unsourced PS3 Cell OS 4.65 here.
The information i put was sourced so im not sure why Smuckola decided it was vandalism. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a valid source. This article requires only the topmost reliable sources WP:VG/RS, which is pretty much Sony, of which there were none as of a few minutes ago. "Before adding information to this article, READ THE FOLLOWING: A reference must be provided for any system software version not yet released. All references should be from a reliable or official Sony/PlayStation 3 source. The reference cannot be from any other source. Any software news or rumor that is not from a Sony or PlayStation 3 reliable source will remain on the discussion page until verified." — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright but you could have just posted this on my talk instead of going to an admin and trying to get me banned or whatever your goal was also some other ip just put all that information back so you might want to revert them and try to get them banned to right ? 74.103.250.78 (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 174.19.209.252 has been removing sourced content and adding inappropriate "citation needed" and "unreliable source" tags to the Navajo language article. It seems he thinks I'm racist against the Navajo people for including text about the language having no single word for "cell phone"; as I see it, the language simply hasn't had much official recognition since cellphones and other modern technologies have come about. I'm not necessarily requesting a block, but I'd like you to intervene or, if I'm in the wrong, tell me why, because this is really getting disruptive. Tezero (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've protected the page, and warned the IP to assume good faith on the "racist" accusations. Now that it's protected, the IP is discussion on the talk page a bit more, as is another user. I'm not expert at the Navajo language, so I'd rather wait until you give your stance/input there before I really intervene any further. It's a start, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like he's stopped since your final warning. I do agree that most of the edits are so bad that they must be bad-faith edits. (Like attempting to add a picture of the Beebs as that actor's image, for example.) Let me know if he breaks your final warning and I'll block him. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
He's back at it. I guess I'll look again to ensure that he's been reverted. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat me to blocking him. What a bizarre hoax... Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, he's had several in the last 30 days, all blatant vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/169.199.67.13 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
True, but I just meant he literally only has one edit in the month of September. His edits are pretty infrequent though, and they're so stupid about their edits that Cluebot or any good edit reverts them pretty much on the spot. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yippee!  :-o — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, ya never know if they mean it racially, hatefully, or just stupidly! I assume the latter (not that it matters), but treat it as the others!  :-D — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's part of what I was getting at - none of those scenarios could be considered a good faith mistake. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism pt3

Extended content

New section, so I don't need to scroll so much on my phone. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked. Kept it short because I thought the other user was an Admin and I didn't want to step on their toes if they were planning on handling it. Now I see the other editor isn't an Admin. Oh well. I'll block them again if they keep up their disruptive editing. Let me know if you witness it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Aye aye, mon capitan. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • User_talk:Nintendonix You've already blocked him for exactly the same thing as what I just placed another warning for, and he's doing other offenses too. I know that there is a procedure for allowing a non-free image of a deceased person for whom there is no likely source of free images, but that's not likely the case for one of the biggest bands in history, right? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Since we missed him by a month, I think your warning is good for now. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: This guy racked up another several offenses and warnings since then. He's clearly absolutely defiantly incorrigible. Period. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Protected the page, because I do agree that the edits should stop, but I didn't block, because I think the IP was probably making them in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, normally I prefer to handle things myself instead of tattling, but 50.153.173.22 isn't listening, repeatedly adding the statement that Sonic X is currently airing on the CW to that show's article. In reality, the entire block it was on has ended, replaced by a live-action block, and there is ample evidence of this. Mind intervening? Tezero (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Page protected. Since I believe the edits were in good faith, just misguided.) Feel free to ask me for help on stuff like this. I know it can take forever sometimes at places like RFPP, AIV, SPI, etc. I like to provide faster help, since I always appreciated it when admin did it for me back in the day. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This one really is vandalism. 98.215.83.148, in the same Sonic X article, is repeatedly restoring the article to an old (though post-FA) revision with a few misspellings, uncited information, and ambiguous wording, having given no explanation when asked. Looks like it's saved on this person's computer or phone and they just don't want the page to change at all. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Looked into it. I agree. Blocked for 2 weeks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I was going to let them off with a warning, due to having so few edits, but looking over the deleted edits, it seems they're solely here for making offensive edits, even if its not very often. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually edit conflicted multiple times with you over his edits to Mario Kart articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I protected the page, because I think collectively it could be warranted, but I don't think anyone's done enough individually to warrant a block or anything. Their edits are bad, true, but they don't seem very prominent, and its the stupid type of vandalism that seems to be cleaned up pretty easily. I'm not entirely sure I'm catching all three IPs you're talking about though, so feel free to let me know if I'm missing how bad one of them is... Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dyk408 ranting, babbling, reverted
  • I...really don't know what to do with this person. Its almost like he goes in and out of coherent thought or something. I'd hate to block him if he's just really bad at communicating. Let me know if he keeps causing trouble. He could at least use a WP:NOTAFORUM warning or something... Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, done. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism pt4

Extended content
  • Its hard to justify blocking it with the edits happening so infrequently, and them being the childish sort of things that gets caught by editors or bots right away. Still, they are clearly bad faith stupid edits. I left a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. I saw him return from the last block and make edits that, weren't great, but weren't outright against I had just blocked him for, but rather just "bad decisions". I hadn't noticed he had returned to his old habits today. Re-blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Haha. I agree that nothing constructive comes from the IP, but I'm also hard-pressed to block an IP that has made only 9 edits in the last 2 years. The edits are so stupid they're always instantly cleaned up, so I don't think he's really doing any damage. Let me know if it ever becomes more active though, it would almost certainly warrant a block if the edits were anything like whats been done so far... Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RMc "Threepio!!! Threepio!!!!! Oh, where could he beeeee?!" Happy Groundhog Day, Serge! We're being helpfully informed of all the world's things that are interesting, important, probable, possible, likely, parenthetically trivial — and if we're lucky, what just might even be somehow real. It's alllll over again, like a machine. I just wasted a huge amount of time combing over this edit history since the last series of rants and bans. That's probably more than half of the new content. And just look at that gigantic history of repeatedly deleted disambiguation link warnings, for which I don't see any corrections. I hope I'm mistaken, because there's only so much garbage I can stand to wade through. I checked this history because today, I noticed that the article where it had all originally come to my attention, had been anonymously edited to re-un-delete some of his verbatim key trivia. If you care to check my work or note the offenses, it's my edit history from Al TV on up to this page. You've been fantastically tolerant and optimistic in allowing this gratuitously defiantly WP:NPA flaming troll back in. To say "recidivist" would be a compliment, implying that the person had ever had the slightest intention of changing. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's a very kind way to put it. The whole time, aside from wishing I had my time back, I was wishing that we could make these people fix their own mistakes for which we get punished. There's no community service program that forces someone to undo their graffiti here. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Iddymokom This is a caution report for anyone who reads here. This is a brand new account which suddenly began a litany of deliberately similar and extensively strung out edits. They're so extensive that my first concern was to verify them but I don't think that I can do them all. So I didn't know if anyone else has seen this particular pattern, in case of sockpuppetry. On a humorous note, the following is an unbelievably deranged exerpt from something else; just read the whole thing. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh, yeah, all that genre tinkering is usually more of a problem in music related articles, but it looks like it shows up in video related areas too. WP:GENREWARRIOR sums it up pretty well. Anways, that IP doesn't seem to be obstinate about it at least, so I don't see it as too much of a problem. Keep it if it looks like a net-positive, or revert it if it looks like it was a downgrade in quality. Your second link...yes, is very bizarre. Someone felt it was necessary to explain how internet browsers work? Definite violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Same as always before! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oranjelo100 This guy has been massively tendentious, belligerent, unencyclopedic, disrespectful, spammy, battlegroundy, and generally terrible, for a long long long time. He's a nasty, mean, dull busybody. In the rare case that he ever makes a citation, it's literally to angelfire.com and such, mostly stirring the dreck of questionable articles about retrogaming and emulation, but sometimes important things like DirectX. He's definitely WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE WP:OWNER WP:NPA according to many people who've issued countless warnings and have undone countless edits over the years, but they're not about to battle ANI about it. They've documented it, and further linked to other docs, in the link I just gave. After his edit war to deluge the Dolphin emulator's article, he's one of the reasons that I had redoubled my efforts to find a cool admin like you, but I forgot about him until his latest onslaughts. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any questions on this one, bro? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I wasn't ignoring this one, I just didn't know what to do with it yet. He's belligerent and difficult, but there also seems to be a bit of a language barrier, and while incivil, I don't want to be too harsh. I personally don't agree with it, but there's a number of prolific editors who are ruder, but still are around, (or were around for years before being blocked.) Unsure how to respond yet. (Feel free to chime in, (talk page stalker)s!!) Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok I hear ya. But this isn't just about being rude. There is no real language barrier; he understands what everyone's saying, and is fully functionally literate in English. But his only response is unilateral combat. No matter what. Zero accountability warpath. He's done years worth of WP:3RR, WP:NPA; making 30 edits in a row of a couple characters each; a million edits with inadmissible sources, no sources, and no edit descriptions. His edits are often impenetrable and unmaintainable. This is total WP:BATTLEGROUND, the death of a thousand cuts. I'm kinda confused here; every other guy, you'll rightfully warn or ban them based on a few obvious violations in one day, but this guy you're not even warning after a million existing violations and warnings for a year.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 and Dsimic: Again, ignorant contempt for all encyclopedic concepts and policies. Edit warring, garbage content, garbage prose, garbage formatting, often inadmissible sources (if any). Pumping junk into many articles which should be drastically slimmed or deleted. WP:TEND WP:BATTLEGROUND Dsimic can chime in, if Serge hadn't read his exhaustive long-term attempts at rehabilitation on [User_talk:Dsimic]. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! As visible in User talk:Dsimic § Uop Cache and User talk:Dsimic § Number of edits (Oranjelo100), there's unfortunately little use of talking to Oranjelo100. I'm just lucky that he (or she) moved away from the articles I'm involved with long time ago. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll look into it again tomorrow, when I have more time to look through it again. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking it over, yes, he's a bit abrasive, but I really don't think it's anything blockable. I'll give him a warning to try be more civil and careful with his edits, but I think that's all that really makes sense. He makes a lot of small edits (annoying but not policy breaking) so it's hard to delve that far, but I haven't seen any difs showing that he's breaking 3RR or making actual personal attacks. He should be better about using reliable sources, but honestly a ton of his edits are small additional "bloating" to articles, that isn't great, but the article's weren't in good shape to begin with. His additions are without sources, but so was the original content much of the time. If you want to give more difs as far as particular edits of his you object to, I'll look at those, but much of them so far, like this are not anything that would go towards needing a block, and interactions here don't really show that he really understands what the problem is. Anyways, feel free to find better examples, or take him to ANI if you want. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I completely agree...but technically, while belligerent in the discussions, he did stop after he was warned about edit warring and what he had done wrong, and hasn't edited again in the last week. I did give him a final warning though, letting him know that his views on how to edit an article were fundamentally wrong, and that any more of this would not be tolerated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Thank you, sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: So he switched from vandalism to major personal attacks.
Well, he didn't really "switch", that's still from the original issue, of which I already warned him. Basically, I'll likely block him if he starts ranting again, but so far, he hasn't edited again since January 10th, as far as I can tell... Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it looks like he's ready to share his Mario Kart trivia with the world. I added on a bit to what you said on his talk page. I think what you said is sufficient though, for now. This editor may be more misguided than anything, I don't think he means harm. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism pt5

Extended content
  • Wasn't there someone with a similar name making similar edits like a week or so back? He seems awfully familiar, but his contribs didn't. Anyways, I reiterated your final wording, though didn't block yet. Also, try to be careful - we can tell people to make better edits, or to stop unconstructive edits, but we can't tell them not to edit on a whole unless they're blocked/banned. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I only said that particular reiterative idea fragment as part of the context of having repeatedly explained exactly why. So effectively "please stop editing like this". But I know what you're saying and I'll remain just explicit, thanx. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I knew what you meant, but I wanted to make sure other newbies do too. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You might be thinking of Special:Contributions/MarioWario91, listed above. Those two guys comprised my daily watchlist for about a week. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think name-wise, I was thinking of him, and edit-wise, I was thinking about Supermrmario's edits from a week ago. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73:He's doing it again. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Missed this one. They haven't edited again since the 30th. I left another comment on how to handle this. I want to give a little more leeway, though, if he returns and tries it again, without even attempting to fix his edit or ask for help, then I believe we may have a competence issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget this one, brother. :) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This was one I was waiting to see if the disruption continued...and it definitely did. Blocked. It is crazy that someone from Justice.gov is making those edits. Must be a bored worker out there somewhere I guess? Not that that's an excuse. Let me know if it returns to these edits again, it looks like this one has gone a long time unchecked in the past... Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I kind of fall into the same line of thinking as Lukeno on the IPs talk page, the edits were not good, but its hard to tell if they were in good faith or not. The IP also seems to have stopped since the warning, and hasn't edited further in 5 days, so I'm not going to block for now. But if he returns and is unresponsive, they potentially yes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wii U I don't know what the heck is going on here but ViperSnake151 has apparently gone berzerk, with multiple mass deletions. He blanked pretty much the whole article, replacing it with the letters "nm" just now! And then is just unilaterally chopping up Wii U and Xbox One, with no real explanation. Deleting stuff this way or that, I don't know what's going on. He has tons of complaints and requests on his Talk page, having responded to zero of them. I'll ask you to look at it freshly, if you would, please. It's kinda important. Then, he devolves to the childish and belligerent. So, we have major changes with no explanations (to an incomprehensible degree), and responding to definitive corrections with belligerence (edit warring and personal accusations). — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think his edits were a little careless, especially considering its a rather high profile article, but I don't think its vandalism per se. He was was a bit hasty, but his overall intentions seem to just be to trim the article a bit. I'm sure this can be hashed out on the talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe it can be hashed out once, now that other people and I have taken all that abuse, pushed back, and forced it to happen once. And obviously will need to again someday, because his idea of WP:BOLD is WP:OWNER. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's pretty weird, and probably suspicious, but I don't think there's anything to be done yet really. Salvidrim!, I know you handle more with innappropriate user names. Is this one not acceptable? Or is it so benign it doesn't matter? Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I finally caught up on the backlog, Smuckola! Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Not great contributions, but the edits essentially lead up to just one bad addition to the article, and the person's received 0 warnings. Not great, but I don't think its enough for a block yet. It's also been 3 days since the last edit, maybe they're done causting trouble? Salvidrim! what's your opinion on the user name? Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like I missed this one as well (I guess I was kinda busy and distracted last week.) Anyways, usually I'd write this one off as an inactive IP, but looking through the block log, it has received a lot of blocks in the past. One was even 6 months. I reapplied a block, as it seems that the problem at that IP has apparently still not gone away... Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Princess_Daisy_(character) Please restore the protection status here. I just literally reviewed all changes since 2013 and it's almost totally vandalism and madness. So much time and frustration wasted. I have read through it and I believe that it's all intact, and it's the superior text amongst the last two years. >:-( Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks for edits like this, there has been a lot of garbage added over the years. Since it's such a slow but consistent addition of junk, I added the pending changes status to it, so these terrible IP edits would need to be approved before being added, like at the "List of games notable for negative reception" article. Also added it to my watchlist. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
kthx. Also from that fallout, can you block the offending IP range? The same edits are coming from 75.165.64.38, 75.165.62.152, 75.165.91.56, and possibly more. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually don't know how to do range-blocks. If their only target was lousy Daisy edits, then we should be fine. If they're causing more havok than that, then maybe Salvidrim! or somebody can help. He's been in Admin-beast-mode lately, judging by all his SPI/unblock/AN type edits ;) Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
75.165.64.0/19 would cover all of it but I need to check range-contribs from home later before doing anything. But yeah, in this case protection may be preferable. And "admin-beast-mode"? More like "2016-arbcom-election-precampaign-mode"! Just kidding, really! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim! and Sergecross73: They're still at it, nonstop, and this has also long since constituted WP:3RR, in addition to WP:OR WP:NOTHERE WP:TEND. Whereby "OR", I am speaking generously to include "nonsense". Doing page protection still means that this person wastes everyone's time in dealing with it. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 67.139.40.166 WP:TEND for sure, with edits consisting almost exclusively of reverts. At the same time, he's constantly labeling anyone who disagrees a "stalker" or "vandal", usually with no explanation at all in the edit summary, and never responding to any Talk page warnings and requests (except with hateful insults). The talk page history for the IP address is a cesspool of reverts with WP:NPA insults and general hateful invective at anyone who attempts communication. Even when I issued a warning template with a request for an explanation for edit warring, he called me a vandal! Of the public Talk page! lol. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no 'lol' to your actions, neither is your misrepresentation of my edit history going to fly. I'm in the process of filing an administrator complaint regarding your behavior and that of Asher196- your harassment of me on my talk page, your belligerent insults, the following me into articles you haven't ever touched before just for the sake of reversion and the removal of sourced, referenced information from articles that is tantamount to vandalism. I'm taking my time and making sure everything is written out, but attempting to get an administrator prematurely involved is quite a conflict of interest, to say the least. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've commented at the ANI report. Smuckola has done no wrong in contacting me though; if you haven't noticed, we're in regular contact, but even if we weren't, he'd free to bring it up here anyways. There's no "conflict of interest" in that. The fact that you say that, and your flawed ANI report in general, makes me think you probably need to slow down and learn a little bit more about policies here, and how things work. You're not using basic terms like "conflict of interest" or "vandalism" correctly, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that was since my warning before that one. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
He spammed the link again at another site yesterday, so I've blocked him now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is another one where they didn't make any other edits after you gave them a final warning. It doesn't really make sense to give them a final warning and then block them anyways, even if they stop, does it? I can block if the vandalism restarts again, but this is another one where the edits are relatively infrequent, and the edits are so stupid its caught by Cluebot almost instantly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
He was edit warring in November 2014, which he just rekindled now (all about OoT and "greatest game of all time"), in a way that overlaps with the additional offense of WP:OR of critical reception after warnings. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I see now, he keeps altering the wording. I mean, you're in the right here, But I don't think his edits are in bad faith. I think he probably just needs to be explained in a little more plain English that the sources say "best game", not "one of the best games". Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No, brah. It's been explained to him. The problem is not one article, nor any writing style. He's got a mass history of editorializing the critical reception of several articles in the last few days, after having been warned. He qualifies as an OR warrior and needs to be blocked. <3 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd call it "mass"...he's made 50 edits in about the span of 6 years... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As much as I hate all of those stupid "mixed to positive" type phrases, the IP's edits don't seem so bad as to block him yet. However, that article does seem to get a lot of bad IP edits, so I protected it for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism pt6

Extended content

New requests to Serge's AIV sub-board go here! ;) Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Never seen this before - pretty sure it's disruptive page moving, and definitely something that can only be read as a personal attack. Tried rolling back but it only removed the personal attack. I've moved it back and left the mover a note about civility (and disruptive page moving) on their talk page, just hoping it doesn't backfire on me now. The other editor does have a history of weird page moves/move warring on one page, but seems to have settled down to doing more editty things now. Just making a note so someone else is aware. Mabalu (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That's weird. If I'm reading this right, he moved his talk page to the draft space? I have no idea why someone would want to do that, unless they don't quite understand archiving or something. Looks like the editor has already been blocked once recently. Let me know if you notice any further disruptive edits from that user. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
First, the person left the "I hate your editing!" barnstar on the other editor's talk page, and THEN moved that page to draft space. It wasn't their own page that they moved. I think it's probably a hissy fit flaring up between two editors, hopefully not going any further, but will keep an eye on things. Mabalu (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Got the 2 names confused, since they're both kind of gibberish-like. Still very bizarre choices for edits. Anyways, you've handled it well so far, but let me know if you'd like me to step in if things escalate further. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, they deleted my posts on their talk page sans comment. Hopefully we'll see no more of this behaviour. Mabalu (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually think Amortias is mistaken with some of his/her edits and warnings. A number of the changes the IP made were, while not perfect, were probably a net positive in the direction of improvement. For example, general instruments and roles in recording music are not proper nouns, so edits like this are actually a welcomed change. It doesn't look amazing, but it was an improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Yeah, while I usually prefer people get at least one warning, one should usually assume that making comments like that is not acceptable in just about any venue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not edit warring the user above is refusing to let me edit the Nintendo 64 articles based on what he wrote I also warned him about making personal attacks towards me. I think the user should take it to the talk page, instead of crying to you because someone edited his edit.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Also I didn't violate the 3RR rule I stopped at my limit. --76.107.252.227 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
IP, it can still be edit warring even if you don't breach 3RR. I'm deciding to instead protect the page, and discuss on the talk page instead. IP, you should practice what you preach and take it to the talk page yourself. Per WP:BRD, that should have been your next move, not your second or third revert. Also, log into your account, you're not fooling anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's impressive, isn't it? I just reported it via email to the network abuse admins of the University of Nebraska, while conceding that Wikipedia has a ludicrously and abusively open policy in favor of enabling what is effectively a perpetual botnet of abusers. He already replied that he'd look into it, but this is probably the bazillionth thing on his plate every day. This also goes toward the essay I'm writing to hopefully someday help change the basic editing policies. — Smuckola(talk) 21:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 74.95.224.17 He just doesn't get it. He's spamming irrelevantly-sourced stuff as you can clearly see, but I painstakingly explained to him that he alone is edit warring, that there's no tolerance for it, and that he'll be blocked. I lost track of how many more violations. I helpfully performed a final revert, thinking the situation was clearly resolved at the moment, but no. Oops. Wikipedia is a tarpit to which everyone has been solicited, where he has fallen in, thinking it's a swimming pool. And he's just paddling around, thinking everyone else is either playing around or trying to dunk him. Nevertheless, as with the Higan guy, the end result is WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:TENDENTIOUS. As they are vocally committed to absolutely never stop, I recommend that they both are blocked. — Smuckola(talk) 23:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ferret - The IP is blocked for 3 days. I was going to protect the page too, as I saw another IP join in, but another Admin already did. He did for a rather short time period though (just a few hours?) so let me know if it expires and it comes back. I'll protect it for much longer. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I've been kind of following this myself. The issue of the "High fantasy vandal", as I like to call it, has been happening off and on for a few years now. In fact, I may have been the one to request pending changes on that page, which is currently in effect. Seems like it may not be working as intended. However, I addressed the recent two pending edits for "high fantasy" that were approved on the reviewer's talk page. I wouldn't say that one specific instance of repetitive, perennial vandalism isn't grounds for indefinite semi-protection, but ... it doesn't seem as though pending changes is working unless all reviewers are somehow warned to not approve the "high fantasy" edits. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, it seems as though I was the one who requested the original "pending changes" protection on 3 October 2014, which was then extended to indefinite pending changes on 3 January 2015, both protections done by HJ Mitchell. Yeah, a bit odd that someone would go to such lengths to keep that link in there, but I've seen crazier. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
After I looked at my protection request, I recalled that this vandal not only tried to add high fantasy to the lead, but also fantasy, as seen here. Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Yeah, I sort of recall coming across the IP who obsessed over fantasy/high fantasy inclusion as well, as I think I've seen it pop up at Super Mario and Legend of Zelda. I mean, I can kind of see how one could give it those labels, it seems plausible, but the problem is two-fold - sources don't seem to typically use that label, and there seems to be a consensus against using the label - so the IP is definitely being disruptive. And I agree, because it does seem plausible at least, it seems the "pending changes" isn't working.
Neither of our "pings" got any response, so I'll likely soon boldly change it to semi-protection soon. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I just realized that my ping didn't work since I forgot to sign in the same edit as the ping. So, I'm attempting again to ping HJ Mitchell. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I did get the first ping, but hadn't had time to look into it. I just replaced the PC1 with SPP due to the high traffic on Super Mario. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Amazing just how persistent some people are! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Sjones. Sorry I missed this before, it must have gotten lost in a period of a lot of talk page messages and "pings". Anyways, it looks like just about every name mentioned as a suspect or problem has been blocked, so I imagine this is now taken care of... Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Serge could you look at 177.75.149.35? Appears to be block evasion stemming from 187.45.120.20, they are engaged in mass reverts in revenge against another reviewer. Noticed on Alan Kardec while running through Pending Changes. -- ferret (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Any examples or difs of ways the two act the same? Not that I doubt you, it's more just to get me up to speed here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Simply based that on SLBedit's edit summaries at Alan Kardec, appears to be a series of reverts between the two IPs. This is my only experience with the article, and only through PC. It appears PC1 was set in response to this user. After SLBedit's last revert at Alan Kardec on the user, it looks like the IP opened their contributions list and began running down the list mass undoing. A quick review it appears it partially revolves around mass undiscussed changes to date formats. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I see what you mean. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • He should probably get a warning, but I don't think that was really bad enough to warrant anything else. I'm also not sure who would be right in this scenario. Does it need a [sic]? It's kinda "Engrish-y", but not really an error or misspelling like that usually denotes. I could be wrong though, I'm not expert on this one... Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I can agree it's pretty fringe, but I don't think it's wrong either, as Tomorow is misspelled that way on the soundtrack. I guess I'll just leave it be for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_31&oldid=1143297395"