Jump to content

User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 16    Archive 17    Archive 18 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)


Why you delete Thai team pages in 2017 Thaileague 5 tournament Northern Region ?

These team are real team which play in 2017 Thaileague 5 tournament Northern Region. The bottom level Thai league system. You see this linking of Thai league system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_football_league_system. These team are not out of league. --Aquaelfin (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


sorry I weak English i want to talk thai language พวกคุณเถียงกันเรื่องอะไร?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seetun (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping

Hi Vanjagenije, I see that your the right person to take care of SPI cases. I have been waiting for a while now so could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping and decide if the 2 accounts that I suspected are socks? Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNewSMG: SPI process is heavily backlogged at the moment. You have to be patient. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested checkuser but take your time with taking a look at my case. Thanks! TheNewSMG (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation request on a new group of DeniseJZ

I have added a new users that are probably new users of DeniseJZ's sock farm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ. Can you take a look at it, whenever you have time. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Никита-Родин-2002

Another sock case which was mistakenly reported by EvergreenFir have to merge those diffs at the main SPI page, have a look on the view history record, thanks. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for trusting me! I am promising that I will not harm any tool of Wikipedia that causes me block once again. You deserve Best Unblock Barnstar but this seemed most perfect. Currently If you think I am misusing Wikipedia, please see my contributions. Nice admin work, Keep It Up!! SahabAliwadia 12:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:British Somaliland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Somaliland. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user

Hi, you have recently unblocked a user however the user is continue to disruptively editing as you can see here. --Saqib (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to see these warnings left by this user on my talk page: User_talk:Saqib#August_2017 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Saqib_reported_by_User:SahabAliwadia_.28Result:_.29. --Saqib (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gashi (tribe)

Hi,

I moved Gaši to Gaši (tribe), but when I wanted to created its talkpage I noticed that Gashi (tribe) was deleted by you and that I should first contact you before recreating it. I have intention to recreate this talkpage by addition of related WP tags. Can I do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: Why did you move it? The title was WP:PRECISE enough, it didn't need any disambiguation. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it because I concluded that Gashi is the most commonly used name. Since Gashi article has already been created to cover only the surname and since Gashi article already had red wikilink to Gashi (tribe) in its "see also" section I decided to move Gaši to Gashi (tribe). But when I wanted to create its talkpage I saw the notification about deletion of that article, so I approached to you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator: I deleted it when I deleted the article (it was created by a blocked user). You are free to recreate it. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Myplaythingkrystal Cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Myplaythingkrystal Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Serbian name from the title of the article?

Why did you unilaterally, and without any discussion, remove Serbian name from the title of the article Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of Saint George, Prizren? Please, revert your edits, and state your arguments on the talk page. Sorabino (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorabino: As I explained in the edit summary, the new title is WP:precise enough as there is no other Cathedral of St. George in Prizren except the Serbian Orthodox one. Sources cited in the article refer to the church as "Saborna crkva Svetog Đorđa u Prizrenu"[3][4], etc. I don't see any reason to add "Serbian Orthodox" to the title since it's not WP:COMMONNAME, nor is needed for disambiguation. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, revert your unilateral edits and state your reasons on the talk page of that article. You are a senior editor and an administrator. Sorabino (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino: I presented you detailed explanation why the page should be moved. You fail to present any explanation why the page should be moved back. I don't see any reason to move it back if you can't at least give some policy-based explanation. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O man, are you for real? We are talking about Prizren! Do I have to go further? There is also a question of consistency here. For years nobody objected titles like Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Zagreb and Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Sarajevo. In my opinion, those titles are totally OK, and they were formulated in 2014 by User:Zoupan, who moved them to those titles, quite correctly. The article St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral also has "Serbian Orthodox" in the title, since its creation in 2013. So, was there anything wrong, really, with the title Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of Saint George, Prizren? Sorabino (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino: Zagreb and Sarajevo are obviously different cases as "Cathedral in Zagreb" and "Cathedral in Sarajevo" would not be precise enough (there is for example Catholic Cathedral in both Zagreb and Sarajevo). On the other hand, "Cathedral of Saint George, Prizren" is precise. There is no other Cathedral of Saint George in Prizren. I'm not sure what you mean by We are talking about Prizren! Do you think we shouldn't follow Wikipedia policies when it's about Prizren, or what? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression that you are avoiding the issue, by playing with words. Did you even read relevant articles on Christian cathedrals in Prizren? There is also a Roman-Catholic cathedral in Prizren: Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Prizren, as there are roman-catholic cathedrals in Zagreb and Sarajevo. So, that can not be the argument for removing the "Serbian Orthodox" only from the title on the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Prizren. And regarding Prizren, you know very well how often editorial disputes are occurring regarding articles on Serbian heritage on Kosovo and Metohija, and that is one of main reasons why the article on Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Prizren should have "Serbian Orthodox" in its title. Sorabino (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino: What you just wrote is a reason supporting my move, not against it. As you just wrote, the title of the article is "Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Prizren", not "Roman Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Prizren". And I don't see any connection between editorial disputes and a need to insert words "Serbian Orthodox" into article titles. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, by recognizing legitimacy of "Serbian Orthodox" in the titles of articles on Serbian Orthodox Cathedrals in Zagreb and Sarajevo, you implicitly recognized the validity of the same wording in the case of Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Prizren. Sorabino (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cristinaclcardoso

Hi! My article, "Park Jimin (musician)" has been created, like you said yesterday. However, it was created as a redirect article to the page BTS (band). How can I change that? I tried editing the source and putting the html all over again but after a few hours it went back on being a redirect page. I tried everything, but it still doesn't work... I'm sorry to bother, I'm just new in Wikipedia and this is my first article and I there's a lot of things I still don't know so I was wondering if you could help me out with this problem. Thank you very much!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristinaclcardoso (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristinaclcardoso: The article was turn into redirect first by Abdotorg, then by Snowflake91. See the talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Sorry for bothering you, I thought you were the one who redirected it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristinaclcardoso (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI evidence

I have question about how to best present a certain type of evidence at SPI. Specifically, I mean the use of worldofstadiums.com as a source in article by sockpuppets of User:Staafros1. Finding diffs showing Staafros using WoS is easy enough, but what I'm trying to show is that the vast majority of links to WoS were added by Staafros. Considering that before I began working on removing them a few weeks ago (WoS is unreliable) there were some 1400 links to this website on the 'pedia, I'm struggling to find a way of showing that this is the case in a way that doesn't require an unreasonable amount of work on the part of the evaluating clerk. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: I have no idea how to show that certain link was added by sockpuppet of a certain editor. I guess it's enough to present few diffs, just to show the pattern. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case from earlier this year

Hi Vanjagenije. You help with this previous case. I've had to re-open it, as the user is back, with the same pattern of editing. I'd be grateful if you could take a look, and if it's straight-forward enough, to close with a similar outcome as before. Any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for sorting this so quickly, and my apologies for not thanking you sooner. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrooney2017intern

Hi Vanjagenije. You blocked Mrooney2017intern and Wikitempm for meat/sock puppetry. I think that {{no ping|The Legacy Agency}] may be connected to them in some wayl. The account had been dormant for almost 2 years, but shows up today to make this edit to Kathryn Tappen . The files added by the account were all recently uploaded to Commons by Mrooney2017 within the past week or so, and it seems a bit unusual for The Legacy Agency account to find them without having any prior knowledge of them. Should I add the account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrooney2017intern? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Yes, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. I have added the account to the SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jose Jorge T

Hi Vanjagenije,

User:Jose Jorge T is a sock of Jose Enes. I know it's probably not that big of a deal, but the SPI was archived without anyone noticing this. Could Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jose Jorge T be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jose Enes? I would move it myself but wanted to ask you first, just to be sure. Sro23 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23:  Done, Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation request on User:Cleaner880

Hi Vanjagenije.., I see you have blocked User:Jasper0070 as a sockpuppet of User:JournalmanManila. A new account has emerge User:Cleaner880 which has similar attitude, modus operandi and agenda, which is pushing POV, pushing irrelevant images with purpose was probably undue promotion to include Philippines in everything, despite it was irrelevant, not contributing to the quality of the article, and somewhat bordering peacockery. The example are Cleaner880's edits on the article Woman and Crown (headgear)‎, this user seems to support and retrieves Jasper0070's edits. Please do investigate whether he/she user is a sockpuppet of User:JournalmanManila or User:Jasper0070. Thank you very much for your time and kind attention. —  Gunkarta  talk  09:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunkarta: No, I have not blocked any of those users. Feel free to open an SPI investigation. Go to WP:SPI and follow the steps explained at "How to open an investigation" (type "JournalmanManila" for sockmaster). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.. thank you for your time. —  Gunkarta  talk  19:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Gunkarta just because I'm pushing the wp:verifiability I had been dragged to this ? So this the way how you deal with other users opposed your way or idea ? No I'm not I'm just only new account here my only fault is to deal with people who disrupts Philippine related articles like I P trollings (WP:Disruptive editing) I like what Indonesian trolls do on Philippine articles I protest(Cleaner880 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
He probably is because Cleaner880 reverted me here accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a user whom I endorsed to be blocked at the very same time Cleaner880 is being accused of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't say that would be an appropriate behavior of a user. (N0n3up (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Maxxheth SPI

Since you're the most recently active admin SPI clerk, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxxheth and the findings there? I would normally let things go until one of you finds time to get to it, but since there's an open AFD involved, I think action is appropriate sooner rather than later. If you're able to get to it, great; if not, no worries. only (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sprayitchyo SPI

As I see here, you have a history with Sprayitchyo's sockpuppets. Can you take care of this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo). Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another suspected new account Meadulnan (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo). -Aṭlas (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tali Rush article

Hello , Tali Rush is a producer , so i write an article about her , search on google about tali rush , please don't delete my article , Thanks Amazigh2968 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amazigh2968: Being a producer is not a proof of WP:NOTABILITY. Independent reliable sources are needed to prove the notability (see: WP:42). Per WP:BURDEN, it is your duty to provide reliable independent sources to prove the notability of the subject. Thus, you should search on Google and provide such reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Amazigh2968: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are not reliable independent sources. Please read carefully WP:Reliable. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk training

I hate to keep pestering you about this. You said you should have more time in a few weeks when we last spoke about month ago. Any chance we can get started soon? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a couple of days, I'd like to make sure you've actually seen this post. Could you confirm please? Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Somebdy

Hi Vanjagenijie. Somebdy has re-added non-free content, etc. to their user talkpage and will likely continue to do so everytime it is removed. The account is a confirmed WP:SOCK which means that it will almost never be unblocked and it is the sockmaster who has to request to be unblocked, right? Maybe talk page access can be removed as well to prevent any further re-adding of the inappropriate content?-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DHSULP

Is it possible to take some decision about this sock[5]? Because the more time he is getting, more damage he is doing and has become a constant trouble. So I am requesting a quick block as enough evidence here [6] and here [7] in my opinion I have provided.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that we can do to stop this[8] fellow? I have provided more evidence of his sockpuppetry here[9] -Umair Aj (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BangladeshiBoy

I think that the link to the archive is missing from the case header page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Page; Athanasius of Alexandria..... His Study and Learning......

Dear Vanjagenije,

In the Page: Athanasius of Alexandria, the early Study section is without references throughout...... This section I did not write.... Only one quote claimed to quote from Cornelius Clifford's work.... I can check if that is correct as all those books are at my hand..... Do I bother....???

[ I need encouragement....]

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add citations to the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have located the exact quote and put it in ....Sozomen was quoted ... I found the exact reference and place in Cornelius Clifford...... However, the rest I could not find as any of the manuscripts I have do not show more detail of his education and study..... I doubt that a reference can be found as it may be conjecture....
MacOfJesus (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I have located an account of the famous Cathectical School of Alexandria but the wording and claims of the involvement with Athanasius I cannot find. Hence, I cannot verify it's credibility..... Other accounts avoid this and show each wanted to quote Athanasius as supporting them.... Hence, I think that the statements in the Article Page: Athanasius, should stay: "Citation Needed"... MacOfJesus (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

172.58.136.31

Could I please have talk page access revoked for user:172.58.136.31 as well as have her edits made invisible? 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I revoked their talk page access. I see no reason to WP:revdel their edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their edits contain pornography. We have kids using this site. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That pornography is readily available from Wikipedia's sister project Wikimedia Commons. Kids can find it there more easily then to dig thru edit histories of pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am no admin, but I would suggest a longer block, I know IPs can't be blocked indefinitely, but only 2 days? this seems short for a vandal who had 30 edits revdel'ed and then put porn on their talk page after being blocked, I've seen users blocked for months for less severe vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tornado chaser: The duration of block for an IP has nothing to do with the severity of vandalism. The IP is dynamic and may be assigned to different person within several hours. There is no point to block it for longer time if it will be assigned to a different person soon. If we notice that the IP is static, we block it for longer. (It's obviously dynamic in this case.) Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I diden't know about dynamic IPs, I thought the IP would just start adding porn again in a few days. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: He probably will, but with different IP address. He was already doing that few days ago ([10], different IP from the same IP range). But the range is busy, I can't block the whole range as that would also block many good willing editors. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules123! new account

Hi. I've noticed a few more disruptive Littlemixfan!, a possible Hercules123! new account. It looks like a WP:DUCK. 183.171.183.158 (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper place to report sockpuppetry is WP:SPI, not my talk page. Also, be sure to leave some evidence (WP:diffs) when filing SPI case. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) An investigation was opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hercules123!. livelikemusic talk! 00:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask how am i doing similar edits to Hercules123! because i don't know what kind of edits he/she does? Littlemixfan1 (talk) Use {{re|Littlemixfan!}}
to reply to me 17:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Page; Athanasius of Alexandria..... His Study and Learning......

The early Study of Athanasius claiming to have studied at the famous school in Alaxandria is without foundation....

Even though that School is famous at that time.... The History shows that the School was in danger of being attacked by the Emperor and others and the head was in prison... all at the time of Athanasius....

The most reliable account puts him studying in Rome.....

What lacks of references I have found and put them in, which is just a small area.....

Hence, this section I think should be deleted, the section that is of the Alexandrian School.....

I have sufficient accounts to start an Article Page of the School in Alexandria...

The Article Page: Alexandrian School, gives very little account of the history of Clement and Origen...

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since found that two separate Article Pages has been made here: Alexandrian School & Catechetical School of Alexandria...... The Origins and Beginnings of The School are totally missing and it's historicity left in mystery.... To try to correct the pages origins would now be an up-hill battle.... The best thing to do is to begin again.... I have before me the historical origin of the School. It distresses me to hear so many Universities and Colleges refusing their students to take anything from Wikipedia as they say anyone can write on it.... This School, the first of it's kind, had to battle with a Feudal world and still win out. It is therefore, key.... Help me make this Page a Page to be proud of; A1 Page..... MacOfJesus (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose then that the Article Pages in question be re-written ..... I have reliable Historical Accounts with me...... What makes this period difficult is there are accounts from the different sections making claims but do not fit with the historicity, the eventual growth of the School.... MacOfJesus (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vanjagenije. Regarding this edit. Shouldn't the main case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Myths of Christianity include a link to the archive? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Yes, the page just needs to be wp:purged. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that worked! EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

Hi. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but an edit filter was discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Vote_(X)_for_Change to perhaps cut down on the amount of manual effort required to battle the most prolific sockmaster I have witnessed over these 10+ years that I have been an editor here. Thank you for wielding the mop as diligently as you do.   Aloha27  talk  23:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Unreferenced

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Unreferenced. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Hi I am response you I am autisic I still learn use it wiki I want say I am sorry about add year on Kosovo. GAJJR (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GAJJR: No need to be sorry. Feel free to ask me for help if you need some. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I need I add new page 2013 in Kosovo, 2014 in Kosovo, 2015 in Kosovo, and 2016 in Kosovo I look check 2017 in Kosovo they all had red word on 2017 in Kosovo page I don't what else to do can you help me? GAJJR (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help GAJJR (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GAJJR: I don't understand what you'r saying. What is red? What do you want to add and where? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Kosovo I add year 4 page in Kosovo page it new create I already created page I need help or you could do it yourself or so GAJJR (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I add year 4 page in Kosovo page 2013 in Kosovo 2014 in Kosovo 2015 in Kosovo 2016 in Kosovo it said new create I already created page I need help or you could do it yourself or so GAJJR (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GAJJR: I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you're talking. It seams that your English language skill is very poor. Maybe you should stick to Wikipedia in your first language. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I talking about Kosovo I want you fix part of it I made year I created new page Kosovo year go on 2016 in Kosovo, 2015 in Kosovo, 2014 in Kosovo, and 2013 in Kosovo I don't know how to do it can you please do it yourself. GAJJR (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clanak o Nikoli Tesli

Pozdrav Vanja,

Primetio sam da u clanku o Nikoli Tesli pise da je bio hrvat... Primetih posle kroz verzije clanka da je izvesni Mudroslav za to zasluzan.

Da li bi mogao da izmenis tekst i da li postoji neka opcija da ga prijavim iako sam tek sada napravio nalog?

Shomylee (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAZ 90

Seeking clarification. Why do you delete any an all articles reference Swiss TAZ 90 camouflage?Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Degen Earthfast: I did not delete any such article. I redirected them ([11][12]) to the List of military clothing camouflage patterns as it was decided such at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAZ 90 (camouflage). Consensus has to be respected. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

Hello. Today, you archived two sock investigations I had started for the IP numbers in this message. On 1 Oct, an admin visited my Talk page here to erase a comment from and block IP user 120.17.210.246 who has been persistently disrupting edits and discussions on EGCG, example here and Rheumatoid arthritis, here. I reported to sockpuppet investigations that this same user seems to be IP 14.200.91.233, example here, among many other entries. Today, there is a new IP 120.18.15.25 commenting on the same topic thread here. Other editors and I have explained reasons for not using a primary source this user insists on having discussed in the two articles. We have made revisions in both articles, establishing consensus among registered experienced editors. This ongoing badgering by the IP user is disruptive to the constructive process on the Talk pages for both articles. Would be grateful if you could review and provide action please. Following your response here. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: What exactly do you expect me to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. Are those 3 IPs a sock? If so, can the user be given a temporary warning block to stop the disruptive activity? That's all. --Zefr (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I applyed short blocks to the two IP ranges. I'm not sure if this can help, as the user changed IP addresses over large range. I can't block million if IPs because of this user. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am grateful for your help. How should I present this in the future if it recurs? To you as a sock admin (faster), or to the sock notice board? --Zefr (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: You should present it at WP:SPI so that other admins and checkusers may take a look. Unfortunately, SPI is often backlogged and cases may wait for several days. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ArtistForum

Hi Vanjagenije, would you kindly unclose this SPI? It is not yet complete, as KrakatoaKatie explains on the page. It is awaiting action by L235. By the way, KrakatoaKatie, Kevin cannot analyze the stale sockpuppets as the two articles have been deleted and he therefore cannot now view the sockfarm's contributions since he is not an admin, but those accounts should be blocked and tagged as socks. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Unblock of Taylosp13

Thanks for your answer to my comments at User talk:Taylosp13. I agree with almost everything you said there, including "The real question is: If the user is violating WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO, then why is he blocked only for username violation?" When I first became an administrator I was horrified to find how often administrators did things such as telling editors (in effect) "You are blocked because of your user name, and as long as you agree to change that everything will be fine" and then say things amounting to "Ha ha! You can't be unblocked because you are a wicked and evil spammer." I think such things happen less frequently now than they did then, but they still happen. Unfortunately, once an administrator has chosen to make a block which understates the problem it becomes difficult for other administrators to deal with. Just unblocking further encourages the editor to mistakenly think there is no other problem than the user name, making further problems even more likely. On the other hand declining the unblock request is a bad thing to do for the reasons you have pointed out. Perhaps the best compromise is to unblock, but with a message warning the editor of further problems that may occur.

Personally, as far as I remember I have never placed a "softer block" on any editor, and I think the number of "username blocks" I have ever placed may well be less than five, out of a total over 13000 blocks that I have placed. The reason for that is that in my opinion if the only problem is the user name then there is no justification for a block: all that is necessary is a friendly message explaining that the user name is unacceptable and asking the user to change it. My very rare user name blocks have been for users who have continued to edit with an unacceptable user name after being told, and who have no other problems, a rare combination.

Rightly or wrongly I get the impression that softer blocks and user name blocks are less common than they used to be. However, after numerous bad experiences of them in my earlier days as an administrator I started avoiding them like the plague: when I have been reviewing unblock requests and have come across a softer block I have tended to just leave it and move on to another one. On Taylosp13's talk page I did not review the unblock request, but I posted the message you saw, not as a further condition to be unblocked, but as a first step in trying to clarify the editor's intentions, so that I could help him or her to better understand the issues involved around promotional editing. Having thought about what you have said, I now think it might perhaps have been better to have unblocked the account and then posted that message. I will think about it further, and I am grateful to you for having prompted me to think again about issues that I had rather put to the back of my mind quite a long time ago.

In writing all that I almost forgot to mention the most important point, which is that I have unblocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. I agree with everything you said. My comment about adding additional conditions for unblocking was not directed towards you, I just pinged you as you participated in the discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I misunderstood that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI question

Hi Vanjagenjie. Do you think a WP:SPI is warranted for WWENASCAR and WWEFan1926? I stumbled across these account while checking on pages flagged for WP:NFC violation because both editors were adding non-free logos to their respective user sandboxes. I there was a possibility that they might be the same person based upon their user names and the type of images being removed, but they basically admitted they are at User talk:WWEFan1926/sandbox and User:WWEFan1926. The Editor Interaction Analyser also shows quite a bit of overlapping between the two accounts that includes the editing of articles. WWEFAN1926 appears to be the master since it was created back in 2014, while WWENASCAR was only created this year. Neither account has been blocked, so I'm not sure why this person felt the need for multiple accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked WWENASCAR, but it has not edited for the last 4 months. There is nothing especially disruptive, so I think master should not be blocked, just warned. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. There was quite a bit of overlap, but it also didn't seem very disruptive to me (except for the repeated adding of non-free content to the sandboxes), so I wasn't sure why they felt they needed two accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dailynationlogo.png

Hello, Vanjagenije, and thank you for your recent improvements to Newspaper of record. I see that you uploaded File:Dailynationlogo.png to Commons based on the assertion that it is in the public domain because it "only consists of simple geometric shapes or text" and thus "does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection". If you look carefully, you'll see the image of a globe featuring Africa in the middle of the logo. This is neither a simple geometric shape nor text, and it qualifies the logo for copyright protection.

I would recommend that you upload the image to Wikipedia under a claim of fair use in Daily Nation and have the version on Commons deleted. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete it. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges Juicy

Hello Vanjagenije. Just so you know as an admin and checkuser that I am Tomislav (Oranges Juicy) and I am editing from a new account that I created without any intention of violating existing policies. If I explain the reasoning now, it would be better that to spew forth with the newer account and eventually get blocked. Just lately, I haven't had much of an appetite for editing. With the User:Oranges Juicy account I made some accidental error whilst testing the gadgets, appearance and so forth which is why my last bunch of edits from 21 September onward are all performed on some source edit format. It is an absolute nuisance and I have tried everything to turn it off and restore this default scheme which I am using right now. Basically, I hate the waiting and system procrastination, and furthermore I miss the Alt+S to submit my revisions. Far easier to simply fix typos afterwards even though it is generally not considered the best practice (even some of the most experienced editors are guilty of this). What I would like to know is: what are my options? Can I continue indefinitely from here? Can I use this account temporarily until I find out where I went wrong with the other? Can the benefits (e.g. extended autoconfirmed) be transferred here? Should I abandon this account and request its termination upon fixing the other problem? (I don't really need a second account). Or perhaps, would it be possible to transfer the full history of Oranges Juicy to this account as though there were a legitimate name change request? Many thanks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juicy Oranges: It is not possible is to transfer the editing history from one account to another. That would be violation of WP:terms of use. Also, it is not possible to "terminate" an account. All accounts and their edits are kept forever. All other options are Ok. It is perfectly fine to use as many accounts as you need as long as you do not use them abusively. If you want, I can put your new account to the same wp:user groups as the previous one. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Agreed. No point making the new account earn privileges (not that I use them a great deal; the kids are growing and I don't get time to sit for hours in front of computer!!). If you could tell me briefly what to unclick or to perform to get that stupid visual editor off, I'll gladly go back to the original account. Thanks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juicy Oranges: I'm not an expert in this area. But, did you try going to Special:Preferences --> Editing, and check "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta"? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll get back to it by Monday. Very busy weekend coming up! :)))))) Any problems, I'll let you know by then so we all know how best to move forward. Cheers. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please Vanjagenije. I tried the editing feature and nothing has worked. I wish to retire Oranges Juicy for certain and edit from here. I would appreciate the user-group settings to be transferred as I will from this stage only edit from this account. Thank you. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to end this thread by thanking you for the transfer of privileges. Regards/Pozdrav. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you closed and archived discussion before the problem was discussed?

On September 20th, you exercised privileges as an administrator by closing and archiving discussion tat was started just several hours earlier on the Administrators' noticeboard: Vandalized articles on Serbian Patriarchs. There are several problematic issues here. By your hasty actions, that discussion was prematurely removed from the view of other administrators. Also, you took the liberty of closing an undiscussed issue that deals with problems towards which you are potentially biased, as can be seen in some previous discussions on similar issues: Why did you remove Serbian name from the title of the article?. Therefore, it would be better to leave to other, unbiased administrators to make decision on the issue that was reported on September 20th. Please, restrain yourself from hastily closing and archiving of newly reported and undiscussed issues. As an administrator, you should know better. Sorabino (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorabino: WP:ANI is not for generalized discussion, but for incidents (hence the name). There was no incident in this case, so I closed the discussion. Otherwise, I agree with you that naming of Serbian Patriarch needs to be discussed, but not on WP:ANI. Actually, that is exactly what I wrote when I closed it: that you need to discuss it with other editors and reach consensus. Be aware that calling other editors "vandals" without evidence (or with false evidence) is a kind of WP:personal attack and is not allowed here. You are the one who made baseless attack against other editor, so it would be better for you to apologize and not to continue the same behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: There are two incidents here: first - disruptive editing by user Surtsicna on September 20th, and second - your hastily closure of reported incident. And, what do you mean by "false evidence"? Disruptive edits of that user (undiscussed removal of valid content) can be clearly seen in histories of 30 (thirty) articles! As an administrator, you can revert his edits, and make him explain removal of valid content. Did you even see that he literally accused me of "lying"? Such language does not bother you ... But, I will follow your advice, and make a note of these problems on talk pages of relevant articles. Sorabino (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, please take the advice given to you. Your behaviour and editing is starting to look like WP:DE.--Zoupan 02:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia

Are you sure you should be making substantive edits without talk page consensus? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: I've been making substantive edits without talk page consensus for years. That's part of the normal WP:BRD process. What's the problem now? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fully protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: Protected, yes. Does it mean it's somehow exempt from our editing rules? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of exactly what full protection means, yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means that non-admins can't edit the page. I've never read that policy as meaning that admins can't edit the page. Although, it can be understood that way, I agree. Ok, I will revert my edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. The key phrase, as I see it, is Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. So, if consensus hasn't been reached, editing is bad. Typos and grammar aren't bad, but changing languages around is problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) The rationale is that you are using your admin rights to act as an editor, when other non-admin editors can't do the same. If a non-admin disagreed with your edit, they couldn't revert you; you'd be taking advantage of your admin rights to force it to be BDR. Non-admins HATE that, and I can't say I blame them at all. I'm kind of surprised you're not aware of this. Per WP:PREFER: "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. ". If you're going to claim your edit was uncontroversial, then come out and say so (I weakly would disagree that it's uncontroversial, but can see why you'd think so), but please don't think you get to edit it the article like "normal" just because you're an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empty drafts

Back in March, you warned 94.140.52.70 (talk · contribs) about not creating empty drafts and talkpages. He is at it again. It may perhaps be worth waiting a few days to see if anything is done with the pages (after all, they're in draft space); if not, I see no reason not to delete them. --Hegvald (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:PolitiFact

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PolitiFact. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia page needs an urgent restoration according to the recent events

Hello, I see that I can't edit the page even being an extended autoconfirmed user, as it's fully protected just for Admins. I saw you constantly editing that page so I want to propose you something.

I don't know if you noticed, but many people on the talk page of Catalonia are asking to restore the infobox which was vandalized and deleted with no reason just after the page was fully protected, so no one could revert it back. Proofs:

Both editions deleted lots of the infobox with no reason or sense. The 1st user was even blocked a couple of weeks ago for his vandalism edits on similar pages, although his actual changes were not undone. Neither this 2nd edition from above, another one which just deleted lots of information without sense. Catalonia's status is not disputed, the Saturday, 28th of October, Spain's measures were clear, and yesterday they have been applied. Catalonian regional government is already out of office with intervetion from the central Spanish government. The regional vice-president of Catalonia Oriol Junqueras already accepted new ellections on December, as told by the central Spanish government. Carles Puigdemont, the former regional president of Catalonia is already in exile, seeking for political asylum in Belgium.[1] Normality in Catalonia has been restored. There is no sense for the intro to be "Catalonia is a region in the northeastern extremity of the Iberian Peninsula." Catalonia is exactly a Spanish autonomous community. I propose to return to this infobox, prior to the vandal edits (as many others told in the talk page as well)

Although only without changing the actual map of Catalonia within Spain, which was the pic before the edits of 27th October. The "disputed territory" tag should be removed as well, as it's actually clear by the Spanish governmetn and the own Catalan regional government accepted the rules coming from the Spanish central government, so the declaration of independence is already confirmed to be down.[2]

Wikipedia is oftenly referred to be a bad source of information. I don't think this, I strongly believe in Wikipedia and I edit it a lot. This is a perfect chance for an important page with important daily views to show the reality with neturality to anyone looking at it. As now, the page is heavily incorrect and says false information. Catalonia's independence movement is already very well explained in a sub-paragraph of the page Catalonia (Independence movement (2014–present)) and it's clearly an autonomous region of Spain, not being anymore a "disputed territory" as first it didn't have recognition by anyone, and now that independence declaration is down and even the Catalan pro-independence politicians accepted Madrid's orders.

I suggest the new aspect of the intro to be exactly like this, prior to 27th of October:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, Occitan: Catalonha, Spanish: Cataluña)[c][d] is an autonomous community of Spain located on the northeastern extremity of the Iberian Peninsula. It is designated as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy.[e][7] Catalonia consists of four provinces: Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, and Tarragona. The capital and largest city is Barcelona, the second-most populated municipality in Spain and the core of the seventh most populous urban area in the European Union. Catalonia comprises most of the territory of the former Principality of Catalonia (with the remainder Roussillon now part of France's Pyrénées-Orientales). It is bordered by France and Andorra to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the east, and the Spanish autonomous communities of Aragon to the west and Valencia to the south. The official languages are Catalan, Spanish, and the Aranese dialect of Occitan.[8]

This is exactly how the reality is and how we can say the most factual and true information for anyone looking at the Wiki. As it's exactly how it is. Catalonia is a Spanish region, formed as an autonomous community and designated as nationality by it's Statue of Autonomy. How is written today it's incorrect, and only endirtens the Wikipedia by showing false information. As well as many useful information was deleted, just compare the edit from above to the actual one. --TechnicianGB (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/10/30/actualidad/1509367642_165219.html
  2. ^ https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/10/29/catalunya/1509265478_416751.html
@TechnicianGB: That is not vandalism. I already told you (here) to learn what vandalism is, but you continue to call other editors vandals without evidence. Throwing baseless accusations (especially after being warned not to do so) is a form of wp:harassment. Also, your claim that the infobox was deleted with no reason just after the page was fully protected is obviously wrong. Your "proofs" show two edits by 2017NewYearNewMe and Cordyceps-Zombie. Those users are not administrators, so they are not able to edit fully protected pages. As about the status of Catalonia, I mostly agree with you. But, you have to understand that Wikipedia works thru wp:consensus. This is especially true for pages that are fully protected, they can only be edited when explicit consensus is reached. Consensus needs some time to be formed on the article talk page. I see that the consensus is currently in the process of forming, but only since yesterday (at Talk:Catalonia#Restore normality on the article). Vanjagenije (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent changes are needed in the Catalonian page

@Vanjagenije: You didn't understand me well, although it's my fault for making such a long text. I wanted to say before. Anyways, i'll resume it for you. Look at those editions maded by the users 2017NewYearNewMe and Cordyceps-Zombie in 27th October:

Without consensus and without the permit of anyone, he deleted the infobox which had years on this page. Years !! People were changing the infobox to put the recent events. More than 2 dozens of edits were maded in the infobox and no one changed or deleted it. Besides this user did it, without the consensus of anyone and putting false information. Do you understand me now? That's why I recall on vandalism. I know what vandalism is, for me this is soft vandalism.

But forget that. Even if it's vandalism or not, he changed an infobox which was there for years for one he wanted without consensus !!! Do you see it now? I know, I didn't say "2017NewYearNewMe" and "Cordyceps-Zombie" edited the page after it went protected. Because they can't. I said they edited it without consensus, deleting lots of information before the page was protected. Before, not after. Just after the edition of those 2 users, the page went protected:

The page went protected and no one reverted those fake changes without consensus and showing false information. Do you understand me now? That's why I ask you to turn back to the old aspect of the infobox !!! Many users as well asked for this in the talk page of Catalonia. Those 2 users made a fake infobox deleting the old one without consensus and no one could revert their changes because the page went fully protected 1 minute after their edits. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "declared independence" thing from the intro must also be removed as well. Yesterday the independence declaration went fully suspended and the own Catalonian government accepted it. I'm putting an US source, The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/10/31/suspendida-la-declaracion-de-independencia-de-cataluna_a_23262184/ Those are real things which happened on a recent event. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:EySan

User:EySan (formerly known as MyriamTzz) is a good candidate to be listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/أليكس, but it would probably be quicker just to block them. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a heads up

I wasn't sure if I had an obligation to inform you I initiated a second sockpuppet investigation request today over an individual whose case you closed in May. Geo Swan (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of templates and how to recognise it.

Hi Vanjagenije, I am not going to argue with you whether the short description template should be removed or left in place at this time, as time and an upcoming RfC will tell, and it is not worth spending much time on a specific case at this point, however, as a sysop you should know that if a template does not exist it will show as a red link. {{short description}} does not display as a red link and therefore does exist. This can be easily confirmed by inspection of the actual template code. I will agree that at present it does not do anything much, but that is a different issue, and explained in the documentation. Your edit summary is therefore confusing. If you are interested you may read the background at the template talk page, as you may not be aware of the history behind it. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Sorry, my edit summary was indeed wrong. I thought the problem was that the template does not exist (It's new template, I didn't know about it). Actually, the problem was that you typed "((" instead of "{{" [13]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I see how that would cause confusion too. Sorry about that. I usually catch those. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim-afc

Please take a look at this person who is misusing his power in wikipedia. This user is adding whatever he like to Iranian national football team page and then when other members edit his part, he gets mad and lock the page. This user is an Iraqi member and likes to vandalize Iranian pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WisperShadow (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not accuse other users of WP:vandalism without providing evidence (wp:diffs). Accusations without evidence are a form of WP:personal attack and are not allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing, I am complaining about this particular user who has locked Iranian football national team in several occasions and added a rivalry section to our national team page corresponding to his country of origin "Iraq". This is not two sided rivalry. Only Iraqi football fans have this feeling, so I have suggested him to keep this section in Iraqi football national team page, but this user has refused other members opinion, specially Iranian football fans requests. Since he has the power to lock the page he edits the page and locks it to his favor. It is called POV editing. There is another person who repeats this action in collaboration with this user. Please contact an Iranian wikipedia staff or enforcer to have a better understanding regarding this issue. Thank you. --WisperShadow (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WisperShadow: Hashim-afc is not an administrator, thus it is technically impossible for him to "lock" the page (I guess you are talking about wp:page protection). If you have any wp:content dispute with him, try discussing it on the article talk page (see WP:DISPUTE). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanjagenije. Sorry that you've had to waste your time reading WisperShadow's nonsense. Basically, this is the situation: WisperShadow is constantly removing a football match between Iran and Iraq from the Iran national football team results and Iran national football team results (2010–19) pages and adding it to the Iran B national football team page. This is despite the fact that the sources on those pages (FIFA.com and TeamMelli.com both include the match as an Iran national team match and he has provided no sources whatsoever to show that it this match should not be listed in the Iran national team records. This same user constantly removes the well-sourced section about the Iran-Iraq rivalry from the Iran national football team page simply because he does not consider it to be a rivalry. His editing is disruptive and he removes sourced information to suit his own opinion. His constant edit warring and removal of sourced information has gone too far and I propose that this user is blocked. Several other users including Mohsen1248 and Fenix down have also reverted his edits and warned him about his actions. Furthermore, he has also used this IP to make the same disruptive edits. Thank you for reading. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take look at Iranian national football team talk page to see this user (Hashim-afc) response. He has a problem with Iranian national team. Read his reaction toward that page. My dispute with another user over the result of that mentioned match is not related to Iran-Iraq rivalry that he keeps adding to Iranian football national team's page. I can also prove my points regarding that particular match which he is trying to push as extra proof for his argument. You can simply quote a source with full squad members of Iranian national team to see if that match was Iran A team or Iran B team. Here I don't want to give wrong accusation so I stick to Iranian national football team case. If this use Hashim-afc is not an admin, then how come the page will be locked after his version of edit? Please consult with an admin from Iranian section of Wikipedia over this dispute. I will accept an Iranian admin decision. Sorry for taking your time, but it seems there is no other way to stop Hashim-afc and I apologize for his words of choice insulting other users --WisperShadow (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WisperShadow: The page is currently wp:semi-protected by an administrator Fenix down (see the protection log). I strongly advise you to immediately stop wp:edit warring and to try to discuss any dispute with other editors on the talk page. Also, logging out to continue edit warring (like you did) is a type of wp:sockpuppetry and is not allowed. Also, English Wikipedia is administrated by English Wikipedia administrators, not by Iranian administrators. Discrimination is not allowed here, and any administrator has equal rights regardless of their ethnicity/nationality. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That page is about Iranian national football team. So if there is a rivalry feeling it should be among Iranian fans as well. How an international or non Iranian admin should decide if there is a rivalry without consulting with the fans or admins from that particular country? I bet the difference. Iraqi fans love to show they are our rivals in football but it is totally denied by Iranian players, staffs, and football fans. Since it is not a mutual feeling, I suggested to keep this section in Iraqi national football team page. We have no problem with that since they feel that way. Iranians only consider Saudi Arabia by far and South Korea in lesser extend as football rivals in AFC region. Thank you for your response. The person that you are referring to as admin Fenix down has the same idea as Hashim-afc. He might be Iraqi or Arab admin and have a conflict of interest in this case. Last, If I am not happy with his judgement is there any other place that I can dispute this issue? Or should I directly send notice for higher admins regarding this issue? --WisperShadow (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "issue" here. You have a wp:content dispute with other editor(s), and you have to solve it following Wikipedia's rules. You can't expect other editors to be blocked just because they do not agree with you. You have to understand that in Wikipedia, content is created by citing wp:reliable sources and not by feelings or opinions of editors. Any administrator can read reliable sources regardless of his nationality. What "Iranian fans feel" is irrelevant. Only relevant thing is what reliable sources say. The section you are trying to remove ([14]) properly cites reliable sources. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but Wikipedia only respects sources, not feelings. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vanjagenije. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WildChild666.
Message added 01:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sro23 (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

User:REsmiley is a pretty obvious sock of User:Reianasmiley. They seem to be making the same hoax edits as before. I would normally just block but considering they spammed UTRS before I thought I'd inform you instead. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' → Vanjagenije (talk)

to

'''[[User:Vanjagenije|<span style="color:#008B8B;">Vanjagenije</span>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<span style="color: #F4A460;">(talk)</span>]]''' → Vanjagenije (talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Patriot Prayer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Patriot Prayer. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Vanjagenije. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check my account

Hi Vanjagenije, I am logged in from my friends' computers. I'm not sure if my friends have accounts on wiki? Do you advise me to signed in from my laptop only? Should I get away from logging in to my wiki account through my friends' laptop?Or this is not important?--IamIRAQI (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IamIRAQI: What exactly do you want me to "check"? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Check my IP. Are there other accounts with the same IP?--IamIRAQI (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to know that? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have doubts that there are accounts on the same IP--IamIRAQI (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(a) CheckUser tool is not used for curiosity, but to stop disruption. (b) I guess you know it better if someone shares your computer then we do. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vanjagenije ,I have a doubt is it possible to check my IP. I always log in from my friends' computers. Is this harmful?--IamIRAQI (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean "harmful"? What kind of harm do you expect to happen? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content erasing from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HRS395/Archive

What's going on here: [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HRS395/Archive&action=history history]? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nataev

Администратор Узбекского Википедии Nataev предпочитает цензуру и заведомо-ложный провокации. Этот человек находя в территории Киргизии, про своей первый родине Узбекистана пишет всякие гады на Узбекском языке, призывает людей к Евромайдан в Ташкенте. UzbekRU (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English translated https://translate.yandex.ru/


The administrator of the Uzbek Wikipedia Nataev prefers censorship and knowingly-about the provocations. This man is finding in the territory of Kyrgyzstan, about his first homeland of Uzbekistan writes all sorts of reptiles in the Uzbek language, calls people to the Euromaidan in Tashkent.

If the translation is wrong, sorry. Write me the answer in Russian language in my mail UzbekRU (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbekRU: Sorry, but I don't speak Russian language, and I have no connection to Uzbek Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of Massimo Chiacchio 1997

Hi Vanjagenije . Following on from this SPI, I'm 99% sure they're back as this user. Looking at this edit shows the same pattern of adding unsourced height details to an Italian actor's biography. If you want me to log a full report at SPI let me know, but I think this is a clear case of WP:DUCK. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hastiness

I see that you closed an SPI case involving this editor [15]. I have no idea who they are but now they're on my talk page restoring the same thing over and over again, despite being asked to stop. Volunteer Marek 07:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a suspected/known/blocked sock

Re your archiving of the latest report on habitual sockmaster Carlo Galanti. User:CarloGalanti2 was independently blocked as a sock by NeilN in between the closing and the archiving, so they were not added to the report. Is filing a separate SPI the only way to add them to the master's archive? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: There's no need to add a sock to the archive if already blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. ...I was thinking it would be useful to have this account listed-out in the CarloGalanti SPI Archives, to have it specifically connected to the master. But if that is unneeded, then ok. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: It is specifically connected to the master in it's block log. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right the linkage is provided in that individual block log but if one is looking at the master's SPI archives it's not listed there as a sock - that's all. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper of record

Hi Vanjagenije, and happy new year. Regarding this edit, would you care to take a look at the source for El Comercio (listed under Peru)? Like the newspaper you removed, it also cites an editorial in which the paper refers to itself as a newspaper of record. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Why do you need me to remove it? Can't you? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can. A month ago, when it was added, I questioned whether the source was reliable for the claim. But since you removed a different newspaper for the same sourcing issue, I was wondering if there might be some reason why you left El Comercio. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik Shabazz: No, there is no reason. I just didn't notice it. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump family

Indeed I lokked only at the version history and the justification. As the justification seemed week I undid the change.--NezLe (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jesse Hamilton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jesse Hamilton. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humayoon Shams Khan

Hi sir!

I hope you doing amazing, this is Humayoon Shams Khan , I'm Canadian actor, model and director...

" https://www.google.com.af/search?source=hp&ei=aehVWrnlEsfevgS3qJbQAw&q=humayoon+shams+khan&oq=humay&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0i67k1j0i46k1j46l2j0i131i46i67k1j46i131i67k1l2j0i67k1l3j0.129.1301.0.3376.5.4.0.0.0.0.307.597.2-1j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.2.595...0i46i67k1j46i67k1.0.IHls7KsYMsA "

My PR team tried to create my Wikipedia page but since you have deleted my page long back due to some errors, and i'm really sorry about that. It will be amazing if you un deleted my page so my PR team can professional start working on my page because this year my 2 new movies are coming and here is link of my film on wiki " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torbaaz "

Thank you so much and i am waiting for your replay sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humayoon Shams Khan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humayoon Shams Khan: There was no "error". I am not able to restore your page because of several reasons: (a) In Wikipedia, it is not allowed to write wp:autobiographies. (b) In Wikipedia, WP:COI editing and WP:Promotional editing is not allowed. Thus, your PR team is not allowed to edit pages about you because they have WP:COI. (c) In Wikipedia, only individuals may create and operate user accounts. One account may be operated by one person only. WP:Shared accounts are not allowed. That means that your PR team is not allowed to have one group account, but each individual must have separate account. Because of all this, your article will not be restored, and if you try to re-create it, it will probably be deleted again. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije really appreciated your reply!! You you please help me and show me what r the ways if someone want to create Wikipedia page about my work ? Humayoon Shams Khan (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humayoon Shams Khan: If someone wants to create an article about you, the best way is to use the WP:AfC process. But, if YOU or someone connected to you (personally, professionally, etc.) wants to create an article about you, then I recommend you to give up. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a venue to promote yourself or anyone else. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije covers all the points. Woody (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grb Zrenjanina

Vidim da si zamenio zvanični grb Zrenjanina sa nekom nezvaničnom verzijom sa nekog sajta. Grb Zrenjanina postoji samo u jednoj varijanti sa krunom: [16] , pa te molim da poništiš izmenu od 17. decembra jer grb grada ne izgleda tako. Hvala. Alexzr88 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need admin help

Hello Vanjagenije, do you think you could merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsuit Wearer/Archive into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Categorica/Archive? The case was moved today but the already existing archive was neglected, so now there are two archives when there should only be one. Pinging Sir Sputnik so that he's aware. Sro23 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Can you fix it? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, a merge is needed here. That's not something I can do without admin tools. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Sir Sputnik: Well, go off and get 'em then, hurry up! And be back here in 168 hours. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: No, history merge is not needed. Cut and paste merge is perfectly OK. Those are archives, and archives are already cut and pasted. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 tags

Hey, quick question, since he has also been community banned in addition to CU confirmed, shouldn't that tag also be displayed on his userpage for the tracking category if an unblock is ever considered? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Probably. I made a semi-automated edit, didn't think about that. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much. Wanted to check with you first before doing anything. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case protection

Could you restore protection, see also: [17], thanks! I saw this page unprotected after you merged. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: How do you know the page is "unprotected"? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare [18] with [19], thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Is seams that you are right. Yet, the protection log lists the page as semi-protected. Weird. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this edit summary should be also hidden: [20] . Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in Azerbaijan National Aerospace Agency and Azercosmos

Hi, Vanjagenije. The entities shown above are different ones. Azercosmos is Open Joint Stock Company whereas Azerbaijani National Aerospace Agency is just an agency under the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Azerbaijan. When we write Azercosmos it redirects us to Azerbaijani National Aerospace Agency. Furthermore, there are a lot of serious mistakes at the wiki page of Azerbaijan National Aerospace Agency. I kindly ask you to let me edit both articles. The real information about Azercosmos is on [21]--ZahraGasim (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZahraGasim: Nobody prevents you from editing, you don't need my (or anyone's) permission. But, there are no "both articles". There is currently only one article, titled "Azerbaijan National Aerospace Agency". The other one ("Azercosmos") is just a redirect, no article. You can create that article using wp:reliable sources. The page you provided ([22]) is not a reliable sources, as it is a web page of Azercosmos (reliable sources need to be wp:independent). By the way are you somehow connected to Azercosmos, i.e. do you have wp:conflict of interest? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hi, I see your name come up in a lot of sock puppet investigations. I'm not really familiar with the whole SPI process. Anyway, I believe an editor was blocked, evaded that block by posting a rant at MILHIST (likely the project covering the article he was blocked for doing something to). His post was removed, then another IP user (same ISP, same small town, pop. 4320) popped up in defence of the first IP. He then went on a destructive bent that got the 2nd IP blocked. I'm wondering what is the best way of reporting these IP addresses as (likely) being the same person, and possibly finding which account they (likely) had that was blocked in the first place to start all this? (the details are all in a 3RRNB report found here. If you could take a look and offer any advice as to what steps I could (or should) take, if any, that would be appreciated. Thank you - theWOLFchild 23:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: If I understand correctly, all accounts and IPs mentioned are now blocked and there is no more disruption. Why would we make any investigation if there is no disruption? What would we accomplish with that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, only one of the two IP accounts has been blocked, 2601.x, the 2nd one. He has since jumped back to 73.x, the first IP account, with more rage against the machine posts, both at the 3RRNB report and 2601.x's talk page... after the 2601.x account was blocked, so despite this block (likely his second) he is still continuing. We still haven't identified what original account he was using that was blocked to begin with that set of all these rants via these 2 IP accounts. This is clear sock puppetry, and when you look at the first rant that started it all, it is also likely block or ban evasion as well. - theWOLFchild 14:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: I don't know if you had a look at the 3RRNB report or not, but would it help is I wrote out a report with all the diffs to demonstrate the socking and continued disruption? Then you could let me know how to go about filing it. I guess this would an SPI case? (like I said, I'm not at all familiar with this process, but would like to learn). Thanks again - theWOLFchild 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: How do you know there is any registered account involved? And, even if there was, how do you think we can find it? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take it you didn't read the 3RRNB report then. This all began with this post to the MILHIST talk page by someone using the 73.x account. He's clearly upset about a block, it seems likely (to me at least) that either his reg'd account or another IP he was using had just been blocked, and he then used this IP to rail about it at MILHIST, (the project likely covering whatever page he was editing that lead to the block). Can I prove that right now? No. That's what I though the purpose of the sock investigations were for. Anyway, the MILHIST post was removed, and he went on a rant about it on several pages, now using the 2601.x account. I think it's clear that 73.x and 2601.x are the same person, but only 2601.x has been blocked so far, and only for 72 hours for edit warring on my talk page. There is definite socking occurring, 2 accounts have been identified and I believe there is possibly a third account, the original one. I just wanted to know the best was to report all this. I thought you would be able to tell me because I see your name attached to a lot of these investigation pages. So can you help me? - theWOLFchild 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I blocked the other IP, as I believe it belong to the same person. I think you do not understand the purpose of WP:SPI. The purpose of sockpuppet investigations is to stop ongoing disruptive behavior. When there is no disruption, there is nothing to investigate. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that I first asked you about this last night (about 12 hours ago) when he was actively disrupting the project on several pages using at least 2 different accounts, and continued after my first post here. And if he is evading a block, then that block should certainly be lengthened, if not turned indef. Anyway, that said, perhaps you can offer a suggested course of action for me to take the next time I come across something like this actively taking place? Is there a board I can file a report to, similar to 3RRNB or AIV? (like I said, I am not at all familiar with SPI) Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I don't know what you mean when you say that the block should be turned indef. If you mean the presumed original account's block, then I agree, but we don't know if such account even exists. If you mean the IPs' block, then no. IPs are almost never indeffed, because they might be dynamic or they might belong to schools or similar. Block evasion should be reported at WP:SPI. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to the likely, but currently unknown, original blocked account, and if it is a registered account, of course. I do know that IPs aren't indef'd. Thanks - theWOLFchild 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I do not know how to leave a message. The page Simone_Butler has been targeted by trolls most recently by the name of Lyerlyerpantsonfier. this user along with ilbogod have been trying to disrupt the page and write derogatory comments in their edits. Trolling is a criminal offence and if need be the police will be notified of the ip addresses. I do not wish for a page deletion, but to stop these trolls adding information to the page and deleting links for no reason. Deleting the page will only result in the trolls being able to set up a fake page . please help to stop this harassment and vandalism. {{Lyerlyerpantsonfieruw-hblock}}

Please comment on Talk:Real News Update

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Real News Update. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate violation about sock puppetry

Hello, I am Rectify 54. I would suggest to erase two of my abusing editing archive, one for 11 September 2016 and 19 March 2017. We had enough with accessing IP address for violation edit case. 21:22, 7 February 2018 (talk) (UTC)

@Rectify 54: I don't understand the meaning of "We had enough with accessing IP address for violation edit case". Clarify, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove two of my abused editing records, please. I do not want to see the past ones. If strangers find out about it, they could steal my identity and account.

No, I'm afraid. We need that data to prevent future abuse. You were abusing IPs as recently as last month. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before you and I use the data to erase my evidence of sock puppet, let me tell you. I am learning my lesson not to edit any articles with IP address, so I promise all users I will not make future abuse.

Since you needed three lessons to learn, there is distinct possibility that you will need more lessons. Therefore, we are not going to delete anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i Know they are i have been in 3 countries i do doctors without boarders the do both eastern and western rite liturgy like ROCOR Antioch And Alexader

I seen them first hand that's why I add them and was asking for help I knoe for a fact they are in Nigeria My Home Town Davao City Philippines and Madagascar Africa I was just trying to make it right they broke away from the greek orthodox church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinealeria (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinealeria: I believe you, but Wikipedia needs WP:reliable sources. There are lot of thing that are real , but not all of them are WP:notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i understand now thank you for your help i really thank you i dont know how this works

thank you so much for you input I really mean it can you give me advice o what to do and how this works — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinealeria (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bozo-Vreco-screenshot.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bozo-Vreco-screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_17&oldid=1146524885"