Ed, I mentioned you at [[WP:ANI#Martdj, Martin Kulldorff, and odd crusade]].--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Ed, I mentioned you at [[WP:ANI#Martdj, Martin Kulldorff, and odd crusade]].--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:Thanks for your note. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:Thanks for your note. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
== Armenian flag spamming ==
Ed, I stumbled across these two articles([[Battle of Bulair]] & [[Battle of Kardzhali]] that mentioned a [[Andranik Ozanian]] in their infoboxes, and who does not appear to be mentioned in either article.
Andranik Ozanian appeared in both infoboxes, initially, with a Bulgarian flag next to his name. Certain editors then took it upon themselves to change said flag to the flag of Armenia, blatantly ignoring the fact that Armenia did not exist as a nation state in 1913(battle of Bulair) or 1912(battle of Kardzhali). Maybe these editors should read [[First Republic of Armenia]]?
*{{user|FedayiChristian}} seems to have been behind most of the changing of flags to Armenian, despite battles occurring before the creation of Armenia as a nation state. Stopped editing 9 July 2023
*{{user|ArturMusheghtyan}} appears to be spamming Armenian flags into battle articles that date well before the establishment of an Armenian nation. Is still actively editing.
*{{user|TTskukataun}} restored Andranik Ozanian to the battle of Bulair article, when the article makes no mention of him! Stopped editing 13 July 2023.
*{{user|Samuel Khuspov}} appears about every other week to restore anachronistic flag of Armenia to battle articles. Has recently editing as of 26 July 2023.
Not sure if these editors are one and the same, a coordinated effort, or just coincidence. I have refrained from posting warnings since I have no idea what warning(s) to post on their talk pages. Sorry to have such a convoluted issue, but maybe some fresh eyes can see this better than me. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 17:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Vizualnoiise (talk·contribs) has, since 15 April 2023, been removing the mention of Jat ethnicity(referenced by reliable sources) from the Abu Hanifa article.
You’re the Pakistani that has numerous accounts that is changing it. I gave you the reliable source “Al Bukahri”
you’re changing the info to what you wish he was not what he is! Stop with the lies. Andre wink is more reliable than that of Al Bukhari? Are you crazy! I will make a complaint about you. You are doing the same exact thing as me, but putting falsified information! With numerous accounts to make it look like it’s more than one person changing it! Vizualnoiise (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You’re the Pakistani that has numerous accounts that is changing it."
LMAO. Well, I am not Pakistani and this is the only account I operate.
"you’re changing the info to what you wish he was not what he is."
Why are you putting that he’s Jatt? Are you Andre wink? All the Islamic scholars say he’s Persian why would you change that? Why are you taking away my history man. This isn’t fair I can’t believe you. I sent you the Hadith by Al Bukhari that talks about Abu Hanifa. Let me tell you you’re not a reliable source. No one cares about what Andre wink says. You don’t have superiority over Al Bukhari. I will never stop changing it. Why is it I get blocked, but you can continue your charade of wishful thinking. You’re not even middle eastern. Go deal with American history. No one in the Middle East cares about what Andre wink thinks believe me, sorry to burst your bubble. Everyone knows he’s Persian. He could have been a Persian from Afghanistan or present day Iran. Because I don’t know if you this Tajiks and Afghans are also Iranian. Now stop changing my history with this BS! Vizualnoiise (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ed. There's an unblock request at UTRS from an editor using the IP address 2600:4040:2929:fb00:642e:8232:70fc:1f68, relating to a block you placed on the /38 range. I am currently editing on my phone, which makes doing a lot of checking fiddly and awkward, so I am much less confident than I would otherwise be, but it looks to me as though blocking
2600:4040:2800::/40 might be enough. Can you have a look, and see what you think? JBW (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yamla While I was writing the above message to Ed, you declined the UTRS appeal. If you have done enough checking to be sure the full /38 block is needed, then perhaps you can confirm that here, so that both Ed and I can forget about it and move on to other things. JBW (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to UTRS appeal #76075 was just the default template pushing them to request an account via WP:ACC. I haven't double-checked your math on the /38 vs /40 but am very happy to do so. Without giving away too much private information, it looks like there's reason to consider a wider block believe it or not, perhaps /36 or even /32, but I only have a few log entries on that rather than specific actionable information. I very strongly suspect EdJohnston can quickly indicate if the /38 is (still?) necessary or if it could be restricted down. Happy to use my checkuser tools if necessary and appropriate (I haven't yet, saw no need when pointing them at WP:ACC). --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would be glad to hear whatever Yamla can find out. My own judgment on the necessity of the block was just what I observed from running Special:Contributions on the same address with different widths; I don't remember looking at the CU log. I also agree that what we have now (a /38) might not be wide enough. I have no objection if the editor involved wants to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2600:4040:2929:FB00:642E:8232:70FC:1F68 is Verizon Business and the full range would be /24. You can read the complaint that lead to the block here. Previous attempts to resolve the problem failed. A quick look at the report shows the IP addresses in question this time around are 2600:4040:2836:6200:da5c:97de:5be5:4634 and 2600:4040:2836:6200:42c9:2e2d:7e11:7961 and 2600:4040:282c:ec00:dc18:ba4d:7902:d3a. The smallest range that would capture those addresses would be (calculating calculating calculating)2600:4040:2800:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/39, only slightly smaller than the blocked range. Now, the report implies these IP addresses were used by the same person. Checkuser data strongly implies the addresses in 2600:4040:2836:6200::/64 are a match; I can't make the same claim about the other addresses. I'm not saying they aren't, though. There's at least one sockpuppeteer operating from this range; privacy requirements prohibit me from identifying them, but they aren't one of the really bad LTA's. A fair number of constructive editors. This person is almost certainly behind other attempts to edit List of programs broadcast by The CW and List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming and a few similar articles; I found many attempts across many IP addresses that are Highly likely to be the same person. I initially hoped semi-protection on a few articles would be sufficient, but it just wouldn't have stopped this user. I believe this user does not have an account (at least, not one that's been active recently).
I see them stable on /64 ranges and then hop to a new one. At the moment, an anon-only block on 2600:4040:2800:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/42 would catch the ones I'm fairly certain about. I have no reason to believe they are actually confined within that space, though, particularly as checkuser data doesn't go back all that far. A range larger than /64 should be anon-only (as this is). We could play whack-a-mole with /64 blocks but this would only slow them down a little, so a larger range is called for. My gut says a /42 block won't work, it's too narrow. On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to expand the range beyond /38; checkuser logs imply they were targeting other users there.
In summary: /38 is not unreasonable, if anon-only. A smaller /42 range could be tried but my experience shows that wouldn't work. Rapid-response /64 blocks could work but would only be minor speed-bumps. Page protection isn't going to be enough (but could be used in combination). This isn't a specific LTA or at least, not one active via their account recently.
Within the privacy restrictions imposed on me, I'm happy to answer follow-up questions. This was a lot of data to page through and not easy to summarise. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not much more to see, happy to email EdJohnston the key identifying information if he's interested. Ed, let me know. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Well, thanks to all of you (Ed, Yamla, and Ponyo) for following this up. As I indicated in my original post, I was not by any means confident that my initial impression was right, and it looks as though it definitely wasn't. JBW (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andranik Ozanian appeared in both infoboxes, initially, with a Bulgarian flag next to his name. Certain editors then took it upon themselves to change said flag to the flag of Armenia, blatantly ignoring the fact that Armenia did not exist as a nation state in 1913(battle of Bulair) or 1912(battle of Kardzhali). Maybe these editors should read First Republic of Armenia?
FedayiChristian (talk·contribs) seems to have been behind most of the changing of flags to Armenian, despite battles occurring before the creation of Armenia as a nation state. Stopped editing 9 July 2023
ArturMusheghtyan (talk·contribs) appears to be spamming Armenian flags into battle articles that date well before the establishment of an Armenian nation. Is still actively editing.
TTskukataun (talk·contribs) restored Andranik Ozanian to the battle of Bulair article, when the article makes no mention of him! Stopped editing 13 July 2023.
Samuel Khuspov (talk·contribs) appears about every other week to restore anachronistic flag of Armenia to battle articles. Has recently editing as of 26 July 2023.
Not sure if these editors are one and the same, a coordinated effort, or just coincidence. I have refrained from posting warnings since I have no idea what warning(s) to post on their talk pages. Sorry to have such a convoluted issue, but maybe some fresh eyes can see this better than me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highly likely to be the same person. I initially hoped semi-protection on a few articles would be sufficient, but it just wouldn't have stopped this user. I believe this user does not have an account (at least, not one that's been active recently).
