Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jory (talk | contribs)
405 edits
Line 594: Line 594:
:For the time being, I added the "not a vote" tag to the top of the article, and the "SPA" tag can be added to the editors your suspect of of being [[WP:SPA]]'s. (I would have, but I didn't have that template memorized, nor did I know if all were suspect or not.) That will make sure that the closing admin takes a close look at those editors at least. I think that's all the action I'd take at this point. Hopefully some more experienced editors will leave a comment soon. I'll leave an !vote myself once I look into it a little more. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:For the time being, I added the "not a vote" tag to the top of the article, and the "SPA" tag can be added to the editors your suspect of of being [[WP:SPA]]'s. (I would have, but I didn't have that template memorized, nor did I know if all were suspect or not.) That will make sure that the closing admin takes a close look at those editors at least. I think that's all the action I'd take at this point. Hopefully some more experienced editors will leave a comment soon. I'll leave an !vote myself once I look into it a little more. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::Okay. Thanks for the tip and your input on this. [[User Talk:GamerPro64|<span style="color:red">GamerPro64</span>]] 15:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::Okay. Thanks for the tip and your input on this. [[User Talk:GamerPro64|<span style="color:red">GamerPro64</span>]] 15:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

::: Hi, I just wanted to make clear that I have never commented on anything on WP without being logged into only this account. All comments made by others on the AfD were made by actual humans (I would assume) who were not me and were not told what to say by me. I think it wrong to try and sway a discussion like that by either hiding behind fake accounts or coercing others to speak one way or the other. Those who have commented may be people I know or people who had heard that I was trying to defend notability, but they commented of their own volition and without my influence. I do appreciate your concern for sock puppets being used and wanted to just be clear that those posts were NOT me. [[User:Jory|Jory]] ([[User talk:Jory|talk]]) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


== Tales update #2 ==
== Tales update #2 ==

Revision as of 14:31, 10 February 2015

Vandals

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User_talk:46.11.39.149 Vandalism only.

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

Vandalism pt2

Extended content

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

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

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

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

Vandalism pt3

Extended content

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

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

Vandalism pt4

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

Vandalism pt5

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

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

  • Not great contributions, but the edits essentially lead up to just one bad addition to the article, and the person's received 0 warnings. Not great, but I don't think its enough for a block yet. It's also been 3 days since the last edit, maybe they're done causting trouble? Salvidrim! what's your opinion on the user name? Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falongen is back,...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See User_talk:Falongen. Sigh. I really don't know what they're getting out of this! Mabalu (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. Let me know if you catch him again a month. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo - I spotted the ISP: [60.241.116.90] popped up, went straight to Emperor of Europe for example, and moved it right back to Falongen's dodgy redirect. Looking at their contribution history is VERY suggestive - you may want to compare and contrast. I'm also seeing the same predilection for weird redirects/similar subjects. If this ISP has been active during any of Falongen's block periods, then it implies someone was block-evading - making it even more likely that they know exactly what they're doing. Looks like User:Smuckola may finally have grounds for requesting a sock investigation into this user. Mabalu (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted quite a lot of their edits/redirect moves. It's got to be the same person - in the middle of their edits was a random redirect of "pencil dress" to "pencil skirt" - as if all the Falongen-sque "empirical" redirects weren't enough of a giveaway. They clearly set up this sock account in order to evade the permanent ban. Sigh. I don't get this guy either. Mabalu (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't answer me soon I'm going to indef both accounts, considering his original account was at his final warning, and the new one is pretty clearly him. Refusing to address me would confirm a DUCK situation to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He removed my warning without any discussion, so they're both blocked until they show any ounce of effort in explaining their actions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 and Mabalu: This is totally insane. People like this do much deranged damage. Aside from the analysis you guys said here, they also plagiarize redundant content between articles and inject lots of OR. It seems to me, between the evaluation of the contributions and the final banning, that all contributions should be undone. I went through just the two latest articles they'd butchered, and it took a lot of time and effort to research and undo it. WTF. WP:FAIL — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it really puzzles me too. What a strange, passive-aggressive way to attack the project. Go figure. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 and Mabalu: Is there a way to automatically revert all of one user's edits? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually just go to their contribs page, and click "rollback" over and over again. There might be better ways of doing it though, I'm not sure. Perhaps a (talk page stalker) will know. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about all their redirect creations too? Mabalu (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to respond to this. If there's ones that meet speedy deletion criteria, I can delete them (though I may need a bit of explanation because I'm familiar with all the things we wrote about.) There's WP:RFD for less obvious ones. There's also just fixing them or leaving them be if they don't especially seem to be detrimental. Going forward, since both accounts are indef blocked, if its obviously Falongen again, we can just revert them on the grounds of block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 and Mabalu: Hijuklet We have a quacker. It starts off with exactly the same robotic process of pointlessly creating User and Talk page with 'a' and blanking it, and then making the same kinds of edits to the same articles. Just like Falongen and Onestance. I already reverted the major piece of plagiarism of large blocks of content from another article into United States of Europe. Again. Did I do the right thing by adding {{sockpuppet|Falongen}} to the relevant Talk pages? But don't worry; I asked him if he's Falongen and he said "No.". Serge, I guess you have WP:CheckUser access?— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when people purposely go in and make edits just to get rid of the redlinks in their own name, that is usually the sign of a person who had been here under another name - it wouldn't make sense for a completely new person to know how that works, or why one would do it. That being said, a lot of people do that, so this in itself isn't super strong of a connection to Falongen. I don't have WP:CHECKUSER access, I usually just block people per WP:DUCK on rather obvious cases. If you've got more concrete proof, like he's making literally the same edits on the same pages, I can help you, but otherwise, if you want to further pursue this, it should probably be sent to WP:SPI or a checkuser. (I think Salvidrim! is one, so you could try him. Or maybe not, I'm not entirely sure how active he is these days.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim! and Sergecross73: Yes that is exactly what I just said. Many of them are exactly the same edits as with United States of Europe. Salvidrim, if Serge isn't doing WP:DUCK on this one again, can you hit up WP:CheckUser and/or WP:DUCK? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking about this, as Onestance, and this, as Hijukelit, correct? They are pretty similar both in their content and lack of sources. Let me do some more digging. Let me know if you've got any other good difs. Usually SPI/Checkusers require a bunch of them before they'll look into anyways, so may as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Right. ok.  :-/ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the sad face! Your confronting him in itself has made him stop, so that's good (and could be a sign that it's Falongen knows he was caught again.) I do see similarities in the edits; unnecessary redirects and unsourced edits in the realm of Geographic/economic/government type subjects. I want to see if the account makes any more edits to confirm it, but its looking increasingly likely... Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can I ask for a second opinion on this reversion of a Hijuklet edit. I think I was right to revert it, but would appreciate confirmation - it just seemed inappropriate to link to the actual organisation's page if the one in the novel is a fictional version, as if implying that the real Europol is the same as the one portrayed in the novel. Thanks! Mabalu (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*WINCE* I hate when I malaprop in edit summaries. I meant Europol, not Interpol, in the edit summary. Mabalu (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabalu: Hey bro. I am not familiar with the material, but it's unencyclopedic to imply things, period. So yeah whether it's a specifically delusional propaganda move, or whether it's an unintentionally overreaching edit by an obviously delusional (sockpuppet) user, or whether it's a simple oversight by an innocent user, it's effectively the same thing.  :( — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's pretty close to my stance as well. If this is Falongen, he does have a history of questionable associations like this, whether it be through weird redirects or wiki-links, so that's reason for caution. Even if its not him, if you think there's reason for concern for misinformation in a situation where there's no room for rewriting/clarification, then you're probably doing the right thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't help but notice that, in addition to the behavioral similarities, Hijuklet stopped editing as soon as you confronted him of being a sock, and then Kufojut was created on the very same day. I'm blocking them both, but stating that I'm open to unblocking if they can convince me I've made a mistake. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fokstonaf. Quack. The day the account was created, I reverted all edits (all of falongenian nature) and I put the {{sockpuppet}} tag on there, with no further activity. No response. According to how we've been handling it, this is the same evidence we've used for indef banning so far. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He made so few edits, and hasn't edited for a week, so I want to hold off on blocking him for now. Certainly seems possible, and it was good to document his name here, in case either of us ever decide to take things to SPI or somewhere in the future, (like if there were to be a scenario where DUCK couldn't be applied, but the editor was actively editing and being beligerant or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this one made more edits, and they seem more clearly connected to the other. Blocked. Both of you guys, please let me know if you ever see any of these people actually responding to my block message, saying its a mistake. I want to hear them out if we do happen to make a mistake... He usually doesn't even contest it when we find him...which doesn't seem like the reaction we'd get if it was just some random person, so I feel we're correct so far, but still. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Exactly. :-/ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabalu: Did you undo all the contributions? — Smuckola

(Email) (Talk) 06:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: I'm just doing some now, I see you already picked up some too. Nominated the redirect of World dictator for deletion as, more so than usual, it was remarkably contentious. This is completely insane. Some of the redirects seem perfectly legit, and others - such as this - are just nuts. It makes it very confusing. Mabalu (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabalu: Yeah this is a sick mind. With the frenetic, bloody-minded, single-minded, robotic, perseverated patterns of editing, coupled with the globally cataclysmic subject matter, it'd like that of autism or schizophrenia. Some sockpuppets actually have multiple personalities, so they don't know what they did before. I mean that doesn't affect how we handle the situation, but it kinda helps to compassionately consider how such behavior could come from suffering and illness. I mean if we have to suffer, we want to ascribe meaning to our own suffering. ;) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He actually just deleted and readded his name from my list of suspected sockpuppets of Falongen, lololololol. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him with the same message as the last few times, the "If this is a mistake, tell me" message. I also protected that United States of Europe article, since that's the first place he always seems to go. Smuckola, I understand your frustrations with him, but please do not ask him about personal mental illness or anything. That could be perceived as a personal attack, or an invasion of privacy. I don't want you to get in trouble over this person's disruptive edits... (I'm not saying that as a threat, I'm saying it'd be hard to defend if other people started accusing you of it, that's all.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: You just described how every abuser (especially sockpuppets) interprets literally everything we do about them. Everything we say, everything we do, every policy written, every interpretation of every policy, every action taken upon them, and everything we even think in our own minds. If a person was to interpret a simple, logical, and compassionate question (after a year of battering us with abuse) as being an invasion of privacy (full disclosure: I lack psychic power) or as a personal attack, would be delusionally narcissistic. I hope nobody here is losing sleep about how the narcissist perceives being authoritatively told that everything they do is wrong, followed by the taking away of all their toys! When deprived of their global playpen and soapbox, they could resort to a tantrum worthy of having to call 911, and then that'd magically be our fault through a hyperbolic victim culture of association and perception too! :-D Nope, the only victims are the ones posting to this thread. But. As for the perception by looney victim culture admins, okay. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narcissism, delusion, and tantrums run rampant around here, no doubt, but I believe its crossing the line to observe these problems and make a "diagnosis" to connect it to medical dysfunction though. We're not doctors, we're not qualified to say that, and they have no real responsibility to disclose that information either. It's not a defense for anyone, Wikipedia is not therapy, but its not something we need to ask about either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, brother, that's totally inapplicable confabulation upon what I said. That's just reciting a generic taboo. I didn't say or do any of that. It didn't happen. You are literally telling me that you can't tell the difference between an honest question and a judgmental statement, which I know isn't true either. I didn't diagnose him; I asked if he'd find it in his best interest, as some others have, to share whether a doctor actually did. That has helped people tremendously in not getting blocked, and having people take a special interest in stewarding their special needs, even when they go berzerk. Because then we would know why, and that it's legitimate. Disclosure of any variety of personal issues has worked. It's something I've probably asked about twice in my entire life on Wikipedia, with the most incorrigibly and unavoidably extreme cases because Wikipedia policy begs these people to come back and force me to fix their stuff or walk away. If it ever arises again, I could maybe think of a wordsmithier approach since you mention the taboo, thanx. There's no diagnosis from me, just a simple and compassionate offer to engage in dialog and understand a potential problem as a last resort, just like any other, and it didn't connect, so case closed. :) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not Wikipedia has a policy against it, I humbly request you do not ask such things when working with me, because I feel my blocks are done without "mental dysfunction" being a factor in my decisions. Plus, I'd rather not be part of some "Serge-Deals-Blocks-For-Depression-Gate" controversy. The world loves a controversy, and everyone seems all too ready to blame Admin for the website not being what they want it to be, or not aligning with their personal/political/religious/social/whatever beliefs. I just don't want to feed the fire... Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I got yer back. ;) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a go-to person for Check Users. Most of the socks I deal with are blatant and just blocked per DUCK, or I just take them to SPI. Before I was an admin, I had a go-to admin, but...I don't really agree with how they handle things in recent years, so I don't want to consult them or send you their way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. I hope the hard life at Wikipedia didn't change that person. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciated that he took care of some obvious socks for me back in the day, but I've seem him be pretty careless with some of his blocking decisions since I've become an Admin and began to better understand how to do things. I'm not sure if things changed, or if he's always been that way, and just happened to be right with my interactions with him. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Avril Lavigne (album)

Two different IPs added unreliable sources like hardrockhaven.net, guitarsweepstakes.com and Muumuse (see References section below). 183.171.181.120 (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles not very active (7 edits this month, the last 50 track back to August.) You should be able to make the changes yourself without much opposition... Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about SPI

Do these things usually last several weeks? Because this has been a nightmare all around, and I'm not sure I can or should take much more of this, as this has been ongoing for almost 12 weeks now, and it's very discouraging and demoralizing. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I guess I was too late? Rationalobserver, it seems the SPI clerk determined that you are a sock? That's too bad, I hadn't thought so. I'd help if there is anything you feel that is conclusive that could defend you... Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thanks so much for standing up for me. I hope to become an editor that you are proud to have helped! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver - I'm glad things worked out for you. I do hope you'll stay away from interacting with Dan56 though, as sometimes, even if its not your fault, if too much drama seems to revolve around you, you may find yourself in the ANI/blocking hot-seat regardless. I personally recommend, in times of Wiki-drama, to find yourself a nice obscure, non-controversial article to work on in solitude. But its up to you. Hope to see you around the project though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best to honor your advice. Thanks again! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Of Human Feelings

Hi! Since you are an experienced contributor to WP:ALBUMS, would you care to review or comment at my FAC for the article Of Human Feelings? Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I really don't work on GA/FA related things. I work a lot on album related discussions on guidelines and source use, but that's really just to establish systems and precedents for people in a general sense. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a king of late Christmas present to you, I preset a revamped and ready for action Tales of Rebirth, reviewed and given GA icon courtesy of Tezero. Unfortunately complete with terrible cover art. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake - Wow, that's awesome. Was just looking it over - it looks great! Thanks for the "present"! I'm hoping 2015 will renew my interest in writing about Tales games so I can be more active in helping you. I received Tales of Hearts R for Christmas, and still have Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology to play too, so it seems very possible. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Christmas to you

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Sergecross73, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,

— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you Smuckola! I didn't receive many of these this year - hopefully it's not a sign of scaring people away! I've enjoyed working with you this year, and hope to continue it into 2015! Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Check this out. I saw that you have just hit 30,000 edits and 6 years, so I went looking up a status for you. If you busted out AWB or some other tool and did a bunch of reclassifications or other mass edits, you could probably jump to the next major level ;) Anyway, you definitely deserve major supreme heroic recognition, and all else I know of is just the silly self-appointed ones. So my self is appointing you. But they are cool. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smuckola Thanks for noticing, and saying something. As I've probably said before, its nice to hear something positive, when you get so many complaints and criticisms thrown at you when you're an admin. And thanks for the heads up. Actually, I pride myself that none of my edits have been automated (unless you count rollback, which I personally don't.) But at the rate I edit, I'm sure I'll be at at 33K real soon regardless.^_^ I'm honestly surprised that you're not higher than 8,200, as you seem pretty active...although, you've gone through some patches of inactivity as well, right? Anyways, regardless, thanks for the kind words, and thank you for your contributions as well. I do admire your ability to find/track vandals. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Yes I've been inactive for multiple fairly long periods, largely due to burnout from flagrant abuse of the encyclopedia and of people, and somewhat due to a huge lack of recognition. Also because making a good encyclopedia is super super hard, lol. Especially when you have to build a mental time machine in order to recreate a lost history of retro-technology. Though there are many great policies, the project is chaotic and codependent to abusers by policy or by culture. The value of your presence absolutely cannot be understated, and is sorta countercultural. Knowing an admin who's kind and generous and who will do something about things, who wants to collaborate without casting authoritarian airs, is absolutely key to that. Most decent people will not participate in a system that's completely unfair or anarchistic, however necessary it is or however talented and motivated they are. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Sergecross73, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
Sorry for being late, I was busy in real life Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Unacceptable! Just kidding! Thanks Satellizer! Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Punk

Resolved, closed.

Looking to hardcore punk for inspiration, former Attack Attack! vocalist Caleb Shomo makes it clear that Beartooth are a long way from the glossy electronicore of his previous band on Disgusting. Raw and driving, the album feels like a throwback to the wild and unpolished sound of metalcore pioneers like Converge, who took the energy of hardcore and pushed it to gritty extremes. With no overdone production or studio magic to hide behind, Beartooth deliver an intense performance that shows the band are capable of making good on their hardcore ambitions, all while giving listeners a glimpse at a side of Shomo that will appeal to those turned off by the EDM influences of his past work.


1. Looking to hardcore punk for inspiration, <----Inspiration does not Equal Hardcore punk, many people are inspired doing Different things

former Attack Attack! vocalist Caleb Shomo makes it clear that Beartooth are a long way from the glossy electronicore of his previous band on Disgusting. Raw and driving, the album feels like a

2. throwback to the wild and unpolished sound of metalcore pioneers like Converge, who took the energy of hardcore and pushed it to gritty extremes. <----Thats about CONVERGE not "beartooth"

With no overdone production or studio magic to hide behind, Beartooth deliver an intense performance that shows the band are capable of making good on


3. their hardcore ambitions, <------Hardcore Ambitions does not mean a band is Hardcore Punk


all while giving listeners a glimpse at a side of Shomo that will appeal to those turned off by the EDM influences of his past work.


1. Looking to hardcore punk for inspiration, <----Inspiration does not Equal Hardcore punk, many people are inspired doing Different things 2. throwback to the wild and unpolished sound of metalcore pioneers like Converge, who took the energy of hardcore and pushed it to gritty extremes. <----Thats about CONVERGE not "bear tooth" 3. their hardcore ambitions, <------Hardcore Ambitions does not mean a band is Hardcore Punk, ambition means a Desire To Achieve, not equaling "Achieved.


2601:C:2081:2B30:C51E:85D7:6169:FD43 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this will be rightfully removed from the List. Go ahead and find a better source that actually states They are The Genre of Hardcore Punk. They they can stay, where they don't belong anyway. 2601:C:2081:2B30:C51E:85D7:6169:FD43 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two seconds of searching shows that they're considered hardcore punk from reliable sources: http://www.underthegunreview.net/tag/beartooth/ - A source with a consensus for being reliable per discussions at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you include a reference that is Totally False, is that how you edit. Go ahead and grab a reliable source. Consensus shows your pushing Your Own POV 2601:C:2081:2B30:C51E:85D7:6169:FD43 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My link above links to two specific articles that call them hardcore punk - like this one http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/07/22/sleeping-with-sirens-and-pierce-the-veil-announce-the-world-tour/ - I don't understand what's fake about that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Real About This That you added to the article: "Looking to hardcore punk for inspiration, former Attack Attack! vocalist Caleb Shomo makes it clear that Beartooth are a long way from the glossy electronicore of his previous band on Disgusting. Raw and driving, the album feels like a throwback to the wild and unpolished sound of metalcore pioneers like Converge, who took the energy of hardcore and pushed it to gritty extremes. With no overdone production or studio magic to hide behind, Beartooth deliver an intense performance that shows the band are capable of making good on their hardcore ambitions, all while giving listeners a glimpse at a side of Shomo that will appeal to those turned off by the EDM influences of his past work." Is That How You edit here 2601:C:2081:2B30:C51E:85D7:6169:FD43 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add that content to that article, if that's what you're accusing me of. I can't really tell, you're writing is rambling and hard to follow. A lot like someone I just blocked for genre "warrioring" regarding this band, actually... Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Really this isn't Your Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beartooth_(band)&oldid=638137449 73.193.195.69 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC) December 15 at 02:58 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beartooth_(band)&action=history. Just about done with you here 73.193.195.69 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that wasn't your edit. Are you Deceptive or helpful to articles, adding false references. Shouldn't an "Administrator" know better. yes or No 2601:C:2081:2B30:C51E:85D7:6169:FD43 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were accusing me of writing all that, which I did not. Slow down and write more clearly. Yes, I did add that - http://www.allmusic.com/album/disgusting-mw0002666289 - as a reference for hardcore punk. The source claims that the band was "Looking to hardcore punk for inspiration" and that the release had "hardcore" ambitions. I thought it was rather obvious that they were referring to them being hardcore punk. But, as I said, if that is not sufficient for you, there is no shortage of other sources to use - http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/07/22/sleeping-with-sirens-and-pierce-the-veil-announce-the-world-tour/ - for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "slow down" you added a reference and I read your linked reference that did not say they were hardcore punk. As a heads up I pointed it out to give you a chance to get a better one. "Your "reliable" reference does not say they are Hardcore Punk its being Removed" is pretty clear to me. See ya. 2601:C:2081:2B30:34FC:3BF2:9E81:1CDB (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as I said, "slow down" because your sentences are confusing to read. They're long and rambling, poorly formatted, you randomly capitalize certain words. It's hard to follow what you're getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I do is "rambling". LOL 2601:C:2081:2B30:34FC:3BF2:9E81:1CDB (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I guess you don't read your own writing? Regardless, it's up to you. If you like it when people can't understand you, and discussions get dragged out unnecessarily because of it, by all means, continue. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not really sure if it would be dragged out if people had an open mind a Clean Slate and read without emotion. However being typed words carry no inflection these are some of the inherent problems with typed words. Ok gotta go. Got stuff to do. Like new cover letters for my resume. 2601:C:2081:2B30:34FC:3BF2:9E81:1CDB (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It won't let me fix that. I gotta go. 2601:C:2081:2B30:34FC:3BF2:9E81:1CDB (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inflection isn't the problem, it's your disregard for basic capitalization and formatting, and confusing wording to boot. But regardless, stop arguing and go do something else. Any further responses will be reverted because you're just bickering with no purpose. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You can remove it but I think its important to tell you Im not bickering, Im not mad at you, Im not against you. Just so you know, My truth. 2601:C:2081:2B30:34FC:3BF2:9E81:1CDB (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading the pictures in infobox and section

Hello, Admin. Happy New Year! Long time no see. Today I have created the article for Ogre. Well, the article existed before, but it was removed because there was no reception list and the content was too short. But I managed to make the content much longer and better than before and I have also added 10 reception lists regarding the character. You can see them when you open the article. However there is one thing that is keeping the article from being totally completed. It's the picture for the character. Since i'm not yet ready to learn how to upload them, and I know that you will show me the link how to do that, which really wouldn't help believe me, I wanted to ask if you can upload this picture (http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120216061616/streetfighterxtekken/images/5/50/15_sfxtartwork04.jpg) in his infobox and this one (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/2/23309/3653913-4380689371-35899.png) at the True Ogre section. You will see that I have added the window at the section where the picture is supposed to be added and I have added the description below the window and below the infobox. These two pictures here match those descriptions. I placed the links here so that you won't have any trouble finding them. With the article extended and those two pictures uploaded, we can prevent others from removing the article again, which I really don't want to happen after I managed to brought him back and brush him up. It would mean so much to me. Thanks. DisturbedAsylum

Hi there. Sorry for the slow reply, haven't been on-wiki much in the last 24 hours. Anyways, WP:IUP discusses the image upload process, while WP:NFCC covers a bunch of Wikipedia's stance on copyright and whatnot. That's really all I personally can help you with, as I don't personally really deal with images on Wikipedia that much, partially because I do admit, its complicated, and partially because I'm just not all that interested in it to begin with. If you need more help, you could always discuss somewhere like WP:VG. Or you can try me again. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey admin, good news. After some videos and stuff, I have managed to upload the picture of Ogre in his infobox and everything looks okay. You can see it already. Now, I just need to upload the picture of True Ogre in his section. Is the process of adding the pictures in sections different from adding the pictures in infobox or no? Here's what I did, but as I was not really sure, I stopped: At the True Ogre section, I click on the edit and then, when there's only the text of that section in the edit board, on the left side, I click on the Upload file. I feared that I will change the infobox picture, so I stopped. But, was I supposed to continue? I mean, will I add the picture at the section if I continued that process? Because the process is looking the same as it looks when you upload the infobox picture? Thanks. DisturbedAsylum

I believe it's pretty much the same process. I think you did things right so far, I think you just need to upload the actual image where you've placed the redlink in the article - I believe that if you upload the image, it would show up where you've placed it. I believe that as long as you don't name the file the exact same file name as the infobox image title, it shouldn't overwrite the infobox one. ((talk page stalker)s - please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert in images.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay now. I have uploaded that picture too. I just clicked on the redlink and done the following. It was easier than the previous one. I will create/revive articles for more Tekken characters in the following months, as long as I have the reception lists in which they appear, which was one of the reasons why were they deleted. If I need anything, I will contact you. Btw, what is this talk page stalker. I have seen the page, but I don't really understand. Was that something that was reflecting on me? If it is, did I do something wrong? Thanks. DisturbedAsylum User:Disturbedasylum

Haha, no no, "talk page stalker" is not in reference to you. A "(talk page stalker)" is a kind of humorous term for people who have a User's talk page on their watchlist and interject to answer questions as if they had been asked them, on behalf of the User. There are a bunch of editors who interact with me a lot, like User:Salvidrim or User:Smuckola, who sometimes answer on my behalf. I do the same for a number of editors. (I believe we first interacted because I keep a watch on TheStickMan's talk page, actually. I believe you guys were in a dispute over something, and I was trying to help) So basically they're just other editors who sometimes chime in on talk page discussions. I was basically saying "Hey, if anyone out there see's what I'm writing and notices I'm wrong, feel free to chime in". Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hi, Serge. Just wanted to wish you a belated happy holidays. By the way, I know you are not involved with the Wiki-star socks I encountered a few days ago, but it was a bit of trouble having been harassed by that sockpuppeteer. I also wanted to help stop the ongoing disruption while I was acting in good faith, but on AN when I tried to propose a community ban on that user, I felt that it unfortunately got complicated despite my good intentions and I had to apologize and explain what had happened and my reasons for proposing a community ban discussion (I admitted that some of the failed ban proposals I did was a bit excessive as I explained in the section below, but I didn't want to push it a bit too far). I know I don't want to get topic-banned or site-banned for any problems since I am an editor in good-standing and I want to be more careful when proposing WP:CBANs in the future, but I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on this matter, Serge? I would rather not cause drama unintentionally when proposing site bans. I was also under the impression that per WP:BAN, "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." As such, since Wiki-star is indefinitely blocked, would he be considered de facto banned? All the best for the new year, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjones. Yeah, I was watching that develop, but then go busy and was unable to leave much of a comment. (I left a brief one about 10 hours ago, but it was deleted, as it turned out I was responding to one of his socks, and it was better to just WP:DENY him, which I agree with.) I left a comment there that explains my stance. I can see both sides of things; I see no problem with proposing such bans, but also can see if people see it as excessive as well. Regardless, I don't believe what you've done warrants a ban on you either way. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs about the unequal treatments of the articles and harassment

Hello Serge. I just posted many proofs, links and explanations here [1] that show how much Urbanoc, Vrac etc. are bad faith. In addition, they erase my texts that are neutral and true, saying that I am bad faith, yet I have always proved finally that all what I write is true, by adding some sources. So they remove my sources ! Urbanoc has even accused EuroNCAP to do some promotion some Renault when I added a link to the EuroNCAP history page. It is irrational to accuse me or EuroNCAP that is totally independent and to remove the source that proved what I wrote. I am right. And you can check yourself that they behave as a team : one of them (Urbanoc, Vrac and Warren Whyte etc.) first erases 2 paragraphs, one week late an other one erases 3 paragraphs, and two weeks later the third one erases 3 paragraphs too. Only the positive information... So at the end, the article do not represent the truth. And in addition they harass me, because I add some TRUE statistics. And if they can do that for 10 years, it is because no administrator has intervened, what is very suspect... Have a nice evening 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there, and responded to many of your concerns. In general, I believe you need to
  1. Stop accusing them of bad faith. Even if you don't agree with their stances, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect that they are doing things for the wrong motivations. Even if you are correct, I believe their concerns are still being made in good faith. Maybe read up on exactly how Wikipedia defines WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BADFAITH.
  2. Bring your concerns to article talk pages more frequently, and if you're not having any luck, start Requst for Comments or ask for more input from related WikiProjects.
  3. Their interactions are neither attacks or harassment. They just all seem to have concerns about your additions. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serge. Please, would you like to show me where is the discussion that I opened ? Because it has "disappeared" before I could answer. None of your "answers" proved that it could be a plausible good faith, but above all the conjonction of all these actions are definitely bad faith, that is what mathematics prove (calculation of probabilities). Quickly a few example examples, but I will write more later :

  • "burden" :
-Vrac, Urbanoc etc. "tag" only the positive information, not the negative one ! So the good faith is NOT plausible. I will show you some denigrating contents, ridiculously excessive and false, with NO SOURCE (!) that are never "tagged" by these people, and even put again when I point out that there is no source and that these contents are inconsistent with some reliables sources on the contrary !
-they dare to "tag" some oviously true information, known as true by anyone who has a few knowledges in the car industry. It is as stupid as if someone would "tag" a sentence saying that W.Churchill was the prime minister of the UK. Yes, he was, to erase this sentence, because nobody put a source to prove this obvious fact would be just an opportunate BAD FAITH. And that it what they did for Renault, Citroen !
-these information are so true and obvious that they could easily find some sources themselve ! And if they were some good contributors as their numerous "stars" would like to convince us that they are, then that is what they should do, but they do not find and put these sources, because they want that these true positive information to be erased ! To "tag" is just a crafty way to be BAD FAITH. We both know it even if you officially write that according to you their good faith is plausible.
  • also, your answer is false : there is absolutely nothing to do between a tricky situation of the use of photos in the articles and Urbanoc daring to state that their is a rule [[2]] "two images of relevant current products would be enough". IT IS A LIE. You know it, but instead of admiting this evidence, you prefer to defend him... Please, instead of sending me to a 10 000 words page as a diversion, find the sentence that could prove that the Urbanoc lie could be good faith. I am really curious of what you can find yourself. Imagine if my students did like you ? I ask them some questions, and they would reply "read this 10 000 words page, and maybe you will find the answer somewhere". Obviously, I would be oblige to set their mark as zero, because they would failed to prove anything.
  • Why you didn't answer about the fact that Urbanoc erased a source of 2014 to speak about the actual sales, to replace it by a old source of 2010 ? It is an abosolute bad faith and a "vandalization". And In addition, page 35, the old source even proove tha contrary of what he wrote ! This action, and all the others are a scandal, but you preferred to not answer to this point. As you have always defended him, then you will probably defend him again, so show me where there is a rule saying "when speaking about the actual sales, you must erase a reliable recent source to replace it by an old one. And write the contrary of what the old source proves, anyway."...

Notice in addition, that these people insult me, saying that I am bad faith and promoting some companies. It is totally false. When some people write some awards in the VW article, they don't accuse them to promote VW, but when I put the same awards in the Renault article, they dare to write publicly that I am bad faith and that I promote Renault, and they remove the awards that are authorized in the VW article, but for an infinite unfair treatment they erase them from Renault, Citroen, and soon Peugeot obviously ! They are bad faith to treat unequally some companies. It is obvious. As to me, I just write some neutral facts, I don't promote any company.

Thanks you in advance for your accurate answers to my questions (please) and I will send you several accurate and obvious proofs of the bad faith of these people. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your discussion was "archived" due to inactivity. No admin found it necessary to take any action on your claims. There's 2 reasons for this:
  1. Your posts are long, weirdly formatted, and generally difficult to read. I requested that you shorten it, and cut down with all the bolding, and you failed to acknowledge that at all. As such, you probably scared a lot of people to looking into it.
  2. The few people who did look into your laundry list of issues, generally found that many of your problems stem from you; any time anyone disagrees with you, you aggressively accuse them of bad faith prematurely. Even in your post above, every single conclusion by of yours seems to jump to "bad faith" without considering any other conclusions. I have not come to that same conclusion in any of the edits I've reviewed so far. They could be incorrect in their assertions, but there's no reason to think its part of any conspiracy campaign to smear a brand or anything.
  • Here's what you need to do:
  1. Discuss further on article talk pages about disputed information. If you don't feel there are enough people taking part in the discussions, try neutrally requesting input from a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT, or even consider starting up a Request for Comment.
  2. Discuss in briefer, easier to read additions, so its easier to follow what you're saying. You must understand that everyone here are volunteers, not paid workers. If you write things that are difficult to read, its only human nature for people to not want to bother reading it.
  3. Start following the rules around here. For or instance, not a single reason above is a reason to ignore WP:BURDEN. It doesn't matter how obvious something is, if it's challenged, it needs a source. If its super obvious, then it should be super easy to find a source to support it, simple as that. (And I found a source for Winton Churchill literally in 5 seconds of time. If your examples are truly comparable, it should take a very minimal amount of time and effort to provide said sources for such obvious claims.)
  • Here's what you need to stop:
  1. You need to stop with the bad faith assumptions. If any more accusations are thrown around by you about bad faith based on comments made prior to me writing this, you're going to receive a block. Your accusations are getting disruptive. You need to focus on discussing the issues, not the people. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Hi, Serge. I'm growing a bit suspicious about the contributions of 86.169.107.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 86.181.81.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Both of these appear to be sock puppets of that banned user Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to what I believe is the user's misuse of sources. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide some additional context, this IP and several others are clearly sock puppets of user:Jagged 85, who was permanently banned from Wikipedia for the immeasurable harm his edits have done because he likes adding copious amounts of sourced information that is often flat out wrong and completely misrepresents the sources. It appears he returned around September of last year. I had been monitoring the situation and reverting just the worst edits, but now I am starting to roll the majority of them back, as the rapid fire edit style, choice of articles to edit, and the occasional source blunders provide what I think is fairly conclusive evidence at this point. I also plan to present an SPI later this week if necessary. As always, your help in these matters would be appreciated. Indrian (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indrian, I filed an SPI over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I added a few more IPs to the list. There may be more of them, but those are the only ones I could relocate again on short notice. Indrian (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye out on the SPI results, and then block future socks per WP:DUCK. I do recall Jagged, I am familiar. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a brief hiatus, Jagged has returned (86.176.251.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Unfortunately, the SPI was basically ignored, so this leaves us with a serious problem if he is back to adding huge swathes of info again. Indrian (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment at the SPI, saying that I too approve of looking into it further. It's still technically open, so hopefully they'll follow through eventually. There just seems to be a massive backlog... Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the SPI result is firm enough to take action against any future IPs. I'll let you know if he pops up again. Indrian (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Type-0 English Translation

Hi, i tried to add more details regarding the English Patch for the PSP version of Final Fantasy Type-0 but obviously they weren't accepted.

Anyway, it is true that the English patch was briefly removed. The author of the translation removed all news/updated for the project from his site, but they returned a couple of months ago. You can check by yourself, if you know the name of the author. Sadly, no download links, but they're continuously removed and added from time to time. Square-Enix apparently ceased to threat the people behind the translation, and quietly disappeared without notice.

Oh, and you can read the whole story behind the translation (and Square-Enix "attempts" to stop the translation) here. (open the spoiler tag in BUSy67's post)

It is also true that another group is continuing/fixing the translation, but i can't post the source as it's from some "nasty" place, if you know what i mean. And sadly, it's the only known place where the project is currently discussed.

Yeah, I know, I've been following it all, and I don't doubt any of that being true, it's just that Wikipedia only documents the stuff that can be verified by reliable sources. If sources aren't documenting it, then its usually not considered noteworthy to mention. Considering the massive size of the article, it seemed like something to trim. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Type-0 and others

Hi there. Thanks for the message. I've been working like a mad thing on that article since last year (with some sporadic stuff into 2012), and now I have the solid ambition of seeing that golden star in the top right-hand corner one day. On that note, it would be nice to have a fresh pair of eyes look over the article to give it a copyedit/trim. Nowadays, I'm concerned about keeping a balance between including relevant info and keeping the article from getting out of hand. It will have an extra little problem when the HD version is released. I'm actually quite proud of the PSP/HD image comparison: very lucky to have found screenshots of the same character from the same scene.

On a separate note, I managed to get Tales of Hearts to GA status.. and frankly I hope never to come into intimate touch with that article ever again! In the end, not as enjoyable as Rebirth. Thankfully Zestiria should be enjoyable enough. How are things on your projects of late? Anything I can help with, perchance? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake - I can try to give it a readthrough/copyedit if you like. If you don't agree, you can revert me back, no hard feelings. I may as well help though, as much as I want to be bitter about the fact that there's no Vita version, I keep finding myself intrigued with all the media attention its getting, with its release so close and all.
Good job on Hearts too. Yeah, I'm a little saddened to see that it hasn't been received all that well, but oh well. Still haven't played it yet. Maybe I'll find it was well-deserved in the end.
I can't think of anything I really need help with at the moment, though in the future, I've been contemplating making articles for Bravely Archive and maybe even a Bravely series article after that. I know you worked a bit on Bravely Default, so you could always help if/when I start up that... Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological templates

Hi Sergecross73,

Could you help out with nominating the chronological templates? A lot of them can be deleted, but doing them all separately is such a hassle. Maybe with your awesome sysop powers can do them more quickly? --Soetermans. T / C 10:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I see you asked me about this at WPVG too - I didn't mean to ignore you, I just never got the ping. Anyways, I'll respond over there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

The problem wasn't so much that he reverted my edit, but that he accused me of vandalizing the article when it wasn't my intention. I've been using Wikipedia for 13 years, and some admins/patrols are so quick of accusing users of bad intentions that it's a huge turn-off for knowledgeable people to participate in the editing process. This is why the views:edits ratio has always been so low on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the editor could have been a little more clear in why your edit was undone, but that doesn't excuse your explosive reaction. And while your edits weren't outright vandalism, negative editorializing like this can be easily mistaken for bad-faith additions. Its not your place to issue a value judgement on damage control; that wasn't a good choice of wording or sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

block evasion again by someone you blocked previously.

At User_talk:Technotopia you were the one to make his block permanent. Special:Contributions/82.39.42.100 has the same attitude, on the same talk page he was previously blocked for edit warring and whatnot at. One of the blocked IP addresses started with 82 also. This IP addresses first edit ever was [3] where he said the same thing he did on his other accounts that were blocked. He then post on the same page [4] with his complaint about not being able to change what he wanted, and and then reverts me when I erase it with the edit summary "(Reverting Troll who things he owns the article and talk page)". Please look at those links, and confirm its clearly the same guy. Six edits ever, and three of them on the Sega Genesis talk page. Dream Focus 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus - I certainly see the similarities. I want to see a little more (if he bothers to keep editing from that IP) before I block, but it seems likely. Let me know if anything happens that it seems I miss... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree his last edit isn't relevant to the talk page discussion it was placed in, just pointless accusations against others? I removed it twice and he reverted me both times. Someone else can remove it. Dream Focus 13:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I just recently left him a warning on his talk page that his comments need to be more constructive. I was going give him the chance to read the warning before I start removing it myself, though I don't fault you for just removing it. It's not an acceptable talk page comment, but I also feel that editors largely ignore vague, poorly written complaints written by IPs like that, so I don't find it to be the biggest concern. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Dream Focus - I've blocked him, as one of his responses sounded extremely similar to Technotopia. He's requested an unblock, so it'll be interesting to see if another admin comes to the same conclusion. (I would think they would.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jory Prum

I'm wondering if you can help me out on this AfD concern. While I didn't create the nomination, I did nominate it for speedy deletion before so I kinda have a little bit of history with the article. I myself do not believe it meets criteria to having its own article. And I've seen people voice that it should which is fine if people do. However, I noticed that, besides that original creator of the article (who is most likely the person the articles about), the three editors are red linked editors who each their own have less than ten edits to their name. The red linked part wasn't a concern for me. Why would it if I was like that for over five years on this site? But two of the editors contributions to the site were only related to the Jory Prum article and its nomination. Heck, this editors only contributions is on the AfD. What also raised my suspicions was how this one editor came back nearly six years later just to voice their vote to the AfD.

This thing kinda rubs me the wrong way on whether these editors are sock puppets or not. Would it be possible for you to look into this or direct me to someone to take a look at it? GamerPro64 15:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I added the "not a vote" tag to the top of the article, and the "SPA" tag can be added to the editors your suspect of of being WP:SPA's. (I would have, but I didn't have that template memorized, nor did I know if all were suspect or not.) That will make sure that the closing admin takes a close look at those editors at least. I think that's all the action I'd take at this point. Hopefully some more experienced editors will leave a comment soon. I'll leave an !vote myself once I look into it a little more. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the tip and your input on this. GamerPro64 15:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to make clear that I have never commented on anything on WP without being logged into only this account. All comments made by others on the AfD were made by actual humans (I would assume) who were not me and were not told what to say by me. I think it wrong to try and sway a discussion like that by either hiding behind fake accounts or coercing others to speak one way or the other. Those who have commented may be people I know or people who had heard that I was trying to defend notability, but they commented of their own volition and without my influence. I do appreciate your concern for sock puppets being used and wanted to just be clear that those posts were NOT me. Jory (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tales update #2

If it's alright with you, I've chosen to do updates like this, as I know you are interested in upping the quality of Tales articles. This could also be of interest to @DragonZero:. I've completed an initial rewrite for Tales of Innocence (a much more enjoyable task than Tempest) and intend to take it to GA at some point in the future. I've also found several sources pertaining to the development of Tales of Destiny 2 and put them into a section on the talk page for someone to use later (sources include details on the anime cutscenes, when it began development, the inspiration behind the next-generation style story, how the sprite models were created). If we can get Innocence and Destiny 2 to GA, the rest of the series should be a breeze by comparison, then we could pride ourselves in transforming the main series into a Good Topic, which will I'm sure be quite the feat. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds good, feel free to keep doing this, I do have an interest in bettering the Tales games, even if I haven't been so active with recently. Also, I apologize, I forgot to respond when you pinged me at the talk page for Tempest. Sorry, I'm already not the best at writing story sections, and the fact that Tempest is JP-only isn't helping me any. I'm also very commonly multi-tasking when I edit, and around others, so I have a hard time using videos, like Youtube or whatnot, for my writing. But still, I will try to help with Tales stuff. Just couldn't really help on that one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=646502105"