User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 87

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37 • Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed   in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
 * The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration
 * Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
 * The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
 * A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced
Greetings, my name is Christopher Lilly, and You have given me a final warning about editing without references. I am sorry to have done that, and yes, I will use references from now on, but others have said that some of the material I have added was totally useless, but it was only like some of the material I had seen others add themselves, for instance, if there was already a section on In Popular Culture, and there had been a list of where the subject of the article in question had been mentioned in popular culture, I only tried to add material that was similar to that, and some of it was not referenced either. But say I did wish to add a legitimate comment about how, for example, a famous person had been mentioned in a movie, how would I reference the movie ? My thought on that was, if someone wanted to check the veracity of what I had written, they only had to look at the movie, and as far as I knew, everything I put down was true - I had no intention of deceiving any body, nor of disrupting Wikipedia, given I have been a member here for at least twelve years. But certainly, by this time, I should know better, and the warnings are fair enough. Once in a while I did reference some material properly, and it held. But say I wished to reference a movie, do put the URL for it in the reference, if it can be found on say YouTube, or is that not acceptable ? I did try that recently, but for some reason in the reference section the URL was in red, like it was not acknowledged. Is it that some of the information I have tried to contribute is simply pointless ? But how can I know ? I do admit to putting in things that were not really necessary, but my main interest is how the subjects of articles do appear in popular culture, and by putting that in there, I was only trying to contribute to the overall knowledge. Certainly, as I have just written, nothing shall be added in future without a proper source. Thank You Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  21:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Yes, I've seen that you've been warned in the past for both unsourced editing, and for adding things perceived as trivial/unencyclopedic. I only warned you about the unsourced editing because it's a bit more objective of an issue, and honestly, addressing the sourcing issues with indirectly solve the trivia issue.
 * Generally speaking, Wikipedia has moved away from WP:TRIVIA and "In pop culture" type sections. And while it can sometimes be difficult to draw the line between "unnecessary trivia" and "important to note", but the issue you mentioned is actually the most common way to determine this. If you can find a third party source that points out the same thing you're trying to note, that often means it's worth pointing out. And you use that as your source. If you can't find any third party source, then often times that means that it's unimportant trivia that's not worth mentioning in the first place.
 * I'm sure you may not be 100% thrilled by this answer, as it may cut down on the type of editing you do. But it is how you're supposed to be editing, so hopefully it helps all the same. Sergecross73   msg me  17:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor copied an entire piece for a Wikipedia article
Hey Serge. I've had some issues with the editor before, but I've just noticed an article they started last month, Just Look Up, copied basically the entirety of this article by The Wrap, even lines like "Britell said he was immediately bowled over when he received Stinson's lyrics" and "Grande continues to sing the lines with blissful fervor" (original revision) as if this is encyclopedic writing...yikes. Last time I came to their talk page with anything serious, they attempted to insult me over being Australian(?), so would you be able to give them a warning over this undisguised plagiarism? I feel like it'd be more impactful coming from an admin anyway to let them know this isn't acceptable. Thanks.  Ss  112   19:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've warned them. Let me know if you see it again post-warning. It's absolutely not appropriate to be quoting a source at length like that. Sergecross73   msg me  19:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Trivial
Yes, I am sorry about that. I am trying to get it right, but I shall think more before I try to add anything that might be overly trivial, and Thank You so much for Your advice here. I did add something before that to the article on eggs fried within toast, but that was only because there was already an In Popular Culture section there, so I shall look at that as a guide. To be honest, taking the time to add the references is not so bad, and I am used to doing that, having done so at University for years. But again, I shall ponder more carefully whether or not the article needs anything added, especially if it is relatively trivial. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  18:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sonic games Timeline
Stop removing the timeline as they inded are needed. The so called "timelines" that's already there are just a big, chaotic mess. The kinda timeline added are very usefull to easy get an overview, which is presumably why most other game series use it. Pederjo99 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they look terrible and are redundant. Get a WP:CONSENSUS for adding it on the talk page. The WP:BURDEN is on you to start a discussion and get a consensus in support if having it. Sergecross73   msg me  03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Setting up a chat
Hey. I'm Tristan. Earlier this week I attempted to make an article for Mario Strikers: Battle League. At this time, your article didn't exist. As you can see, the article was not made, and yours was instead. I would like to talk, if we may, about why yours made it into the article pool and why mine didn't, and how I can improve any future articles I may make. WikiRegularAtSchool (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, sure, no problem. It's really pretty straightforward. There's two main things at play.


 * 1) Read over the WP:GNG. It basically says that subjects should only have an article if it has multiple, third party sources covering the subject in detail. Your version contained one source. Mine contained at least 8 at the time of publishing.
 * 2) There's a common mindset on Wikipedia that if there's not much being said, it doesn't need its own article yet. So, to that capacity - your article was only a couple sentences. Mine was about triple the length of yours.
 * So all in all, you were on the right track, yours was just a little underdeveloped. And honestly you could have done everything right and still gotten beaten to the punch when you're dealing with a popular subject like this. I was actually going to create the Xenoblade 3, but someone beat me too it many hours before I got anything going. It happens.


 * Let me know if you have any other questions or need any other help. I'm happy to help. Sergecross73   msg me  18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This user that was reverted for being me is not me
This is a whole injustice from start to bottom, that user is not me, and i perfectly explained you why. You should be ashamed of yourself if you let that slide, and i won't let you slide that, i promise you. You might as well block all European IP's to block me, and still won't stop until this injustice is fixed--176.246.62.37 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I wanna stop my block evasion
Please, read what i wrote, i gave you the names of my other sockpuppets. If you want to avoid me evading my block, read what i said in the last message. I've been evading my block for 7 years, i know everything about wikipedia, I know how to avoid your block. I just don't wanna do it anymore, if you block and ignore me, I will evade again, and again, and again, until you listen to me, you can range block me, you can do all that stuff, i know how to evade. The only way for you to stop making me evade my block is read what i said before and reply--176.246.62.37 (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Serge. I understand that i might be worse than him in your opinion, and that i did lots of wrong stuff, but right now I Just wanna solve his vandalisms. Following several warnings on his talk page and an even an LTA warning, the user is still doing the "far too heavy handed reverts" you told him not to do again. Using the same misleading edit summaries he was warned to not use. Look at this revert --146.241.192.13 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you "understood", then you'd stop block evading and go away. If Aardwolf is doing something blockable, we'll take care of it. We do not want or need your help. Sergecross73   msg me  12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandal account
Hi Sergecross. A user you warned before is continuing persistently his wrong behavior. This user has been vandalizing Wikipedia since years, with his massive removals provided by misleading edit summaries, continuously adding unsourced and fake stuff, while also edit warring and insulting other users. If I give you his name, would you mind to take a look at it and eventually block him? 109.52.13.53 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll at least look into anything really. What's the user name? Sergecross73   msg me  13:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's Aardwolf68. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about his vandalizing where another user described him as an obvious WP:NOTHERE. I personally agree. It's pretty clear for him to be so, especially following all of those countless warnings he ignored--109.52.20.177 (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Serge, it's Aardwolf68, I'm sure you remember me from the whole Chris Brown incident, can you please investigate and see whether or not that this account that's reporting me is a sockpuppet of Morce Library, as well as another account named Mr. Crabx. I'm sorry to bother you over this random BS AGAIN, but I just hope that it gets solved quicker rather than later. Aardwolf68 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Aardwolf is also being protagonist on an edit war on Old Time's Sake where he performed 5 reverts--109.52.244.230 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Open one last sockpuppet investigation about Morce
I apologize. I'm calling it out this sockpuppet thing. This is (hopefully) the last time you'll see me. I'm about to give you the names of my sockpuppets, but before that, I have to tell you something very important. User: Instantwatym was accused by User: Binksternet of being me, because he re-added a giant wall of text wrongfully removed by Aardworlf. Please open an investigation that proves that the user has nothing to do with me, i don't want what happened to this user to happen again to another user. I was User: Vrocchio Brocco, to let you know that I'm serious i give you the name of the one sockpuppet that nobody catched, User: Te vest ffij de na putena. I'm italian, i know mafia, what is happening to User: Instantwatym looks exactly like it and it's shameful.

The only class in this whole act (User: Instantwatym), is being wrongfully bullied, warned and reverted, for having the balls of doing the right thing. Instead, he should be thanked for adjusting that mess. Have a nice day.--176.246.78.222 (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:Sergecross73, I'm responding to this accusation of sockpuppet. Recently, User: Binksternet wrongfully accused me of being a sockpuppet account and banned me from editing because I reverted disrupted editing on a page by the same users that has made numerous disruptive editng on the page mentioned above. User: Binksternet then followed me to another article and reverted edited citing poor sourcing for excerppt sourced because I used the Recording Industry Association of America to cite digital record sales (RIAA is the most reputable source for tracking digital music sales). Simply put, User: Binksternet is engaging in harassment. Please look into this issue. - User: Instantwatym

Nomination of Never Know for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Never Know is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Never Know until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Netoholic @ 22:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unanimously kept. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  22:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of revdel
Just so you know, that was improper usage of revision deletion for two reasons: 1) it was merely "ordinary incivility" and 2) you are WP:INVOLVED. I'm not going to bother contesting it, but you should not have done that. Mlb96 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I would like to apologize, though. I felt that you were being condescending to me and lost my cool, but that's not an excuse. It won't happen again. Mlb96 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * INVOLVED still allows for basic objective admin actions. Removing blatant personal attacks would fall into that territory, because it's unacceptable to call anyone names like that. But regardless, thanks for the apology. Sergecross73   msg me  19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor has ignored wikitable column limits
Hi Serge. In December, I posted on the editor 's talk page here, telling them to please maintain a maximum of 10 columns per MOS:ACCESS (as more than 10 columns warps/squashes data on different devices and can make it minuscule or just hard to read at a glance) and even if not a policy, editors try to follow the sensible example of WP:DISCOGSTYLE of not squashing more than 10 chart columns into any wikitable discography. It appears DPUH ignored me and went wild the past couple of months, splitting discographies off for disco and other assorted artists with as many columns in sections that they could find data for. See Middle of the Road discography. 16 columns is ridiculous. And Silver Convention discography, Dschinghis Khan discography, The Archies discography and Village People discography are just a few other examples of them ignoring this. I tried to tell them these discography wikitables are not supposed to represent every country where an artist charted but it appears they think diferently. Would you be able to drop them a line about this issue, perhaps reiterating what I said/pointing to my earlier message? This is very clearly becoming an issue with this editor and they have not listened to me.  Ss  112   13:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I headed over to his talk page, and it looks like he's recently conceded to following this now? Sergecross73   msg me  20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Mario Kart 8 Infobox
Dude!

Why did you revert back to the basic mk8 infobox? the one I did looks much better and I didn't change or delete anything. I added some things, and you mention Mario Kart 8 Deluxe in the article, so I suggest you keep it.

ChallengeCick (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just like I said in my edit summary - only one box art per article. Pretty straightforward. Sergecross73   msg me  14:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time, this is the only game I know of, that got unique box art for a port. The others get the same art. And plus, MK8 Deluxe is the best selling Mario Kart game ever. So put some respect on it's name ;) ChallengeCick (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "respect", it's following Wikipedia's image and style guidelines. Start a discussion on the article's talk page if you want to get a WP: CONSENSUS to change which box art we use, but there's no way two at the same time is going to fly. Sergecross73   msg me  15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Clarification
Hello User:Sergecross73, I commented on your response to false accusation of sockpuppetry on my talk page. But I also noticed that you had reverted some information on my talk page from users attempting to explain the situation to me. If you don't mind me asking, can you please explain to me why you removed that information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantwatym (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thet are self-admitted block evaders. They are not allowed to be editing Wikipedia in any capacity, so their edits keep getting undone. Sergecross73   msg me  19:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. - Instantwatym — Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Steam Deck
For the love of science, if you don't like the section names, rename them instead of undoing an edit that you personally think isn't quite perfect. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre thing to say. Who says it needs an additional subsection at all? There's only one sort of reception type present, and the very first sentence opens up with The initial reaction to the announcement of the Steam Deck was positive. - there's little room for confusion about what the section is about without your unnecessary section title. Sergecross73   msg me  14:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who says it needs an additional subsection. There's only one type present currently, but the thing has been released recently, and post-launch reviews should be coming in soon. The first paragraph starts with "The initial reaction", the second is a long block of text that contains who knows what. Bizarre eh? That's the word you picked. Even though it's completely normal to have pre and post launch reception sections for such things. You're an admin and I'm sure you've been around for a long time. But I doubt you'd react this way to a non-IP editor. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying there isn't. There's no need to future-proof something that minor when it'd be so easy to fix it later on once there is a need to distinguish between "pre" and "post". And there's no need to take anything so minor so personally either. For the record, my commentary on your comments being "bizarre" was in reference to you opening up this discussion with a phrase like "for the love of science". That's pretty melodramatic for such a minor revert. You act like I left the article in shambles. I undid a minor edit of yours that had been in place for a couple minutes, that was already covered by the opening sentence of the prose. That's it. You're going to need to take it down a bit if you hope to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Stuff like this happens all the time. Freaking out like this every time is going to get exhausting for you. Sergecross73   msg me  22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Started a new discussion about you on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - User:Instantwatym — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, just after I pointed it out that you failed to notify me. 10 minutes after you started the discussion. Nice. Sergecross73   msg me  00:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry for notifying you within seconds of adding the discussion. You seem to believe everything is some kind of grand conspiracy. - User:Instantwatym
 * There is literally a 10 minute span between your frivolous ANI report and when you notified me. And I called you out on it in between. There's actual timestamps. Come on. Sergecross73   msg me  01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I have to explain this to you as well but I'm not a bot. I'm not keeping track of when you are responding to other discussions at given any moment in time. I respond when available and add to make contributions when available. Another persons Wiki contributions and/or their day to day life doesn't revolve around your timestamped Wiki contributions. Again, not everything is a grand conspiracy. - User:Instantwatym  — Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we having the same conversation? I didn't call you a bot and I haven't thrown out any theories, let alone conspiracy theories. Sergecross73   msg me  02:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be of the opinion that everything is done so in relation to your Wiki contributions and comments at any given point in time and that I alerted of this notice because I read your comment on the noticeboard. A conspiracy. Moreover, in your sockpuppet investigation where you had to deal with the fact that you we were in the wrong, you explicity stated that I was playing some " bizzare good cop bad cop" routine[|link] with you because you were operating under the false assumption of me being a sockpuppet. Again a conspiracy of your making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantwatym (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not following where you're going with this at all.  Sergecross73   msg me  02:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't. I notified you the ANI notice above. In your first comment you responded with a baseless conspiracy theory of your making. I corrected you on said conspiracy theory, as I've done so previously on your other conspiracy theories. - User:Instantwatym
 * Please stop. Whatever this is, it's not working. Sergecross73   msg me  02:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification
I don't know how my reasonings for unblocking didn't make sense to you guys. I just didn't know how to correctly upload non-free files and would sometimes upload higher quality files when it wasn't needed. It wasn't until now that I realized how wikipedia properly treats non-free images taken from a major company or source. But I'm on my way to understanding all of that. If you need more clarification, if you didn't understand, you can always contact me. ChallengeCick (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not that they don't make sense, it's essentially that we don't believe you are going to change, because you've been warned countless times and have refused to change. I believe you've only stopped because the blocked forced you to, honestly. So it should probably stay in place. Sergecross73   msg me  16:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To add onto this, something I should point out to you, ChallengeCick, is that you tried to force the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe box art into the Mario Kart 8 article multiple times, and different editors reverted you. You copy pasted the same message to both users as seen here and here. You already knew that at least one editor had a problem with it, and you dismissed it. You did not want to engage and even said "don't come crying to me later". It really seems like the block was the only way you would listen. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Welp. Looks like you were right about me not listening. And it looks like I'm the one crying (you know what I mean). I may have been a bit reckless in my editing style. And I may have been a bit reckless as to how I forced higher quality non-free files. I just hope all this makes sense and I can be forgiven. ChallengeCick (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Serge, this is about Nintendo Switch list of games
Most lists of game releases have regions to let people know if a game is available for them to play/download on eShop, as I myself have come across a problem that I don't know which games are available in a certain region, I know the pages are too big but I think this information is quite important, if it cannot be done, that's fine, but if there becomes a way for it to be done. I would really appreciate that, thankyou!!! StarStorm10 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't you already gotten an answer at the article talk page? I'm pretty sure Serge supported the removal of regions, though my memory may be off. I also did. Personally we should remove it from all the lists. -- ferret (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should we remove important information that helps everyone? StarStorm10 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's lots of information not suitable for Wikipedia. In this particular cases, lists like this are primarily governed by WP:NOTCATALOG concerns. -- ferret (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What websites would you recommend me using if looking for that information if you don't mind me asking? thankyou! StarStorm10 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nintendo Life seems to have a database with regions: https://www.nintendolife.com/nintendo-switch/games/browse -- ferret (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

thankyou StarStorm10 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Am I the Only One (Aaron Lewis song)
The album on which "Am I the Only One" is featured has been released. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay? Is that it? If so, it would have been easier to just alter the tense of that word in the sentence than add the tag. Sergecross73   msg me  02:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 28
Serge's 28th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73  msg me  15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Serge. Would you please be able to protect Voyage (ABBA album)? I believe we now have a case of two separate IPs run by the same person, 213.205.240.130 and 84.65.176.159 (the latter of whom's edits are only to this article and its talk—very telling), commenting separately on the talk page and trying to declare a formal consensus has been reached when it hasn't. They are continuing to change the article before a formal consensus has been reached and disregarding BRD. I've reverted the same sort of edits multiple times over the past few days. It's getting tiring. Whoever this person is/these people are, they have repeatedly ignored the existence of the 10 news sources and digital retailer links I've provided that list the two songs as a double A-side single and continued essentially just repeating "they're two separate singles" like a mantra with no evidence other than pointing to a limited run of CD singles (...in 2021).  Ss  112   14:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Protected. For what it's worth, there was an IP who started a (vague) discussion about something similar on WT:ALBUMS, but there certainly wasn't any consensus on the matter. Last I checked most discussion was about trying to figure out what they were even talking about. Sergecross73   msg me  15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey again. The IP 50.239.34.42 has been categorically adding false chart positions to a whole range of R&B and hip hop artists' discography articles and sections since last month. Practically all edits are vandalism, and most (if not all) of their edits have now been reverted (with my help). Would you be able to block to get it to stop? They commented on their own talk page and said the IP belongs to a Philadelphia high school.  Ss  112   17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 213.32.243.90 straight back vandalising Gary Barlow discography and adding false information to related articles after their two-week block.  Ss  112   09:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-blocked and re-protected. Sergecross73   msg me  14:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is edit-warring at Spider-Man: No Way Home, has stated they will not stop until they get their way, and is beginning to resort to personal attacks JOE BRO  64  17:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ive reiterated the final warning, and will block if they violate 3RR/EW (though I don't think they have as of their final 3RR warning?) That said, I have no idea if there is any merit to their argument, as I dont really follow the superhero film world... Sergecross73   msg me  17:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! Do you remember that you have blocked last year for adding hoax to Disney Infinity articles? I suspect he is back with another IP account  since they have similar editing pattern (e.g. adding Disney Infinity 4 to articles, not knowing how to create a table and only create a section called "character") etc. OceanHok (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that they've made a number of bad edits...but didn't they actually remove the Disney Infinity 4 hoax? Sergecross73   msg me  02:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He added it back in December last year. He is just removing his own hoax. OceanHok (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. And they were back at it again yesterday, so I've blocked them. Sergecross73   msg me  16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I call these edits either vexatious or hoaxes, and definitely WP:NOTHERE. Speaking of which, tomorrow is trash day, brb. — Smuckola(talk) 07:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The edits aren't great, but I think it's hard to justify blocking already, with so few edits made recently... Sergecross73   msg me  23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not vandalism but a consistent disruption from an IP. Both Ys 8 and Ys 9 pages need to protected from a user who continues to add WP:UNDUE (and uncited) prose that the games were localized in English and French (what globally released non-indie game isn't?) Note that Ys 8 was protected a year ago for the same reason, so this has to be the same editor (they seem to do no other sort of edits here). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Range has been stable looks like since November. /64 blocked. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still an issue on Ys 8. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Protected. Sergecross73   msg me  19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Guys, I think we have a spammer here. He's just mass dumping the creation of these garbage micro-stub articles about corporations or professionals, especially a ton of lawyers, with a lot of junk commercial fake references and countless copyright violations. All of these articles need to be deleted. Check the edit history. And check the Talk page, with no response to any reports of mass abuse, including a suspicion of sockpuppetry. That plus this robotic obsession is exactly what this kind of mindless and pointless spam is like. It doesn't look like a checkuser was done on Jolly. Can someone here do that? Does do that? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 04:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's one I can just unilaterally take action on. Probably needs a full investigation at a ANI/SPI/etc type board. No objection on ferret or anyone else taking action, though I don't know if there's enough there to warrant a CU either. Sergecross73   msg me  19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The SPI was closed as unrelated/unfounded. I see no reason to dig deeper right now. -- ferret (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the user "Jolly", only some other usernames with "jolly" in it. — Smuckola(talk) 21:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The user was renamed later. -- ferret (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. So what about all the spammed unencyclopedic commercial articles? Can they be mass deleted or do they all have to go through AfD, and can he be blocked from article creation or does it need to go through a board? — Smuckola(talk) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * These are all things that would need to go through the usual avenues. (Prod/AFD for deletion, AN/ANI for a topic ban discussion, etc.) Sergecross73   msg me  01:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Dragon Quest XI needs protection. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes, sure does. Protected. Sergecross73   msg me  22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey bro. This is one of those absolutely WP:NOTHERE WP:ICANTHEARYOU of robotic editing that is a pattern of disruptive editing only. Just from looking at the total train wreck of a Talk page and reverted edit history, which consists almost entirely of unsourced WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA blurbs about tv shows and movies of the most useless kind, I'm sure that you giving a warning would be only a protocol step toward a block. Thank you. And really, a thousand warnings have already been given and ignored, including an ANI. — Smuckola(talk) 01:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've given him a final warning about unsourced additions, and will block him immediately if I see any more. He's gotten a lot of warnings but they've all been basic, "level 1" type ones slowly spread out over time. I've spelled it out for him that any more and he'll start getting blocked. Let me know if you witness it. Sergecross73   msg me  15:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not vandalism but George Karlaftis could use some protection to try and get some more talk page discussion regarding an issue where a citation in the article spells his Greek name as "Yoros" but IP editors continue to replace it with "Georgios/Yorgos". This may very well be correct but it needs a citation that directly spells it that way to avoid WP:SYNTH. ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Protected a while ago, forgot to mention here. Sergecross73   msg me  14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that this is the Mario/New Years vandal. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this, but yeah, you're right, the edit summary gives him away as one of those weird Nintendo editors who has been indeffed in the past for sure. Sergecross73   msg me  14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Serge, would you be able to protect Good Morning Gorgeous? There's an IP editor who's returned twice now to list two singles released on the same day as one release and has cited other pop album articles where another editor edited without/against consensus as precedent. I have reason to believe this IP editor, having cited Ed Sheeran's Divide article as an example, is a sock of PeopleEater143, who edit warred on that same article when the album was new. PeopleEater143 also insisted on alphabetical order as a way to list singles, and this IP editor is doing the exact same. They have exactly the same attitude in their edit summaries as well. As they've used two IPs in the range 2601:48:8100:B6A0:BD6C:D944:D523:595E/32 to edit the article now, and I don't know if that merits a range-block, I'm requesting page protection.  Ss  112   12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Page protected. Range blocks are something that's a bit beyond me, so you'd have to pursue that elsewhere. Sergecross73   msg me  15:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a /64 block for this one, but I'm not willing to place it at this time as I'm unfamiliar with the suspected sockmaster and the behavioral evidence. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They've now continued editing on this range by telling me not to make personal attacks by calling their example "stupid", then a minute earlier, making a personal attack by their own logic on me on a totally unrelated article. Block evasion and absolute nonsense at its finest. This also has to be a troll, right? Surely even a Wikipedia-obsessed block evader can't be this hypocritical.  Ss  112   22:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Serge and PeopleEater143 is now coming to my talk page to write essays (on two separate IPs in that range within 20 minutes of each other? First IP, second IP). Also, Ferret: In that first diff they admit to block evading but say they "literally have no choice". They posted on my talk page yesterday and have just done it again. I'm already sick of the paragraphs from this obnoxious troll and I doubt they'll listen to me saying they're not welcome to post there again. Do we ever protect talk pages? Or do we just block the troll who admits to block evading? lol (Also, they appear to know how to jump between the IPs in that range, as first they posted on my talk page then went back to the range they posted on my talk page with yesterday.)  Ss   112   14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * /64 blocked a year. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had just started the process of whack-a-mole and your block worked a lot better. Sergecross73   msg me  14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Serge, not sure if it's an appropriate for me to get you to intervene. There's an IP editor who insists on drive-by tagging the page for Sera (Dragon Age). The editor was reverted twice just over a day or two ago, and then when I reverted the drive-by tag they prompted added it back in. Twice. I've asked them to specifically explain what their concerns about the content issues are and asked them to engage on the article talk page, but they appears set on their own definition of what "fancruft", "in-universe" or "3RR" is. Basically not interested in editing constructively or collaboratively, and looks like another WP:NOTHERE or WP:ICANTHEARYOU case in my opinion since they refuse to engage in dialogue any further and just blatantly edit war, so I now consider their drive-by tagging acts of vandalism. They also claim to be familiar with 3RR which leads me to suspect that they could in fact be a banned or blocked user. Haleth (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to intervene here. Protected the page and requested the IP hold a more thorough discussion and explanation on their use of tags on the article talk page. Sergecross73   msg me  16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Haleth, I am editing in good faith. You might be interested in the content of this article: IP editors are human too - 24.68.70.161 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am still editing in good faith. However, I stand by my stance that you seem awfully familiar with the various essays and guidelines of this website for someone who is not editing with an account, and it isn't out of the possibility of a block or ban evasion tactic. 02:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am an editor. I really don't think you should be surprised that I am familiar with Wikipedia's common editorial guidelines. "It isn't out of the possibility that ..." isn't an argument. Please respond on the talk page for the article, which is now open as per Sergecross73's request. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, please continue to keep editing in good faith...on the article talk page, rather than through edit summaries and reverting. Sergecross73   msg me  17:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been a few days now. I would appreciate it if you could review Haleth's aggressive, accusatory behavior over the challenges I made to their article on Feb 15. Between this page and my talk page, I don't think he or she is creating a welcoming environment or approaching disputes with a calm rational mind. A simple reminder of good conduct from an admin would go a long way. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I really haven't seen Haleth be guilty of anything besides disagreeing with you. They've been stern with you, but not really aggressive or uncivil with you. And this is coming with someone who has been on the opposite side of arguments and debates of Haleth too. We haven't always agreed on things like assisting notability of subjects, but they've never said anything out of line in said arguments. So your statements are inconsistent with my experience. Sergecross73   msg me  13:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the argument - I'm referring to, for example, their accusations that I am most likely a ban evader just because I am editing without an account. I'm pretty sure this case is even covered on the Wikipedia page for civility. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was that there's little actionable here. Here's the thing. It takes a fair amount of time and effort to learn Wikipedia's more intricate policies and guidelines. So when IPs pop up with a lot of knowledge, for some, that sets off red flags, simply because, why would someone be so dedicated to the website to learn all these things, but not even want to create a free account that, as far as I recall (it's been a long time for me) is super quick and easy to do. For many, that juxtaposition doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that's you - there are always exceptions. It could be an example of the bad ones ruining it for the good ones like yourself - too many editors get blocked and then attempt to circumvent their block through anonymous editing. If the bad are ruining it for you, I recommend creating an account, as that will pretty quickly eliminate these sorts of misunderstandings. Sergecross73   msg me  14:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! Do you mind semi-protecting Disney Infinity? Multiple IP editors return on the same day to add character tables that are completely unsourced. OceanHok (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Protected. Sergecross73   msg me  14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Serge. Have found another MariaJaydHicky sock account,, indiscriminately removing genres on R&B album articles and then using pre-existing sources to source existing ones. Removes a genre without explaining why, removes one while using another source, only MJH registers an account titled something like this then goes to female hip hop/R&B artists to do this.  Ss  112   14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be right... but I think it's a bit pre-emotive to block them. Sergecross73   msg me  23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll keep you posted then.  Ss  112   11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Serge, here's another page for your consideration: Mara Jade. Various IP editors, likely the same person, have been blanking the page without any comments or attempts to reach a consensus since as far back as October 2020. Going by the page history, it's done on a frequency of about once a month. I assume that this is done with the intent of not drawing too much attention from administrators if an edit war approach is pursued. I think an indefinite semi-protection of the page would be appropriate; if the trolling editor in question is adamant that this page should not stay on mainspace because it does not meet the relevant notability criteria, then they ought to start a merge discussion or AfD instead of the recurring vandalism. Haleth (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have, but someone beat me to it. They did it for a year too, so you should be set for a while. Sergecross73   msg me  18:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing where the page is marked as protection though. Someone else protected it for a few weeks but promptly reverted themselves. The vandalism has stopped for now but I am certain the troll will resume in a month's time or so. Haleth (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Totally didn't see that he undid the protection the page protection immediately. I can't really figure out why either. Anyways, page protection policy says I really shouldn't protect it after the reverting has gone stale like it has now...but just say the word next time edit warring resumes and I'll protect it then. Sorry about that. Sergecross73   msg me  13:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Serge. Recently come across, which looks to be a single-purpose promotional account. They started a draft on a fictional songwriter (presumably themselves) last year by the name of "Mercedes King", and this year they've resumed editing, repeatedly attempting to add their name to two hip hop song articles. Two rounds of warnings and reverts have done nothing. Edits are all unsourced or vandalism. Pretty much a case of WP:NOTHERE.  Ss  112   21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Serge and/or Can you please protect To the Moon (song)? Kings1005, who is the account of a fake songwriter vandalising articles to add their name, is now editing logged out using  and citing the exact same duped catalog record URL Kings1005 did to justify their edits on the article. Kings1005 was blocked for 24 hours yesterday but considering this editor isn't the brightest, they probably thought they were still blocked at the time.  Ss   112   03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did a while ago. (Trying to get caught up so I'm just marking this as done.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you've met this user during the closest I've ever seen him come to productive. Everything else has been goading users, and spamming OR, nonfree images, and other disruptive junk as seen on User Talk. Can you please hasten the seemingly inevitable block? Thanks — Smuckola(talk) 12:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the reminder, I was meaning to give him a final warning, and will do so. Sergecross73   msg me  12:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * is probably long overdue for a WP:NOTHERE block. Basically nothing but unsourced edits to pop music articles since registering in 2019. Multiple final warnings by different editors including Binksternet and Muhandes (including two in the last month alone). Has never left a single edit summary or acknowledgement of their edits. Has continued on after those two final warnings adding unsourced material like this.  Ss  112   20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I think I never took action here because another admin gave them a short block first, and I don't think they've violated any warnings since then. Keep me posted though. Sergecross73   msg me  15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Serge, looks like the trolling by IP editors on the talk page for Speedrun just wouldn't stop. What should we do it about it? Should I solicit another public request for increased protection at the proper channel, or would it be appropriate for you to increase protection status on the talk page on your initiative? Thanks. Haleth (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Haleth. I know what you mean, I get similar silly/stupid talk comments on some of the Mario and Sonic talk page articles I maintain too. It make me roll my eyes, but honestly - I wouldn't worry about it too much. The talk page get far less views, so comparatively few people see it, and it's pretty easy to just revert and move on. I can protect the page for a bit...but I'm supposed to protect talk pages for relatively shorter times, and it seems like issues like this don't really go away, they just keep happening at a slow rate, so they'll probably just pop up again after protection ends. Sergecross73   msg me  13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Serge and PeopleEater143 has gotten around their  range block on 2601:48:8100:B6A0:79DD:70C4:FBFD:A5F3 using Special:Contributions/2600:387:F:5610:0:0:0:4. Editing the same articles they were before their block, namely Good Morning Gorgeous and with the same terrible attitude in their edit summaries ("How do you know the total length when we don't have the individual track lengths?") Their edits are from February 27 but it shows they've evaded. This also looks like block evasion considering it's on a similar range (but PeopleEater143 isn't well known for adding unsourced material to articles).  Ss   112   17:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the disruption from the IP here is minimal and not ongoing, so I'm not super concerned. But I can protect pages if they're repeatedly targeting certain articles. Sergecross73   msg me  17:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)