User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD

Thanks for your recent edits to Lauren Koslow. Since you know about BLP violations, I'm assuming you know about the benefits of creating an account and have decided not to do so. But I wanted to thank you anyways and this is better than the standard welcome templates for IPs. Clovermoss (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Clovermoss. I think you've proselytized on this issue before. This is 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol. Well I like welcoming IPs the best way I can. Nice to see you again :) Clovermoss (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all you do.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A kitten! ToBeFree, back at you. There was a time when I edited--tens of thousands of edits--adding content and co-authoring featured articles. Now I do my research and writing for publication, but it means something to reveal and eradicate promotion, defamation and vandalism here. Some of us grew up reading paper encyclopedias, and understand their potential value. Thank you for appreciating that, too. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the template carelessly, it was not disruptive, your edit to Chickenpox was vandalism, Twinkle correctly listed it as vandalism. Chip3004 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC) That was a valid warning Chip3004 (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no and no. Please feel free to take this to ANI--I can not because it's currently protected. Are there other instances where you've trusted Twinkle and restored unsourced content added by blocked users? But doubling down on calling it vandalism isn't going to work out well.

• ToBeFree, Ohnoitsjamie or Drmies, I can't take this to ANI right now. See also here [1], which raises further questions of competence. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  i appogize, i made a mistake and i should not done that. Chip3004 (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The disruptive account I referred to was not you, but the blocked editor who initially added the content. Still, your reaction here and at your talk page is troubling. And this after I twice reverted vandalism to your talk page in early June as a different IP. No good deed goes unpunished, etc. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I hope using even a short explanative edit summary like "unsourced" would have made the issue obvious to Chip3004. While the lack of such an explanation doesn't justify the revert, dealing with humans sometimes requires taking seemingly unnecessary measures to prevent errors.

Twinkle itself doesn't list anything as vandalism. Chip3004 may be referring to quality and intent filters in the recent changes list, but these have nothing to do with Twinkle.

What confuses me is that Chip3004 seems to have been using their talk page to reply to a user who can't reply there. [2] Or for messages such as [3].

That's all pretty weird. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, probably I should have left an explanation here [4]. Intent and context would have been clear to an experienced editor looking for vandalism; taking that for granted was my miscalculation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, their talk page comments are concerning. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, ToBeFree, how was this 'vandalism' [5]? If ANI is unprotected later today, I can open a report there. Otherwise feel free to have a chat with them. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As every experienced editor knows, splitting up overly long paragraphs is compliant with

WP:PARAGRAPH and thus vandalism.

As there seem to be a number of issues that should perhaps be discussed indeed, I think waiting for the protection to expire and opening a thread at ANI may really be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Friday night will be a slow time there, so it may wait until the weekend. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ANI is open now; I wouldn't wait for time-strategical reasons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away all day, ToBeFree. Maybe I'll give it a shot. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood the "Friday night will be a slow time there" part; I thought you were waiting for a perceived ideal time for creating ANI reports. Thank you; I'd now have notified them but they have already joined the discussion. Looks good to me ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was both, ToBeFree. I knew I'd be working the whole afternoon, and figured by the time I returned tonight there would be few admins active. By the way, I don't expect you'll receive a satisfactory response to your question [6], for the same reason the editor has difficulty here in general: English language issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, add another, apparently foreign account, that can't always tell the difference [7]. I think they see an IP edit and assume it's disruptive. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk page is open :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping at Tristan Thompson,

No worries. Sure, I figured as much; my main concern was that ANI isn't ideal for reporting such issues either, as it's pretty high-traffic. Well, I think the problem we two have been facing in making and responding to the report is Wikipedia's inherent open and permanent nature. I normally love that; it's why I'm here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too old for this [8]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Onij. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, ToBeFree, I'm in over my head, but this looks like it might be a bit of a culture war. Have a look if you have time--maybe it's all very straightforward. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that User:Athaenara is on it. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks for the ping; probably nothing left to do ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, can you help with the last piece of vandalism I deleted? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Have a good night, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP noticeboard--like the COI--is sometimes a place where reports go to die [9]. Drmies, ToBeFree, please have a look at the bio and its recent edit history when you're free. If I start reverting it's liable to touch off an edit war and prompt accusations of whitewashing, etc. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD and Drmies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless COI. Any help would be appreciated--Melcous, Drmies? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Drmies. Probably not the end of it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plz let me know if they return without having addressed the COI, and I'll give them a partial block immediately. Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. You too, Dr! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLP business. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Sure thing. Please see my contributions if you're wondering what I was doing. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you. And good lord, that's a lot of sockpuppets. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, has this account reached its threshold yet [10]? Perhaps a partial block, to the one article, which is all they care about, anyway. I'm sure they'll create another account for the purpose. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I went a bit farther than that. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much appreciated--folks be very slippery. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A notable associates section? Drmies, what do you make of that? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Same thing you do, apparently. That is one piss-poor article... Drmies (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a dreadfully sourced mess, presumably bloated by a follower. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think by now we're both pretty good at diagnostics. I ran into the editor responsible for Proclus--look at that size, history, and readability. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm away until the evening. The IP responsible for much of the Barks mess has been adding masses of unsourced content to related Donald Duck articles. Tonight I'll open another ANI thread about an expert who doesn't see the need for sources. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re: Proclus, Drmies, where does one begin with an article that has over 800 citations? It's like a great academic monstrosity, teetering on a pedantic abyss. Remove one section or remove many, and someone will holler vandalism. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep, and there's a few more by the same editor. I wouldn't know where to start. Pedantry comes pretty close to it, yes. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you, Drmies, ToBeFree: [11]. Using article talk pages as forums for the past seven years. I don't want to put in a report at ANI and give them another soapbox for conspiracy theories, this time against them. Do as you will. By the way, speaking of forums, the Recession talk page is getting pretty weird in general. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, maybe we ought to let some people vent about our "left-wing bias" once every few years, and look the other way. Still, I don't have a clue what this rant is all about [12]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw the notification at AN yesterday evening and wondered what I'd return to after work. Well well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, it looks like a cross-platform effort, which I suspect has been summoned off-Wiki by political actors [13]. I'm seeing this cropping up at different articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, see also Economic growth. There may be a host of related articles under attack. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit history offers a roadmap [14] to several disrupted articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searobin347 has been registered for 12 years; I've now given them the benefit of doubt. All pretty strange. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, also [15] for more articles. It looks like right-wing fury over the administration's avoidance of calling this a recession. These all suggest a coordinated campaign to hit Wikipedia, hence the strong political accusations at the talk page you protected. That's kind of the mothership for this right now. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred and Bbb23 have done some blocking, and have probably noticed what's going on. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lot of trolling going on [16]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to confirm what I'm noticing: [17]. Thank you for your observation, DavidCWG. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, per the discussion at Recession, protection actions right now are no longer preemptive. The attack is coordinated throughout the platform. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, semi-protection seems to be stopping the problems at

WP:ANI, where there are always admins available. But if that happens, I expect whoever has to keep cleaning up the mess will soon get tired of doing so and start semi-protecting more articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It turns out these contributions are incredibly simple to filter for. They have now considerably slowed down. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. ToBeFree, that's welcome news. I suspect it slows down because you and the other admins are so effective. If I don't ping you again in the next seven minutes, have a good evening/weekend. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, a nice evening/weekend to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Blocking from the same pages, but this time for two weeks; maybe that'll get the message across. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Relentless. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, new account. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:695A:ACA6:D0AE:377 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, Drmies, any assistance you can provide--I reported an account to AIV, who was, upon review, editing in good faith and without disruptive intent. Materialscientist blocked the account for three years as a result [18]. I dropped a note asking M to review the edits and lift the block. Maybe another admin can have a look. My apologies for the error. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:695A:ACA6:D0AE:377 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address seems to have been frequently used for disruptive contributions (block log). Asking editors from this IP address to use an account for editing ({{anonblock}}) may perhaps be reasonable regardless of that specific person's edits. Messaging Materialscientist looks like a good idea, thanks for doing this; I'd just wait for their re-evaluation. The block isn't a day old yet and there is probably no unusual urgency in quickly re-enabling unregistered contributions from this specific address. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give you much time off for the weekend, ToBeFree. Yeah, I was unduly influenced by their edit history. The latest wrestling edits weren't great, but they didn't constitute vandalism. Your take is appreciated, as usual. For better or worse, the government offices of Missouri will survive. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:695A:ACA6:D0AE:377 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist has a tendency not to respond to messages and talk page posts. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In the meantime, I've inexplicably returned to my old IP. Never thought I'd see it again. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I mistook the current IP for my old home base, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs). Ah well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie, would you take a look at these? In the last 24 hours they've been massaged by a partisan editor, using less than reliable sources [19] and invoking the influence of Soros, a sure dog whistle in these matters. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that Muboshgu has already handled matters (thanks!), on what clearly was a hit job. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see the hit on the election article, just Benson. It's hard to
    WP:AGF with someone named Liberalagitator. But I tried. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Muboshgu, I looked but found nothing usable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, both, Muboshgu and Ohnoitsjamie. The blocked editor was working first with several IPs, but the questionable revisions have been addressed. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the username, it tends to make the work of targeting disruption that much easier. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry on this, just a long term COI puff piece. Sourced content was removed a few years ago by the 'Sharerfam" account, so perhaps some of that can be retrieved, and there may be grounds for a user block. At any rate, I got the ball rolling if Drmies or Melcous want to have a look. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:98D4:93BA:B357:8CFF (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A belated than you, Melcous. Hope you're well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E0AD:95B6:F5F3:19CF (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, ToBeFree, your help would be appreciated. A new user is determined to make a poor article worse. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You can check her insta account for name etc"! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Thank you very much, ToBeFree. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes appreciated.

• See also University and Jepson Herbaria and numerous other articles. The COI isn't especially lethal to the articles, but over a decade of editing without divulging conflict is problematic. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Report at COI [20]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I have added undisclosed paid templates to 3 key articles - its not difficult to discover the editor's connection and this requires disclosure. Melcous (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous. Cheers! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome- it's great to have you back around the place again - hope you are doing well. Melcous (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am, Melcous, thank you. It's always good to hear from you. As for [21], sometimes a carefully worded denial says volumes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a brand new shiny IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:3CFF:190:685F:4F95 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]