User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Help

Someone put Jovan (actor) for speedy deletion, please check I think it's useless right now. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: We cannot have articles about topics that have been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. In 2018 an article about that actor was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhan Ahmed Jovan. Therefore it is eligible for speedy deletion according to WP:CSD#G4.

However, because it has been some years since then, and the new article is likely changed, the deleting administrator restored it to draft space. It would need approval by a reviewer before moving it into article space again. Do not do this yourself, especially if you have any sort of conflict of interest, as you do with other articles about entertainment topics in India.

Ping @TheSandDoctor: @CAPTAIN RAJU: @Jovanmilic97: You were involved in the deletion discussion. Have a look at Draft:Jovan (actor). It was in main space for a while, and one editor besides the creator made extensive changes to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Julie Gurner

As the deleting administrator, would you restore the article Julie Gurner to the draft space so I can make edits to it and add sourcing? 67guilfoil (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Contributer1234 again

Hi, Anachronist. I noticed you too are getting unblock requests from Contributer1234 on your Commons page, like me. I don't know what you prefer to do about it; me, I've replied, telling them to wait for somebody to respond to their (second) unblock request on Wikipedia. I wanted to remove my Commons page from the "Requests for unblock" category, to avoid wasting the time of the Commons admins, but I couldn't see how to do it. Maybe you know? If you do, could you please remove it from both our Commons pages? Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I noticed Contributer1234 added an unblock request to my Commons talk page and removed it again.

I don't see either of us listed on the Request for unblock category page on Commons. I know that the same page on the English Wikipedia doesn't respond quickly to changes (like I might decline an unblock request and it takes an hour or so for the unblock request to stop being listed on the category page). Maybe the same thing is true on Commons. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Good work

You sound like someone to have a cool chat over coffee 99.83.60.157 (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't drink coffee, but I enjoy a hot cocoa. Or a beer. Or wine. Nothing stronger. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Deg777

I see they've never used a talk page including their own. As one of their first two edits used the archaeologist Eric Clines, who is very respectable, my guess is they haven't a clue about who is fringe and who isn't. They won't see edit summaries either I'm assuming. Temporary block? Doug Weller talk 11:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I am not sure a temporary (like a day or two) block would even be noticed. That editor seems to go on an editing binge for a day, then disappears for months at a time. I see one 6-day editing streak in October 2019, but other than that it's a day here, a day there, with months in between. There's some old disruptive activity from 2019 in which the editor clearly didn't understand copyright.

An indef block would surely be noticed, but I'm not comfortable doing that to a good faith editor with manageable disruption.

As for the recent addition of the exploding asteroid story, the edit was done in good faith, albeit with ignorance of talk page discussion.

About the discussion on Talk:Tall el-Hammam: I find it curious that there seems to be some unwritten law that religionists cannot be permitted to add to the scientific body of knowledge. I also find it curious that all the criticism of the exploding asteroid article focuses on questionable author credentials and affiliations rather than the arguments actually put forth in that paper. Collins, for example, is a creationist, but the couple of his papers I looked at about Tall el-Hammam archaeology seemed solid and well grounded, sticking to facts, and lacking any religious or faith-based overtones. Throughout history, deeply devout faithful became interested in science (particularly astronomy) as a means to better appreciate the deity they worshipped. And they made significant contributions to science. That is apparently much harder to do in modern times. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As I was suggesting, they are editing in good faith. As for "religionist", that usually implies zealot, which I guess might be appropriate for anyone whose faith forbids them from making certain interpretations of the evidence, as well as meaning they view the world through blinkers. A devout Christian who is not a Creationist could do good work in the field of evolution, a Creationist could not. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Need Suggestion

Hey Anachronist I hope you are doing good,as the article Rishton Ka Manjha (TV series) has placed on the main page. My job is done I'm no more working on ZEE5 I'm editing articles where I'm interested am I still a paid editor or I can be a normal contributer. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article was created by another sockpuppet with the disambiguator "TV Series" on the title to get around the existing create protection, and the sources cited are largely the same, pre-dating the release of the series. It should have been deleted when the sockpuppet account was blocked. That wasn't acceptable when it was in draft.

I suggest adding better sources that were published after the release of the series.

@Bonadea: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I don't have any connections deeply with the article or any other thing. I am not a paid editor anymore as you added paid disclaimer on my user page, if you think that should be according to wiki policy removed please remove it २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PopcornTimeTree

Template:PopcornTimeTree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I cometh with peace, and milkshakes!

	Milkshake
	Hi! This is just a token of appreciation. Hope you're doing well. Pass this on, everyone deserves it GFO (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

An Update on that Website

We discussed boyfriendhusband.men a couple of months ago. The domain now redirects to an article on giuseppemacario.men. This closes the loop. It's a single person with a long history of pushing personal agendas with personal websites. He's been blocked numerous times for a variety of reasons. Thus, I just wanted to make you aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoneBilesStan (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how a domain that hasn't been spammed on Wikipedia has any relevance to Wikipedia. Certainly its redirect status has no relevance. If you have evidence of abuse, present it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how much evidence you want, so I'll provide a few examples.

* Boyfriendhusband.men redirects to an article on giuseppemacario.men which was previously used as a source. 1

* Promoted some of his records in the ACM ICPC. 1, 2 (Check the timestamps.)

* Promoted himself in connection to Second Life. 1, 2, 3, 4

* Attempted to add articles about himself. 1, 2

* Been blocked multiple times. 1, 2

* Promoted his professorship at University of the People. 1

* Promoted his own NGO/political campaign, Free Flights to Italy. 1, 2, 3, 4

* Promoted his anti-plagiarism service. 1

* Attempted to integrate his site into the Ripoff Report article. 1 (Check the 151.* IPs on that article.)

* Uses his websites to disparage University of the People. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

* Edits articles on/attacks outlets and reporters who have reported negatively about him. 1, 2, 3, 4

Some of his websites showing connections:

* Presto.news now redirects to uopeople.review.

* Evidence-based.review redirects to uopeople.review, but it used to share a Google Analytics tracking id with giuseppemacario.men.

* Uopeople.review has already been added on several occasions.

* GiuseppeMacario.men gets used more than a quick search returns.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Very little of that is "evidence" sufficient for administrative action. Stuff that happens on non-English Wikipedias is not under our jurisdiction. You also seem to be connecting anonymous IP addresses with a specific person, without evidence. And some of the diffs above are associated with accounts that are blocked, as well as different accounts with no obvious relation.

Some of the diffs above are associated with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lerdall and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bianbum, two separate sockmasters. Have you added any additional information (other accounts) to either case? Do you have evidence that both sockmasters are the same person?

What is it that you want an administrator to do? I suggest creating an entry at WP:ANI and detail the relevant evidence that is clearly evidence. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience. And keep in mind I am being extremely brief. There are thousands of edits, across multiple wikis, spanning 10+ years, 20+ accounts, and 100+ IP editors. These edits revolve around a single individual and/or his interests and agendas. The edits are sometimes about him and sometimes about subjects connected to him. It is difficult to find a way to present sufficient evidence in a condensed format. There is simply too much, and that doesn't include off-wiki content.

The two sockmasters can be connected together. One example of a "quick and dirty case" (not a super strong case): The Italian Wikipedia ACM-ICPC article was created by an IP editor, and it included the name from the domain above. Gmacar, an account name similar to that name, uploaded the logo for the contest and made several redirects to the article. The IP editor added the logo to the article. This all happened within a matter of hours. Two months later, Bianbum edited the same article. The editing histories of Gmacar and Bianbum share many cross-wiki similarities. Lerdall later appealed to the ACM-ICPC information about the person in an attempt to keep the English Wikipedia article on the person. This contest is a point of pride for the person, if you check out any of his online profiles or his self-promotional articles.

Based on my reading of the Wikipedia policies, this seems to fit a long-term abuse case. I don't know though. I will defer to your expertise. Maybe I'm just chasing ghosts in my head! SimoneBilesStan (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The question remains, what is it that you expect administrators to do? Accounts have been blocked, articles have been deleted. What else?

If you can make a case for blacklisting some domains that have been abused, then MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is the place to discuss that, although that blacklist affects only the English Wikipedia. If the problem spans multiple wikis, then the global blacklist meta:Talk:Spam blacklist is the place to make your case. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about a one-man OrangeMoody. His efforts are conducted mostly for personal reasons but sometimes for profits. And some of those efforts are actively causing harm to others. What can administrators do in this case? What should I do to help them? SimoneBilesStan (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators can block accounts, impose topic bans, protect articles, delete and restore articles, add domains to the blacklist, and create edit filters. Basically that's it. Administrators with the checkuser right (I am not one) can find IP addresses connected to accounts and geolocate edits, provided they aren't too old (like 30 days I think). Administrators generally don't police activity; that's the job of the community. The job of an admin is to preserve the stability of the Wikipedia project and stop disruption using those tools I mentioned. What you can do is report any abuse that can be addressed by those tools when you see the abuse happening. If it's happening across other wikis, your case should be made on Meta, not en-wiki. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is helpful. Thank you! SimoneBilesStan (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

SimoneBilesStan, Anachronist: For what it's worth, I was tipped to this by someone else. I think that behavior clearly links Modulato to Bianbum (and think it's fairly likely Lerdall is Bianbum) and blocked them. I'm having a fight with COIBot about domains, but there's definitely some aggressive IP spamming here; I'm just not sure whether it's still going on. If any of them are still being spammed (either on enwiki or crosswiki) let me know and I can look at maybe blacklisting. I won't blacklist anything that hasn't actually been spammed, though. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Source looking for an Article

The news report "Facebook's blacklist": https://theintercept.com/2021/10/12/facebook-secret-blacklist-dangerous/ seems important enough to be cited, do you know an article that can be improved with the reports inclusion? Greatder (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: Hard to say. I'd look at criticism of Facebook or Facebook content oversight board as candidates for including that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

Dear Anachronist, I have created an article in my Sandbox about an Israeli jazz pianist. I couldn' move the article to Kobi Arad, due to being deleted several times, the tittle was blocked. As I looked at the history of the page the deletions was first in 2010 and others before 2018. The subject has won two notable award in 2021 and 2019. Please kindly guide me what should I do to move the article. Regards. MerliSter (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@MerliSter: I am curious what error message you are seeing. The article is create-protected so that only extended-confirmed users can create it. I protected the title that way explicitly so that extended-confirmed editors can move a good draft to that title. You have the extended-confirmed permission, so you should have no problem moving the article in your sandbox to main space. If you are unable to do so, then that seems like a bug in how protection is working. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried many times and there is an error that says you have not admins permission to move the article to this title. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerliSter (talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I can perform the move for you, but I would like to see a response from this query I placed: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Extended-confirmed user cannot move over ECP-create-protected title. This seems like a software bug. You should be able to perform this move with the permissions you have. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the query, It may takes time to be fixed, for this one could you kindly move my sandbox to the mentioned title? Regards. MerliSter (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it turns out that it isn't a bug, but the title is blacklisted. That is what prevents you from creating the article.

I have looked more closely at your draft and declined it, providing my reasoning. An article on a subject like this, which has been deleted multiple times and even blacklisted, needs to be in better shape. I identified the things that need improving. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I will work on it more to be improved. Could you please take a look to my first created article Leonid Ptashka? Sincerely yours. MerliSter (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)